From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 1 00:40:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 00:40:51 +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 AAA13892 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 00:40:45 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1018008; 30 Apr 97 15:08 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC5575.9076A340@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:48:28 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Opening after pd's opening OOT Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:48:25 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 26 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >>David Martin wrote: SNIP > >>>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? DWS wrote: > SNIP > > > 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. East bid the 1H and so when you cancel it did you mean to apply Law 31B to silence *West* throughout? If you do mean East then which Law are you applying to which bid to silence East and allow the 1D to stand? >SNIP > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 1 01:00:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 01:00:09 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14084 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 00:59:57 +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 QAA14782 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:19:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph51.ppp.dknet.dk (cph51.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.51]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA05495 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:19:13 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:19:12 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <336b5283.4145981@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: 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 Wed, 30 Apr 1997 02:44:08 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Markus Buchhorn wrote:=20 >>(iii) the longest threads > I seem to remember a simple little claim from somewhere in russia ... So do I, and I haven't deleted it yet. 60 messages in that thread, not counting those who had slightly different subject lines and therefore seem to be different threads. The thread about L40E2 had only 50 messages. I'll take this opportunity to ask everybody to _not_ change the subject line (except for adding the initial "Re:", of course, or for adding a subject when the original one didn't have a subject at all) when replying to a message, unless you specifically want to start a new thread. E-mail programs that keep track of threads can only do so if the subject is unchanged or if there is an "In-Reply-To:" header - and many programs do not produce this header when you reply. It is, for instance, a good idea to suppress the natural urge to correct spelling errors in the subject line when replying. > I should like to thank Markus for making BLML available for us. And so should I. Steve, who got the idea of asking Markus to set up the list, also deserves thanks. I remember that at that time we also discussed the possibility of creating a newsgroup (rec.games.bridge.laws or something like that), and rejected the idea because we felt certain that we could not get the required number of votes to create it. I am glad that we did not try - I do not believe that a newsgroup would work nearly as well as the current BLML. There would be more noise in a newsgroup, and e-mail transmission is much faster and far more reliable that news article propagation. My opinion is that BLML is working extremely well. I checked how the 171 subscribers (one must have left us since Markus found the total of 172) are distributed over top-level Internet domains. The result shows that we cover quite large areas of the world: 28 different top-level domains are represented as follows: au 9 be 4 ca 7 ch 2 com 58 de 7 dk 4 edu 9 es 1 fi 1 fr 1 gb 1 gl 1 gov 1 hk 1 hr 1 il 3 jp 1 net 22 nl 7 no 2 nz 4 org 6 pt 1 ru 1 tr 1 tw 1 uk 14 --------- Total 171 --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 1 01:54:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 01:54:08 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14338 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 01:54:02 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA28139 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:53:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:53:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What is the current status of the about-to-be Laws? There was a rumor that they will not be approved by the WBF until later this year. The ACBL has not as far as I know said that they WON'T come into effect at the end of May (but I have not seen the May Bulletin yet). As of two weeks ago, I could not get a copy of them. Is anyone on this mailing list in a position to make an authoritative statement about them? Karen Allison? David Burn? -- Richard Lighton | Anything worth doing is worth (lighton@idt.net) | doing badly. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | -- G. K. Chesterton From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 1 02:15:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 02:15:46 +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 CAA14627 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 02:15:41 +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 MAA03788 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA11136; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:15:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:15:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704301615.MAA11136@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have just received a note from Kent Burghard at the ACBL, and I don't think he will mind if I send it out to the list: ----- Begin Included Message ----- From ACBL@compuserve.com Tue Apr 29 14:36:50 1997 The new Law book (softcopy) is now in our warehouse and can be ordered by calling 1-800-264-2743 (Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 1997 Revised Authorized Edition) for $5.35 plus shipping. I plan to create a way of ordering it directly from the WWW in the next day or two. We are putting our entire catalog online, but this will be the first. Thanks for the recommendation about putting the Laws online, I will pass that along to Mr. Green, along with my own recommendation. Kent Burghard ACBL Headquarters ----- End Included Message ----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 1 03:13:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 03:13:22 +1000 Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com (pimaia4w.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA15039 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 03:13:13 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA47322 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:03:08 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id NAB14082 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:00:50 -0400 Message-Id: <199704301700.NAB14082@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:00:50, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just called Kent at work to get a further clarification: The inside cover of the the new Law Book says that it goes into effect May 27, 1997. As far as we know, the ACBL is going to start on that date even if the WBF isn't ready. The WBF and ACBL have approved the Laws held in common. I think what was left to sort out were Zonal differences. -Chyah Burghard From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 1 03:31:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 03:31:46 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA15143 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 03:31:39 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26102 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:31:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) In-Reply-To: <199704301615.MAA11136@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Steve Willner wrote: > I have just received a note from Kent Burghard at the ACBL, and I don't > think he will mind if I send it out to the list: > > ----- Begin Included Message ----- > > >From ACBL@compuserve.com Tue Apr 29 14:36:50 1997 > > The new Law book (softcopy) is now in our warehouse and can be ordered > by calling 1-800-264-2743 (Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 1997 > Revised Authorized Edition) for $5.35 plus shipping. > Good, but what is the status of these Laws? Is it in fact worth investing in this copy, or might they still be changing? Does the ACBL have the authority to start using these laws? -- Richard Lighton | Anything worth doing is worth (lighton@idt.net) | doing badly. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | -- G. K. Chesterton From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 1 10:55:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 10:55:57 +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 KAA17453 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 10:55:51 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0602053; 30 Apr 97 23:23 BST Message-ID: <+wXO8+B7P6ZzEw4o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:56:43 +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: > >SNIP >> >>>>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? > >DWS wrote: > >> SNIP >> >> > 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. > > >East bid the 1H and so when you cancel it did you mean to apply Law 31B >to silence *West* throughout? If you do mean East then which Law are >you applying to which bid to silence East and allow the 1D to stand? Yup, fair enough. It *is* a lot easier giving rulings at the table with real people rather than saying East and West and as a result confusing the two! I shall try again: 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, West must pass throughout, there may be lead penalties. What about the 1D? It is a bid made in violation of the obligation to pass. L37 then requires both members of the partnership to pass throughout, and there may be lead penalties [sounds as though you have lead penalties against both partners now]. That's vicious, and clearly not what the Law intended. However, before someone says 60/40, let me remind you of L12B: if my ruling is right, you cannot cancel the board just because you do not like it. Any other views? -- 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 May 1 20:24:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 20:24:02 +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 UAA19098 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 20:23:55 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id LAA08688 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 May 1997 11:23:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 1 May 97 11:22 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Opening after pd's opening OOT 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: <+wXO8+B7P6ZzEw4o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > What about the 1D? It is a bid made in violation of the obligation to > pass. L37 then requires both members of the partnership to pass > throughout, and there may be lead penalties [sounds as though you have > lead penalties against both partners now]. > > That's vicious, and clearly not what the Law intended. However, > before someone says 60/40, let me remind you of L12B: if my ruling is > right, you cannot cancel the board just because you do not like it. > > Any other views? Like David I feel the ruling to be overly vicious, so here goes an attempt to prove it wrong:-) Well, the 1D bid was made before the Director call, or any ruling. An obligation to pass can only arise from a director ruliing so the 1D bid was not made in violation of the obligation to pass. I really don't know if this is "weaseling" or if it is a true reflection of the laws. Slightly bizzarre ruling. I seem to recall that in a quantum universe simultaneity is actually impossible. "Simultaneously" in Law 33 therefore must mean "during approximately the same time period as far as the situation demands". Ie both the 1H and the 1D were made "at the 1D bidder's turn to call" and *can* be treated as simultaneous for bridge purposes, the two actions being essentially independent. Exactly what is the flotation value of straw? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 1 22:19:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 22:19:34 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA19491 for ; Thu, 1 May 1997 22:19:27 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1020672; 1 May 97 13:01 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 12:59:52 +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 Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <+wXO8+B7P6ZzEw4o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >DWS wrote: >> What about the 1D? It is a bid made in violation of the obligation to >> pass. L37 then requires both members of the partnership to pass >> throughout, and there may be lead penalties [sounds as though you have >> lead penalties against both partners now]. >> >> That's vicious, and clearly not what the Law intended. However, >> before someone says 60/40, let me remind you of L12B: if my ruling is >> right, you cannot cancel the board just because you do not like it. >> >> Any other views? > >Like David I feel the ruling to be overly vicious, so here goes an attempt to >prove it wrong:-) > >Well, the 1D bid was made before the Director call, or any ruling. An >obligation to pass can only arise from a director ruliing so the 1D bid was not >made in violation of the obligation to pass. I really don't know if this is >"weaseling" or if it is a true reflection of the laws. I thought the obligation to pass came from the Laws? If what you say is correct, anyway, what do you do about it? > >Slightly bizzarre ruling. I seem to recall that in a quantum universe >simultaneity is actually impossible. "Simultaneously" in Law 33 therefore must >mean "during approximately the same time period as far as the situation >demands". Ie both the 1H and the 1D were made "at the 1D bidder's turn to >call" and *can* be treated as simultaneous for bridge purposes, the two actions >being essentially independent. > >Exactly what is the flotation value of straw? Where did simultaneity come from? If the bids were simultaneous then there is a Law to cover that, but there was no suggestion that they were, is there? -- 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 May 2 12:54:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 May 1997 12:54:46 +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 MAA26252 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 12:54:37 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id DAA08065 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 May 1997 03:54:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 2 May 97 03:53 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Opening after pd's opening OOT 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: DWS wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote: > > >Well, the 1D bid was made before the Director call, or any ruling. An > >obligation to pass can only arise from a director ruliing so the 1D bid was > not >made in violation of the obligation to pass. I really don't know if > this is >"weaseling" or if it is a true reflection of the laws. > > I thought the obligation to pass came from the Laws? You could well be right, but L72A6 puts responsibility on ...the Director and these Laws.. I know this is slightly out of context in the current situation but it did give me pause for thought (no UI intended). > > If what you say is correct, anyway, what do you do about it? I at least have the option (denied me if your application of L37 is correct) of awarding A+/A- if I deem the board incapable of normal play. > > > >Slightly bizzarre ruling. I seem to recall that in a quantum universe > >simultaneity is actually impossible. "Simultaneously" in Law 33 therefore > must >mean "during approximately the same time period as far as the situation > >demands". Ie both the 1H and the 1D were made "at the 1D bidder's turn to > >call" and *can* be treated as simultaneous for bridge purposes, the two > actions >being essentially independent. > > > >Exactly what is the flotation value of straw? > > Where did simultaneity come from? If the bids were simultaneous then > there is a Law to cover that, but there was no suggestion that they > were, is there? That is what I was suggesting. If one is allowed to consider that simultaneous means "within the same 3 second period" rather than "to the nearest picosecond". Would we rule the bids simultaneous if the 1D bidder had pulled from the bidding box before the 1H bid hit the table? if he was touching the box? reaching towards it? It is far from obvious, to me, where the line should be drawn. The principle could be "When two wholly independent bids are made by different players, at the turn to call of one of those players, the bids should be considered as simultaneous." Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 2 18:36:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 May 1997 18:36:37 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA27315 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 18:36:31 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-144.innet.be [194.7.10.144]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15020 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 10:35:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3369B56C.1840@innet.be> Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 10:35:40 +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: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > >(ii) who the biggest, or most frequent, posters are > > How do you define the biggest poster? Weight? Height? > In weight, you and I might qualify (and in volume). In height, Richard could very well take the title. > > I should like to thank Markus for making BLML available for us. > Seconded. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 2 23:30:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 May 1997 23:30:55 +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 XAA28485 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 23:30:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1127754; 2 May 97 14:09 BST Message-ID: <9EuOhgASbeazEwiw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:06:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) In-Reply-To: <3369B56C.1840@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >(ii) who the biggest, or most frequent, posters are >> >> How do you define the biggest poster? Weight? Height? >In weight, you and I might qualify (and in volume). What about David Burn? >In height, Richard could very well take the title. How does he compare with Ian Muir? -- 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 May 3 00:20:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 00:20:49 +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 AAA01149 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 00:20:44 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA29881 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 10:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:20:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) In-Reply-To: <9EuOhgASbeazEwiw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2 May 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >(ii) who the biggest, or most frequent, posters are > >> > >> How do you define the biggest poster? Weight? Height? > > >In weight, you and I might qualify (and in volume). > > What about David Burn? > > >In height, Richard could very well take the title. > > How does he compare with Ian Muir? Assuming I am the Richard referred to (there are probably others in a list of 172) Ht: 1.88 meters (6ft 2in for the metric disabled) Wt: 91 Kg (200+lb) normally clothed (no jacket) Could we be off-topic here :-) Law 107Ba2: No left handed player over 1.85 meters tall may lead trumps at trick 3 when sitting to declarer's left. -- Richard Lighton | Anything worth doing is worth (lighton@idt.net) | doing badly. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | -- G. K. Chesterton From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 00:41:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 00:41:31 +1000 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01321 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 00:41:25 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA08964 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 May 1997 10:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:40:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970502104048_-1198890112@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-04-30 11:31:56 EDT, David S. writes: > I should like to thank Markus for making BLML available for us. I think it is worth noting that it has only taken us only one year to agree on something. And as David said, kudos also go to Steve W. for coming up with the idea and setting things up. Now you guys can go back to arguing who's the biggest. EVERYONE looks big to me... %%% O O ( > ) \ 0 / \ Alan From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 04:29:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 04:29:58 +1000 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA02723 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 04:29:51 +1000 Received: from freenet2.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet2.carleton.ca [134.117.136.22]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id OAA08669 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 14:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca (8.8.4/NCF-Sun-Client) id OAA25703; Fri, 2 May 1997 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199705021829.OAA25703@freenet2.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >>Herman De Wael wrote: >>>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>> >(ii) who the biggest, or most frequent, posters are >>>> >>>> How do you define the biggest poster? Weight? Height? >> >>>In weight, you and I might qualify (and in volume). >> >> What about David Burn? >> >>>In height, Richard could very well take the title. >> >> How does he compare with Ian Muir? >> >>-- >>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 >> >> >As a relative lightweight director, would I qualify? >I'm 6'3", 350lbs. > Tony (aka ac342) > >ps. I could find no reference in the Laws regarding max/min size > requirements for players (though I suggest there should be, > a la song: > "Short people have, no reason to, > Short people have, nooo reason to, > Short people have, no reason to liiiivvve...") > other than, perhaps, the section re intimidation of opponents > in the proprieties. Good news for directors, though; I could find > nothing suggesting WE can't be physically intimidating. :-) > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 08:14:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 08:14:24 +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 IAA03433 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 08:14:17 +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 SAA15263 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 18:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA00639; Fri, 2 May 1997 18:14:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:14:15 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705022214.SAA00639@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opening after pd's opening OOT X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Where did simultaneity come from? If the bids were simultaneous then > there is a Law to cover that, but there was no suggestion that they > were, is there? It seems to me that there are at least four plausible definitions of simultaneous actions: 1. An observer could not have told which action came first. 2. On reviewing the evidence, the TD cannot tell which action came first. 3. The second action was begun when the first one took place, and the person who took the second action was unable to absorb and react to the fact that the first action had occurred. 4. The person who took the second action was unaware that the first action had occurred. In the example case, the bids were simultaneous by definition 4 and plausibly by 3 but not by 1 and 2. I'm not sure any of these is entirely satisfactory; 1 seems to be wholly impractical unless there really was a neutral observer. A good topic for BLML, I guess. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 13:29:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 13:29:38 +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 NAA04136 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 13:29:30 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1128274; 3 May 97 3:58 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 03:52:14 +0100 To: Sergei Litvak Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Labeo Subject: Re: L31A and the English language In-Reply-To: <199704201934.XAA06711@pent.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199704201934.XAA06711@pent.sci-nnov.ru>, Sergei Litvak writes >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, ..."? ..(CUT).. > Sergei then wrote.... omissions...... >>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. > Labeo: English grammar connects 'it' to the immediately preceding noun, i.e. to 'call', unless the context of the statement *demands* a different interpretation. There is no ambiguity here. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 14:35:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 14:35:34 +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 OAA04244 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 14:35:28 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1006515; 3 May 97 5:32 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 05:03:58 +0100 To: CHYAH E BURGHARD Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) In-Reply-To: <199704301700.NAB14082@mime4.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199704301700.NAB14082@mime4.prodigy.com>, CHYAH E BURGHARD writes >I just called Kent at work to get a further clarification: > >The inside cover of the the new Law Book says that >it goes into effect May 27, 1997. > >As far as we know, the ACBL is going to start on that >date even if the WBF isn't ready. > >The WBF and ACBL have approved the Laws held in >common. I think what was left to sort out were Zonal >differences. > >-Chyah Burghard > Labeo: My understanding is that the WBF Executive has not yet approved the new code of laws and will do so, with the possibility perhaps of further amendments, in Hammamet.... It was also rumoured that the Europeans were still considering whether they were satisfied with certain of the basic proposals - I have not heard whether they have now settled on this. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 14:41:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 14:41:44 +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 OAA04267 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 14:41:39 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0527159; 3 May 97 5:32 BST Message-ID: <52TEnTAZ8razEwQZ@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 05:29:13 +0100 To: Richard Lighton Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Labeo Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Richard Lighton writes >What is the current status of the about-to-be Laws? > >There was a rumor that they will not be approved by the WBF >until later this year. > >The ACBL has not as far as I know said that they WON'T come >into effect at the end of May (but I have not seen the May >Bulletin yet). > >As of two weeks ago, I could not get a copy of them. > >Is anyone on this mailing list in a position to make an >authoritative statement about them? Karen Allison? David Burn? > >-- Labeo replies: Well, we do have the President of the WBF announcing in a fax message that the new code will be put to the WBF Executive for approval in Hammamet and until that approval is given further changes are always possible. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 14:43:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 14:43:49 +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 OAA04287 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 14:43:43 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1116314; 3 May 97 5:32 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 04:35:21 +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: <3.0.1.32.19970424102818.006c8128@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970424102818.006c8128@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >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). > Labeo writes further to this: The laws concerning AI and UI do not suggest that you do not have the information which is UI; they recognize that do you have it but say that you have obtained it illegally. In these circumstances the law provides that you may not make use of the information illegally obtained and provides for redress to opponents if you do. Although you may use one piece of information which the laws define as being AI it does not follow that you may automatically use another piece of information, no matter how tightly linked to the first piece, if this is UI. Incidentally it is also my understanding that by its terms of reference the WBF Laws Committee is empowered to interpret the laws to national authorities who in turn are empowered to interpret in cases brought to them under Law 93C. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 15:05:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:05:20 +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 PAA04368 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:05:14 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0623611; 3 May 97 5:32 BST Message-ID: <3W+H$MAv1razEwyH@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 05:22:07 +0100 To: Richard Lighton Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Labeo Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) 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, 30 Apr 1997, Steve Willner wrote: > >> I have just received a note from Kent Burghard at the ACBL, and I don't >> think he will mind if I send it out to the list: >> >> ----- Begin Included Message ----- >> >> >From ACBL@compuserve.com Tue Apr 29 14:36:50 1997 >> >> The new Law book (softcopy) is now in our warehouse and can be ordered >> by calling 1-800-264-2743 (Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge - 1997 >> Revised Authorized Edition) for $5.35 plus shipping. >> >Good, but what is the status of these Laws? Is it in fact worth >investing in this copy, or might they still be changing? > >Does the ACBL have the authority to start using these laws? > >-- Labeo : the evidence suggests that the ACBL believes the law changes have been finally agreed, but the WBF Executive considers this is not so and neither, from what I heard, do the Europeans..... It is true the WBF Laws Committee finished its work in Rhodes, and the product was ready for the WBF Executive to agree, but it does not appear from what we hear that the WBF Exec has yet given the question its consideration and if the Europeans are still unhappy with some element of the new code it would be unwise to believe it will not be changed ..... and what we have seen on this side of the Atlantic includes the probability that dates for implementation may not be those the WBF Laws Committee was suggesting. If these things are true then the ACBL may be publishing a Code which has still to be agreed and may find further changes have yet to be made, since the Rhodes text did have to go back to the ACBL and the EBL for acceptance = and it would seem the ACBL accepted and acted as though this were the conclusion of the matter whilst the EBL and the WBF Exec had still to decide... Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 15:17:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:17:16 +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 PAA04399 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:17:10 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1116315; 3 May 97 5:32 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 04:47:13 +0100 To: KRAllison@aol.com Cc: bridgelawslist From: Labeo 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 In message <970424165352_839919809@emout12.mail.aol.com>, KRAllison@aol.com writes > >>>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. > Labeo: Agree absolutely. If a player with no illegal knowledge in his possession would not be forced ineluctably to the conclusion that something was out of joint, if he could write down a hand that would fit partner's bidding and that he might have, then the player with UI is obliged to interpret partner's action as showing such a hand. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 16:46:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA04515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 16:46:17 +1000 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA04510 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 16:46:12 +1000 From: DANDEE4727@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id CAA02852; Sat, 3 May 1997 02:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 02:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970503024537_-64414885@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk, DMFV47B@prodigy.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Happy birthday. Wonderful forum We have printed and bound all the discussions. I'm sure we are all better directors because of it. Received May ACBL Bulletin - "New" Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge advertised for sale - soft $5.35, hard $10.75. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 3 20:10:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 1997 20:10:59 +1000 Received: from MajorD.xtra.co.nz (terminator.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04806 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 20:10:53 +1000 Received: from pentium (p29-m2-na3.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.110.93]) by MajorD.xtra.co.nz (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA09611 for ; Sat, 3 May 1997 22:10:19 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <336B00B9.4F68@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 22:09:13 +1300 From: LizOrWayne Reply-To: liz.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-XTRA (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: > > What is the current status of the about-to-be Laws? > > There was a rumor that they will not be approved by the WBF > until later this year. > > The ACBL has not as far as I know said that they WON'T come > into effect at the end of May (but I have not seen the May > Bulletin yet). > > As of two weeks ago, I could not get a copy of them. > > Is anyone on this mailing list in a position to make an > authoritative statement about them? Karen Allison? David Burn? > > -- > Richard Lighton | Anything worth doing is worth > (lighton@idt.net) | doing badly. > Wood-Ridge NJ | > USA | -- G. K. Chesterton John Wignall a member of the WBF laws committee reported to a NZCBA management committee meeting in April that the laws were to come in to effect of 1st September 1997. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 4 21:31:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 May 1997 21:31:44 +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 VAA10302 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 21:31:39 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA16510 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 07:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 07:31:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net Reply-To: Richard Lighton To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Non-withdrawn call after infraction Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South opens 1NT (12-14), West bids 2C, N bids 2D. East now wakes up and says "Ooops, I should have alerted that." EW are playing 2C shows any one suited hand (expected response is 2D). NS play that over a natural 2C, 2D is natural. Over 2C showing a one-suited hand they play 2D shows 5+ hearts. Laws 16 and 21 say that North may withdraw his 2D call and substitute a pass, and South has the authorised information that North has diamonds. North wants the chance to play in 2D. If he passes, East will bid 2D conventionally, and West will correct. If he repeats 2D, it would now show hearts. It is possible that North knew all along that 2C was conventional, but he did not. 1. Is it authorised information that North did not know opponents' agreements? 2. May North now bid 2D to show diamonds and a wish to play in that contract? Laws 16 and 21 only refer to change of call after a failure to alert. Here we have a change in meaning, depending on whether North knew E-W's methods or not. Richard Lighton | Anything worth doing is worth (lighton@idt.net) | doing badly. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | -- G. K. Chesterton From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 00:17:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:17:33 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12806 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:17:27 +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 QAA26956 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:17:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph38.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.38]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA29950 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:17:16 +0200 Message-Id: <199705041417.QAA29950@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 16:18:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: L93B3, second attempt Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A few weeks ago, I tried to gather opinions from BLML readers on the interpretation of L93B3. Only a handful of responses reached me, and they made it clear to me that I had not asked my question clearly enough to get responses that could be summarized well here. I therefore try once more, with some clearer phrasing (I hope). L93B3 states that an AC may not overrule a TD in two cases: * on a point of law or regulations * on exercise of his disciplinary powers In these cases, the AC can (only) recommend to the TD that he change is ruling. In all other cases, the AC can overrule the TD. Overruling is thus authorized on many points, including: * the facts established by the TD * the bridge judgement exercised when deciding whether a side is damaged * the bridge judgement exercised when determining what an adjusted score should be It is generally agreed (by all responders to my first attempt) that the AC may not overrule the TD when he has made a correct direct application of the Laws. But the waters are muddy when the TD has made a debatable interpretation and when he has made one that is just plain wrong. Therefore, I present two scenarios, adapted, if not stolen, from earlier postings on BLML. Scenario 1: =========== Immediately after trick 4 has been turned over by all four players, West shows his nine of hearts with the remark "I just revoked, I want to play this card to the previous trick". Alas, he had actually played the heart 5, and the last trick was indeed a heart trick. The TD rules that the heart 9 is a minor penalty card, since although the action was not clearly inadvertent, it was not deliberate play (see L50C). NS appeal after the round on the grounds that they could have won one more trick if the heart 9 was a major penalty card. The AC agrees with the analysis and also agree (unanimously FWIW) that they would have interpreted L50C to the effect that the heart 9 is a major penalty card. Do you now believe 1A: The AC may overrule the TD in this case. 1B: The AC may only recommend to the TD that he change his ruling. When answering, note that it is immaterial whether you yourself believe that the original interpretation is correct; however, if you do not agree that the matter is at least marginally open to interpretation, your answer will not help me. Scenario 2: =========== Immediately after trick 4 has been turned over by all four players, West fumbles his cards and drops the heart 10 on the table. The TD is called, and he rules that the card becomes a minor penalty card, on the grounds that the card is not an honor, and it was not played deliberately. After the session, but in time, NS appeal, saying that they would have won an extra trick if the heart 10 was a major penalty card, and they do believe that a 10 is an honor. The AC gets out the definition in the Law book and ascertains that the 10 is indeed an honor. Do you now believe 2A: The AC may overrule the TD in this case. 2B: The AC may only recommend to the TD that he change his ruling. In the unlikely event that you do not agree with the AC that the TD's ruling is just plain wrong, please read the law book again before flaming me. ------- Even if you have helped me by answering before, please do so again. E-mails with simple one-letter indications of your answer are fine. If you want to share a more verbose analysis with BLML, that is also fine, but I intend to summarize the results of this inquiry to BLML after May 12. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 00:23:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:23:27 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12830 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:23:21 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-441.innet.be [194.7.14.141]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10595 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:21:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <336C9956.280@innet.be> Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 15:12:38 +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: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) References: <336b5283.4145981@pipmail.dknet.dk> <336873ED.AA3@innet.be> <336bdf94.699605@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > You sent this to me and not the list; was that intentional? > No it was an error : here is the message again for the rest of you :: Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > found the total of 172) are distributed over top-level Internet > domains. The result shows that we cover quite large areas of the > world: 28 different top-level domains are represented as follows: > Let's see : > au 9 Australia > be 4 Belgium (who are the other two ?) > ca 7 Canada > ch 2 Switzerland > de 7 Germany > dk 4 Denmark (only 4 ?) > es 1 Spain > fi 1 Finland > fr 1 France > gl 1 Greenland ????????????? > hk 1 Hong Kong > hr 1 Croatia > il 3 Israel > jp 1 Japan > nl 7 Netherlands (I find this disproportionnally few) > no 2 Norway > nz 4 New Zealand > pt 1 Portugal > ru 1 Russia (all alone to baffle us for weeks ...) > tr 1 Turkey > tw 1 Taiwan > gb 1 one provider using the correct ISO code > uk 14 = 15 UK > com 58 > edu 9 > gov 1 > net 22 = (I presume) 96 USA > org 6 > --------- > Total 171 Meanwhile, Jesper answered me these already : > >> be 4 Belgium (who are the other two ?) > boite@gambrinus.fpms.ac.be > gi31451@glo.be > hermandw@innet.be > jan.boets@glo.be Ahh, Jan is already here - but I heard his computer is on the brink. Wellcome Jean-Marc (pourquoi tu ne m'as rien dit ?) > >> dk 4 Denmark (only 4 ?) > Yes, I'm afraid so. I don't quite understand why we do not have more > Danish TDs here - I certainly have informed about the existence of > BLML. > >> gl 1 Greenland ????????????? > That is also my guess, but I don't know. > >> com 58 > >> edu 9 > >> gov 1 > >> net 22 = (I presume) 96 USA > Theoretically, neither .com nor .net need to be in the US, so there > might be one or two non-USA amongst them, but probably not more than > that. > >> org 6 > They could be anywhere, but USA probably has a higher probability than > most other places. > > If you want the list of subscribers, send the following two lines to > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au: > > who bridge-laws > end > > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 00:23:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:23:41 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12837 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:23:35 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-441.innet.be [194.7.14.141]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10637 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:22:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <336C9FE0.2819@innet.be> Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 15:40:32 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: pair suspended because ineligible to compete Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all blml'ers ! What is your opinion on the following problem which has just arisen in Belgium : We have an annual tournament for beginning players. At the end of the tournament, it turns out that one player was there under false pretences and should not have been allowed. (Actually, this is still under debate, but that's not your problem. Let's assume the AC upholds the decision that the pair was not eligible). The TD has decided that all scores for this pair and their opponents should be stricken (as if not played at all). I think this is acceptable in these conditions. Agreed ? One pair of opponents however contests this decision. They had scored 73% on the three boards at their table and they want to keep that score. I don't want to give them that, but I would like to hear your arguments for or against. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 00:38:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:38:49 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12897 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:38:43 +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 QAA27131 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:38:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA00412 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:38:35 +0200 Message-Id: <199705041438.QAA00412@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 16:38:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Non-withdrawn call after infraction Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 07:31:34 -0400 (EDT) > From: Richard Lighton > Reply-to: Richard Lighton > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Non-withdrawn call after infraction > South opens 1NT (12-14), West bids 2C, N bids 2D. > > East now wakes up and says "Ooops, I should have alerted that." > EW are playing 2C shows any one suited hand (expected response > is 2D). > > NS play that over a natural 2C, 2D is natural. > Over 2C showing a one-suited hand they play 2D shows 5+ hearts. > > Laws 16 and 21 say that North may withdraw his 2D call and > substitute a pass, and South has the authorised information > that North has diamonds. > > > North wants the chance to play in 2D. If he passes, East will bid > 2D conventionally, and West will correct. If he repeats 2D, it > would now show hearts. > > It is possible that North knew all along that 2C was conventional, > but he did not. > > 1. Is it authorised information that North did not know opponents' > agreements? Yes, if he changes his call. He may only change his call if he was not aware of the opponents' agreements (L21B1). That the rules work this way is authorized information to everyone. Information from his withdrawn call is authorized to South but not EW, and the fact that he changes his call shows that he had not understood the situation. > > 2. May North now bid 2D to show diamonds and a wish to play in > that contract? No. He cannot legally change his agreement with his partner about the meaning of the 2D bid in the middle of an auction. But if he wishes to play 2D, why not see what happens when he passes? It is UI to EW that he has diamonds, so they must stay in 2D, since 2D is almost certain to be a logical alternative to any other contract. If NS can win 2D, they should have a better result by defending 2D. > >Laws 16 and 21 only refer to change of call after a failure to alert. >Here we have a change in meaning, depending on whether North knew >E-W's methods or not. In my opinion, N should be allowed to *change* his natural 2D to a transfer 2D, so that the fact that he has indeed changed is call (in meaning, though not in syntax) is AI to S and UI to EW. Although the situation is different, the footnote to L26 does address the issue of repeating a call with a different meaning. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 03:30:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 03:30:23 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA13522 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 03:30:16 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA13882 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 13:30:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 13:30:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Non-withdrawn call after infraction In-Reply-To: <199705041438.QAA00412@pip.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 4 May 1997, Jens & Bodil wrote: > > Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 07:31:34 -0400 (EDT) > > From: Richard Lighton > > Reply-to: Richard Lighton > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Non-withdrawn call after infraction > > > South opens 1NT (12-14), West bids 2C, N bids 2D. > > > > East now wakes up and says "Ooops, I should have alerted that." > > EW are playing 2C shows any one suited hand (expected response > > is 2D). > > > > NS play that over a natural 2C, 2D is natural. > > Over 2C showing a one-suited hand they play 2D shows 5+ hearts. > > > > Laws 16 and 21 say that North may withdraw his 2D call and > > substitute a pass, and South has the authorised information > > that North has diamonds. > > > > > > North wants the chance to play in 2D. If he passes, East will bid > > 2D conventionally, and West will correct. If he repeats 2D, it > > would now show hearts. > > > > It is possible that North knew all along that 2C was conventional, > > but he did not. > > > > 1. Is it authorised information that North did not know opponents' > > agreements? > > Yes, if he changes his call. He may only change his call if he was > not aware of the opponents' agreements (L21B1). That the rules work > this way is authorized information to everyone. Information from > his withdrawn call is authorized to South but not EW, and the fact > that he changes his call shows that he had not understood the > situation. > > > > > 2. May North now bid 2D to show diamonds and a wish to play in > > that contract? > > No. He cannot legally change his agreement with his partner about > the meaning of the 2D bid in the middle of an auction. But if he > wishes to play 2D, why not see what happens when he passes? It is UI > to EW that he has diamonds, so they must stay in 2D, since 2D is > almost certain to be a logical alternative to any other contract. Unfortunately not true. Assuming that there had been no infraction (East had alerted in time), North would have passed (he only had 5 diamonds; he did not want to compete at the three level, East would have bid 2D (pass or correct) and West would have bid 2S-his real suit. If West is allowed to bid 2D (meaning diamonds), it is possible that will end the auction. East has no reason to keep the bidding open, and perhaps West will not bid his suit (he only had five, and his hand was not very good). Because of the infraction, NS have a chance to play in 2d if they get a favorable ruling (they did), but if North is forced to pass after the authorised information is made available, NS come in jeopardy if South decides to compete to 3D with only a three-card suit. > If > NS can win 2D, they should have a better result by defending 2D. > > > > >Laws 16 and 21 only refer to change of call after a failure to alert. > >Here we have a change in meaning, depending on whether North knew > >E-W's methods or not. > > In my opinion, N should be allowed to *change* his natural 2D to a > transfer 2D, so that the fact that he has indeed changed is call > (in meaning, though not in syntax) is AI to S and UI to EW. Although > the situation is different, the footnote to L26 does address the > issue of repeating a call with a different meaning. Law 26 refers to change of call by an offending player. Here the player wishing to change his call (or rather not to change his call because he wants to retain the original meaning!) is the non-offender. -- Richard Lighton | Anything worth doing is worth (lighton@idt.net) | doing badly. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | -- G. K. Chesterton From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 21:25:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 21:25:26 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA17841 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 21:25:19 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-429.innet.be [194.7.14.129]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09685 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 13:23:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <336DC6AF.1522@innet.be> Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 12:38:23 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: New L25B - 40% rule Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK, we've all learned the new L25B2b2 (what a number !!) The offenders cannot gain more than average-minus on this deal (sorry, English version not at hand now). How shall we calculate this ????? As the world expert on calculation - I shall give my opinion, but I would like to hear your comments. (pair 1 is always the offenders, playing against 21 - after a change in bidding, they bid and make 4H; +620 is scored on 4 out of 10 tables, all others score +170) a) Mitchell system : (that's the one you all know) score for pair 1 : 15/18 corrected to 7.2 score for pair 21 : 3/18 b) Ascherman system : (one extra point) score for pair 1 : 16/20 corrected to 8 score for pair 21 : 4/20 c) Butler system : average : (620*3 + 170*5) / 8 = 338.75 = 340 score for pair 1 : +7, corrected to -3 score for pair 21 : -7 As you can see, I propose to keep the scoring unaltered for all other pairs. Other methods would be possible, but rather difficult. Agreed ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 21:25:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 21:25:25 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA17840 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 21:25:18 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-429.innet.be [194.7.14.129]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09673 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 13:23:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <336DC46E.DA1@innet.be> Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 12:28:46 +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: L93B3, second attempt References: <199705041417.QAA29950@pip.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > > A few weeks ago, I tried to gather opinions from BLML readers on the > interpretation of L93B3. Only a handful of responses reached me, > and they made it clear to me that I had not asked my question > clearly enough to get responses that could be summarized well here. > > > Scenario 1: > =========== > > > Scenario 2: > =========== > Both scenarios are actually exactly the same. In both cases, the TD interpreted the Laws as he saw them. In both cases, the AC cannot overrule him. In both cases, the AC can only tell the TD that their interpretation is different from his, and that they ask him to change his ruling. If I were TD in both cases, I would crawl under a rock in case 2 and change my error, or stand my ground in case 1 and refuse to change, if I thought I had the right interpretation, because I believe I am better placed than an AC to find the right interpretation. If I were on the AC in both cases, in case 1 I would politely inform the TD that he was probably wrong (again relying on my obviously better inpterpretation - hey, I'm a member of blml !) and ask him to change his ruling. In case 2, I would do the same, but ask the TD to crawl under a rock as well. I would not simply change the score. Summary : I don't think the AC has the power to overrule TD on the Laws, so not on the interpretation of those Laws either. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 22:58:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 22:58:16 +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 WAA18196 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 22:58:10 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id IAA29763 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 08:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970505085935.006957a0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 08:59:35 -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 04:35 AM 5/3/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: > Labeo writes further to this: > The laws concerning AI and UI do not suggest that you do not have the >information which is UI; they recognize that do you have it but say that >you have obtained it illegally. In these circumstances the law provides >that you may not make use of the information illegally obtained and >provides for redress to opponents if you do. > Although you may use one piece of information which the laws define as >being AI it does not follow that you may automatically use another piece >of information, no matter how tightly linked to the first piece, if this >is UI. Incidentally it is also my understanding that by its terms of >reference the WBF Laws Committee is empowered to interpret the laws to >national authorities who in turn are empowered to interpret in cases >brought to them under Law 93C. I certainly agree with the principle Labeo sets forth above, but just don't see how it can apply to the subject under discussion. The TD tells you, for example, that partner must play the DA at his next legal opportunity. Based solely on this information, with no further information of any kind, you conclude that partner holds the DA. Where in this scenario does Labeo find any "information illegally obtained" which "you may not make use of"? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 23:14:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 23:14:38 +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 XAA18264 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 23:14:32 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1008483; 5 May 97 14:14 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC5957.3E8BAFE0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 5 May 1997 13:21:30 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: pair suspended because ineligible to compete Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 13:21:28 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 39 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >>Hello all blml'ers ! > >>What is your opinion on the following problem which has just arisen in >>Belgium : > >>We have an annual tournament for beginning players. > >>At the end of the tournament, it turns out that one player was there >>under false pretences and should not have been allowed. >>(Actually, this is still under debate, but that's not your problem. >>Let's assume the AC upholds the decision that the pair was not >>eligible). > >>The TD has decided that all scores for this pair and their opponents >>should be stricken (as if not played at all). > >>I think this is acceptable in these conditions. Agreed ? > >>One pair of opponents however contests this decision. They had scored >>73% on the three boards at their table and they want to keep that score. > >>I don't want to give them that, but I would like to hear your arguments >>for or against. In England, the EBU Supplement to the EBL Tournament Directors' Guide, paragraph 80.28, states that ''A contestant disqualified after the end of the event is removed from the final ranking list, and all other contestants moved up one place. All scores obtained by opponents of the contestant count in full ie. as though the disqualified contestant had played without standing. Masterpoints and prizes are re-issued in accordance with the revised ranking list.'' Additional rules exist for disqualification during Knock-out events and different rules are applied in the case of the withdrawl of a contestant part way through an event. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 5 23:51:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 1997 23:51:42 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18447 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 23:51:36 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id JAA02392 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 09:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 09:53:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <199705041417.QAA29950@pip.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:18 PM 5/4/97 +0200, Jens wrote: >L93B3 states that an AC may not overrule a TD in two cases: > > * on a point of law or regulations > * on exercise of his disciplinary powers > >In these cases, the AC can (only) recommend to the TD that he change >is ruling. In all other cases, the AC can overrule the TD. > >Overruling is thus authorized on many points, including: > > * the facts established by the TD > * the bridge judgement exercised when deciding whether a side is > damaged > * the bridge judgement exercised when determining what an adjusted > score should be > >It is generally agreed (by all responders to my first attempt) that >the AC may not overrule the TD when he has made a correct direct >application of the Laws. But the waters are muddy when the TD has >made a debatable interpretation and when he has made one that is just >plain wrong. Therefore, I present two scenarios, adapted, if not >stolen, from earlier postings on BLML. > >Scenario 1: >=========== > >Immediately after trick 4 has been turned over by all four players, >West shows his nine of hearts with the remark "I just revoked, I want >to play this card to the previous trick". Alas, he had actually >played the heart 5, and the last trick was indeed a heart trick. The >TD rules that the heart 9 is a minor penalty card, since although the >action was not clearly inadvertent, it was not deliberate play (see >L50C). NS appeal after the round on the grounds that they could have >won one more trick if the heart 9 was a major penalty card. The AC >agrees with the analysis and also agree (unanimously FWIW) that they >would have interpreted L50C to the effect that the heart 9 is a >major penalty card. > >Do you now believe > > 1A: The AC may overrule the TD in this case. > 1B: The AC may only recommend to the TD that he change his ruling. > >When answering, note that it is immaterial whether you yourself >believe that the original interpretation is correct; however, if you >do not agree that the matter is at least marginally open to >interpretation, your answer will not help me. 1A. Despite perhaps ill-chosen wording, L50C clearly intends exposure "inadvertently" and "through deliberate play" as mutually exclusive but complete categories -- nobody is suggesting that, since the H9 was neither, it should not be a penalty card at all. The point of law is that if inadvertent it becomes a minor PC, whilst if deliberate it becomes a major PC, and the AC can't change that. Whether the exposure of the H9 was in fact inadvertent or deliberate is a point of fact, and subject to the AC's power to overrule the TD. >Scenario 2: >=========== > >Immediately after trick 4 has been turned over by all four players, >West fumbles his cards and drops the heart 10 on the table. The TD >is called, and he rules that the card becomes a minor penalty card, >on the grounds that the card is not an honor, and it was not played >deliberately. After the session, but in time, NS appeal, saying that >they would have won an extra trick if the heart 10 was a major >penalty card, and they do believe that a 10 is an honor. The AC gets >out the definition in the Law book and ascertains that the 10 is >indeed an honor. > >Do you now believe > > 2A: The AC may overrule the TD in this case. > 2B: The AC may only recommend to the TD that he change his ruling. > >In the unlikely event that you do not agree with the AC that the >TD's ruling is just plain wrong, please read the law book again >before flaming me. 2A. That the 10 is an honor is not stated as, or in, a law, but as a definition. Chapter I does not establish any law; it stipulates definitions on which the laws (which begin in Chapter II) are based. Rulings based on the Definitions are therefore rulings on points of fact, not on points of law, and subject to the AC's power to overrule. 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 May 6 00:35:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 00:35:31 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20970 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 00:35:26 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id KAA13350 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 10:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970505103652.006d395c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 10:36:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: pair suspended because ineligible to compete In-Reply-To: <336C9FE0.2819@innet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:40 PM 5/4/97 +0000, Herman wrote: >What is your opinion on the following problem which has just arisen in >Belgium : > >We have an annual tournament for beginning players. > >At the end of the tournament, it turns out that one player was there >under false pretences and should not have been allowed. >(Actually, this is still under debate, but that's not your problem. >Let's assume the AC upholds the decision that the pair was not >eligible). > >The TD has decided that all scores for this pair and their opponents >should be stricken (as if not played at all). > >I think this is acceptable in these conditions. Agreed ? The Laws give SOs the authority to establish conditions of entry, and therefore to determine how such conditions will be enforced and what procedures will be used if they are violated, so this is clearly acceptable under the Laws. Any determination (at least by me) as to whether it is subjectively "acceptable" based on common sense or judgment would require much more information about the circumstances. >One pair of opponents however contests this decision. They had scored >73% on the three boards at their table and they want to keep that score. > >I don't want to give them that, but I would like to hear your arguments >for or against. I see absolutely no grounds in the Laws for this pair to contest the SO's decision (if they're basing their claim on the Laws, I'd ask which law they think applies). OTOH, the Laws, which require SOs to hear appeals based on the Laws, do not forbid SOs from hearing appeals on other grounds, such as fairness or equity, so the SO may choose to hear this appeal if they want to. The only way this pair could be deemed to have a right to such a hearing, however, is if the SO's own regulations grant it -- the Laws do not. 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 May 6 05:04:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 05:04:39 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22458 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 05:04:32 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-487.innet.be [194.7.14.187]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA23285 for ; Mon, 5 May 1997 21:02:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <336E3D1B.6159@innet.be> Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 21:03:39 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Sv: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) References: <199705051640.SAA01562@hydrogen.inbe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Ben Shalmi wrote (to me personally) : > > I am the one from greenland, at the moment at TD to bee in future, so I am > at the moment just listening > Welcome to the list Martin. You will make a lot of conversations interesting ('we've even got a member in Greenland !') -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 6 10:52:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 10:52:52 +1000 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA23793 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 10:52:46 +1000 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA24244 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Tue, 6 May 1997 10:52:39 +1000 Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 10:52:37 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 Reply-To: Laurence Kelso1 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 5 May 1997, Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:18 PM 5/4/97 +0200, Jens wrote: > > >L93B3 states that an AC may not overrule a TD in two cases: > > > > * on a point of law or regulations > > * on exercise of his disciplinary powers > > > >In these cases, the AC can (only) recommend to the TD that he change > >is ruling. In all other cases, the AC can overrule the TD. > > > > * the facts established by the TD > > * the bridge judgement exercised when deciding whether a side is > > damaged > > * the bridge judgement exercised when determining what an adjusted > > score should be > > > >Scenario 1: > >=========== > > > >Immediately after trick 4 has been turned over by all four players, > >West shows his nine of hearts with the remark "I just revoked, I want > >to play this card to the previous trick". Alas, he had actually > >played the heart 5, and the last trick was indeed a heart trick. The > >TD rules that the heart 9 is a minor penalty card, since although the > >action was not clearly inadvertent, it was not deliberate play (see > >L50C). NS appeal after the round on the grounds that they could have > >won one more trick if the heart 9 was a major penalty card. The AC > >agrees with the analysis and also agree (unanimously FWIW) that they > >would have interpreted L50C to the effect that the heart 9 is a > >major penalty card. > > > Despite perhaps ill-chosen wording, L50C clearly intends exposure > "inadvertently" and "through deliberate play" as mutually exclusive but > complete categories -- nobody is suggesting that, since the H9 was neither, > it should not be a penalty card at all. The point of law is that if > inadvertent it becomes a minor PC, whilst if deliberate it becomes a major > PC, and the AC can't change that. Whether the exposure of the H9 was in > fact inadvertent or deliberate is a point of fact, and subject to the AC's > power to overrule the TD. I agree with this, but I still believe that the director is often the person best placed to determine the facts at the time of the infraction. > >Scenario 2: > >=========== > > > >Immediately after trick 4 has been turned over by all four players, > >West fumbles his cards and drops the heart 10 on the table. The TD > >is called, and he rules that the card becomes a minor penalty card, > >on the grounds that the card is not an honor, and it was not played > >deliberately. After the session, but in time, NS appeal, saying that > >they would have won an extra trick if the heart 10 was a major > >penalty card, and they do believe that a 10 is an honor. The AC gets > >out the definition in the Law book and ascertains that the 10 is > >indeed an honor. > That the 10 is an honor is not stated as, or in, a law, but as a > definition. Chapter I does not establish any law; it stipulates > definitions on which the laws (which begin in Chapter II) are based. > Rulings based on the Definitions are therefore rulings on points of fact, > not on points of law, and subject to the AC's power to overrule. > As much as I would like to be able to overrule the director, I can not accept Eric's aguement for scenario two. Any section that is Chapter I of "The Laws Of Duplicate Contract Bridge", has to be part of the Laws when reading 93B3. They are of vital importance in understanding the terminology (and thus correctly interpreting what follows). Using Eric's approach there is no scenario where an AC could not overrule on a point of law since all the Laws are dependent on the definitions. This would then make 93B3 partially redundant - the new laws still assume that the TD is the final authority on Law - leaving issues of fact with the committee. >From a practical point of view, any director would acknowledge his error and correct the problem, before it got to committee. Law 93B3 is only there to protect TD's from committees ignorant of law. Laurie Kelso From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 6 20:26:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 20:26:00 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA25795 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 20:25:53 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-430.innet.be [194.7.14.130]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01992 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 12:24:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <336E04FA.251E@innet.be> Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 17:04:10 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt References: <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > 1A. Despite perhaps ill-chosen wording, L50C clearly intends exposure > "inadvertently" and "through deliberate play" as mutually exclusive but > complete categories -- nobody is suggesting that, since the H9 was neither, > it should not be a penalty card at all. The point of law is that if > inadvertent it becomes a minor PC, whilst if deliberate it becomes a major > PC, and the AC can't change that. Whether the exposure of the H9 was in > fact inadvertent or deliberate is a point of fact, and subject to the AC's > power to overrule the TD. > No Eric, you have missed the point. These two cases are the same. The director has clearly established the facts. I don't think they are in doubt. The problem that is put to the AC is the definition of the word 'deliberate'. Just as in the second scenario, the definition of 'honour' is put to the test. The difference being that one definition is well known to us all, and the other is not as clear cut, does not change the approach that the AC may take in overruling or commending the TD. > > > > 2A: The AC may overrule the TD in this case. > > 2B: The AC may only recommend to the TD that he change his ruling. > > > > 2A. That the 10 is an honor is not stated as, or in, a law, but as a I clearly think my other posts have made my position clear : 2B. The definitions are a part of the Laws, or the Laws would not be consistent. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 6 20:45:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 20:45:01 +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 UAA25850 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 20:44:56 +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 MAA12695; Tue, 6 May 1997 12:44:43 +0200 Received: from gi31451 (p5-23.z03.glo.be [206.48.186.151]) by phobos.glo.be (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA12526; Tue, 6 May 1997 12:44:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199705061044.MAA12526@phobos.glo.be> From: "Fornoville Norbert" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: Subject: Re: New L25B - 40% rule Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 12:43:14 +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: Herman De Wael > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: New L25B - 40% rule > Date: 05 mei 97 2:38 > > OK, we've all learned the new L25B2b2 (what a number !!) > > The offenders cannot gain more than average-minus on this deal (sorry, > English version not at hand now). > > How shall we calculate this ????? > > As the world expert on calculation - I shall give my opinion, but I > would like to hear your comments. > > (pair 1 is always the offenders, playing against 21 - after a change in > bidding, they bid and make 4H; +620 is scored on 4 out of 10 tables, all > others score +170) > > a) Mitchell system : (that's the one you all know) > > score for pair 1 : 15/18 corrected to 7.2 > score for pair 21 : 3/18 > > b) Ascherman system : (one extra point) > > score for pair 1 : 16/20 corrected to 8 How ? this is just a changed Mitchell calculation where you add 1 points for every player, so do not use that 1 point in your calculations otherwise you will have different result for Aschermann and Mitchell in point difference between players ( you allready have lower percentages in Ascherman) 16/20 = 15/18 + 1 so 7,2 +1 = 8,2/20 > score for pair 21 : 4/20 > > c) Butler system : > > average : (620*3 + 170*5) / 8 = 338.75 = 340 > > score for pair 1 : +7, corrected to -3 > score for pair 21 : -7 > > As you can see, I propose to keep the scoring unaltered for all other > pairs. > > Other methods would be possible, but rather difficult. > > Agreed ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 6 22:30:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 22:30:25 +1000 Received: from pimaia2y.prodigy.com (pimaia2y.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26535 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 22:30:19 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA48262 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 08:27:06 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id IAA294068 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 May 1997 08:17:50 -0400 Message-Id: <199705061217.IAA294068@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: burghard@prodigy.com (MR KENT V BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:17:50, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The 1997 Laws (The 1998 Laws?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As someone else posted, the North American edition of the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Bridge is now available for purchase from the ACBL, and the first page says that they will be in effect in ACBL events effective on May 27, 1997. The $5.35 price is only for ACBL members, and $5.95 for non-members, plus a shipping/handling charge of $3.50 for USA continental locations (actual shipping cost for other countries). In a day or two, we will have a web page where the new laws can be ordered, but it always takes me longer than I want to get things done. The book is in our warehouse (I have seen a copy). The ACBL CEO will be making a decision this week on putting the new laws online, and I will let everyone know what the decision is, and when we hope to have the ACBL edition of the new laws online. Kent Burghard ACBL Headquarters From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 6 23:31:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 1997 23:31:24 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA27044 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 23:31:18 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id JAA00171 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 09:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970506093251.006c10f8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 09:32:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <336E04FA.251E@innet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:04 PM 5/5/97 +0000, Herman wrote: >No Eric, you have missed the point. >These two cases are the same. >The director has clearly established the facts. I don't think they are >in doubt. The problem that is put to the AC is the definition of the >word 'deliberate'. Just as in the second scenario, the definition of >'honour' is put to the test. The difference being that one definition >is well known to us all, and the other is not as clear cut, does not >change the approach that the AC may take in overruling or commending the >TD. >I clearly think my other posts have made my position clear : 2B. >The definitions are a part of the Laws, or the Laws would not be >consistent. I continue to miss the point, although I remain willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. It seems to me that the fact that the 10 is not an honor is very much "in doubt". The fact that the H9 was played inadvertently is similarly in doubt. Given the determination of whether or not the 10 is an honor, or whether or not the H9 was played deliberately, the law is clear. What is in doubt is the facts, not the application of the law given those facts. In both these cases, the law bifurcates; it says "if A, then X; if B, then Y". In such cases, we must determine whether A or B occurred, which is a question of fact (Did he expose an honor? Did he play the H9 intentionally?). The subsequent point of law tells us what the law requires us to do given the facts, i.e. X given A, but Y given B. Such bifurcations appear throughout the Laws. If the question of whether the exposure of a card is inadvertant or not under L50C is a point of law, then, by the same logic, the question of, say, whether a break in tempo is inadvertent or not under L73D must be a point of law similarly. How different is this from the bifurcations depending on such points as whether or not an irregularity could have worked to an offender's benefit, or whether or not an irregularity caused damage, or whether or not pass is a logical alternative in a given auction, and, if it is different, why? Yet wouldn't we all agree that the latter cases are well within the purview of the AC to overrule the TD? (The facile answer is that the latter involve bridge judgment, but "bridge judgment" isn't in the Laws, and has nothing to do with the requirements of L93.) I think that the difference of opinion between Herman and me on this reflects a general difference in viewpoint (which we've noted previously) between Americans, with our all-powerful-in-practice ACs, and Europeans, with their more powerful TDs and more limited ACs. 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 May 7 04:03:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 May 1997 04:03:01 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01049 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 04:02:55 +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 UAA29829 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 20:02:49 +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 UAA00488 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 20:02:45 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 20:02:44 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33757119.5512376@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@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 Eric's understanding of the concepts of "point of fact" and "point of law" is quite different from mine. I'll try to explain what I believe is fact and what is law interpretation here (and I believe that what I here call "law interpretation" qualifies as "points of law" in the sense of L93B3). On Mon, 05 May 1997 09:53:01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >1A. Despite perhaps ill-chosen wording, L50C clearly intends exposure >"inadvertently" and "through deliberate play" as mutually exclusive but >complete categories -- nobody is suggesting that, since the H9 was = neither, >it should not be a penalty card at all. The point of law is that if >inadvertent it becomes a minor PC, whilst if deliberate it becomes a = major >PC, and the AC can't change that. Whether the exposure of the H9 was in >fact inadvertent or deliberate is a point of fact, and subject to the = AC's >power to overrule the TD. L50C says that: (a) non-honour exposed inadvertently: minor; (b) non-honour exposed through deliberate play or any honour: major. The facts that the TD have established are: (1) the H9 was exposed; (2) the H9 was not exposed inadvertently; (3) the H9 was not exposed through deliberate play. L50C therefore does not tell us whether the H9 is a major or a minor penalty card, but L49 does tell us that it is a penalty card. Since all penalty cards are clearly either major or minor, the TD must rule as to whether the H9 is a major or a minor penalty card. Such a ruling is what I would call interpretation of law. The AC may overrule the TD if it disagrees with (1), (2), or (3) above (points of fact), but not if it only disagrees with the TD's law interpretation following those facts. 1B. >>Scenario 2: >2A. That the 10 is an honor is not stated as, or in, a law, but as a >definition. Chapter I does not establish any law; it stipulates >definitions on which the laws (which begin in Chapter II) are based. >Rulings based on the Definitions are therefore rulings on points of = fact, >not on points of law, and subject to the AC's power to overrule. The facts that the TD have established here are: (1) the H10 was exposed; (2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; (3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play. In order to rule, the TD needs to determine whether or not the H10 is an honour. The law uses the word "honour". Determining what the law means by a word is IMO interpretation of law, regardless of whether the meaning of the word is defined elsewhere in the laws (as in this case) or not. The AC may overrule the TD if it disagrees with (1), (2), or (3) above (points of fact), but not if it only disagrees with the TD's law interpretation following those facts. 2B. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 7 05:18:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 May 1997 05:18:32 +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 FAA01371 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 05:18:25 +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 OAA26073 for ; Tue, 6 May 1997 14:18:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA26046; Tue, 6 May 97 13:18:28 CDT Message-Id: <9705061818.AA26046@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Tue, 06 May 97 13:18 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: Opening after pd's opening OOT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Tim West-meads wrote: > >>In-Reply-To: <+wXO8+B7P6ZzEw4o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >>DWS wrote: >>> What about the 1D? It is a bid made in violation of the obligation to >>> pass. L37 then requires both members of the partnership to pass >>> throughout, and there may be lead penalties [sounds as though you have >>> lead penalties against both partners now]. >>> >>> That's vicious, and clearly not what the Law intended. However, >>> before someone says 60/40, let me remind you of L12B: if my ruling is >>> right, you cannot cancel the board just because you do not like it. >>> >>> Any other views? >> >>Like David I feel the ruling to be overly vicious, so here goes an attempt to >>prove it wrong:-) >> >>Well, the 1D bid was made before the Director call, or any ruling. An >>obligation to pass can only arise from a director ruliing so the 1D bid was no t >>made in violation of the obligation to pass. I really don't know if this is >>"weaseling" or if it is a true reflection of the laws. > > I thought the obligation to pass came from the Laws? No one yet has quoted L10A. This can be read as saying that the penalty provision of L31B does not apply until after the director is called. So, as TW wrote, the 1D call is not a violation of L37, because West was not barred when he made that bid. What we need is a Law such as L9C, but covering other actions that occur after an irregularity, before or after attention is drawn to the irregularity, and before the director is called. There is no such Law, so we are trying to fit this case into other Laws, and it won't fit. I can't find the quote, but I recall someone in this thread saying something like "we are left with a 1D bid, and no Law to apply to it." -- 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 Wed May 7 09:10:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:10:40 +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 JAA02664 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:10:32 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wOtT2-0007mS-00; Tue, 6 May 1997 23:16:20 +0000 Received: from default ([195.99.46.130]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA10805; Wed, 7 May 1997 00:10:26 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199705062310.AAA10805@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 00:10:21 +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 I don't think this will wash: [snip] >>Scenario 2: >>2A. That the 10 is an honor is not stated as, or in, a law, but as a >>definition. Chapter I does not establish any law; it stipulates >>definitions on which the laws (which begin in Chapter II) are based. >>Rulings based on the Definitions are therefore rulings on points of fact, >>not on points of law, and subject to the AC's power to overrule. >The facts that the TD have established here are: >(1) the H10 was exposed; >(2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; >(3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play. >In order to rule, the TD needs to determine whether or not the H10 is >an honour. The law uses the word "honour". Determining what the law >means by a word is IMO interpretation of law, regardless of whether >the meaning of the word is defined elsewhere in the laws (as in this >case) or not. >The AC may overrule the TD if it disagrees with (1), (2), or (3) above >(points of fact), but not if it only disagrees with the TD's law >interpretation following those facts. 2B. Or not 2B, that is... Determining what the law means by a word may or may not be the exclusive right or duty of the Director; certainly in this country we do not believe that it is. There have been many occasions on which the Appeals Committee or the National Authority have taken the view that the Director's interpretation of (and application of) the Laws or our Directives was simply wrong, and I (whether as Chairman of Appeals or a member of the ruling body) have adjusted scores on that basis. But when a word *is* clearly defined in the [definition section of] the Laws, no Director and no Appeals Committee has any business overrruling that definition. The H10 *is* an honour, because the Laws say it is (just as the HA is an honour - would you really stand by the ruling of a Director who "interpreted" the Laws to mean that it was not?) So, if the H10 is exposed by a defender other than by playing it to a trick, it *is* a major penalty card. Regards David From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 7 09:48:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:48:07 +1000 Received: from galadriel.otago.ac.nz (galadriel.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03050 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:47:55 +1000 Received: from [139.80.48.31] (ou048031.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.31]) by galadriel.otago.ac.nz (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA30965 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 11:47:43 +1200 (NZST) X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 11:50:04 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael H. Albert" Subject: "Defective"(?) tricks. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following scenario actually occurred at the table -- the players involved (including the present author) committed the unpardonable sin of resolving it on equity grounds, but I'm interested in the legal opinions of this group. In reply, please feel free (nay please feel obligated) to snip the original down to the essential points. Declarer (south) is playing in a spade contract. At trick 9, she extracts west's last trump, winning in dummy. East (that's yours truly) has no trump to play, but as fourth hand spends some time considering his discard and deciding whether to rise with the hA or duck smoothly on the marked heart lead from dummy. South, who knows it doesn't matter how east plays on the heart, gets a little impatient. She turns the trick over, dummy and west doing likewise (but east still not having contributed a card), and calls for a heart from dummy, which dummy duly provides. Having finally decided to play the hA on the heart lead, east now does so, without providing a card to the previous trick. Both sides have now played to the trick following a defective trick, and so Law67B seems to apply. Let me now quote: Law67B1(b) ... "if the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among his played cards, and (penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick ..." It's rather an odd sort of revoke when any card from your hand could have been legally played, but I understand the purpose (you could try to unsqueeze yourself in some circumstances by waiting for the next lead before deciding your discard.) So it seems declarer might have claimed a one trick penalty in the situation described (since there seems to be no place in the laws which deal with the infraction of declarer making a premature lead.) As I said, at the table we all knew what had happened and declarer graciously permitted me to supply a meaningless discard to trick 9. Michael Albert (not the one who's going to play in the Cavendish more's the pity.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 7 22:39:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 May 1997 22:39:59 +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 WAA06543 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 22:39:53 +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 IAA16235 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 08:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 08:41:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <33757119.5512376@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:02 PM 5/6/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >The facts that the TD have established here are: >(1) the H10 was exposed; >(2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; >(3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play. > >In order to rule, the TD needs to determine whether or not the H10 is >an honour. The law uses the word "honour". Determining what the law >means by a word is IMO interpretation of law, regardless of whether >the meaning of the word is defined elsewhere in the laws (as in this >case) or not. > >The AC may overrule the TD if it disagrees with (1), (2), or (3) above >(points of fact), but not if it only disagrees with the TD's law >interpretation following those facts. 2B. I still don't get it. Why not write: "The facts that the TD have established here are: (1) the H10 was exposed; (2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; (3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play; (4) the H10 is not an honor. "In order to rule, the TD needs to determine whether the H10 is a major or a minor penalty card..." If the definition of "honor" is a question of law rather than fact, why not the definitions of "exposed", "inadvertently" and "deliberate" (or, for that matter, "heart" and "ten")? What I fail to see is where the "drawn line" between #3 and #4 above comes from. It seems to me that if "The H10 is an honor" is, by any reasoning, not a point of fact, then the same reasoning must lead us to the conclusion that no statement that any pre-condition for applying a particular provision of the Laws holds can be considered a point of fact. And if that's the case, then ACs have no power whatsoever (except to make recommendations to the TD), and might as well stay at home. 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 May 7 23:10:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 May 1997 23:10:14 +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 XAA06886 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 23:10:08 +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 JAA25704 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970507091143.006c17ac@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 09:11:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "Defective"(?) tricks. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM 5/7/97 +1200, Michael wrote: >Law67B1(b) > >... "if the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he >chooses any card to place among his played cards, and (penalty) he is >deemed to have revoked on the defective trick ..." > >It's rather an odd sort of revoke when any card from your hand could have >been legally played, but I understand the purpose (you could try to >unsqueeze yourself in some circumstances by waiting for the next lead >before deciding your discard.) > >So it seems declarer might have claimed a one trick penalty in the >situation described (since there seems to be no place in the laws which >deal with the infraction of declarer making a premature lead.) As I said, >at the table we all knew what had happened and declarer graciously >permitted me to supply a meaningless discard to trick 9. I think we can find justification in the Laws for not imposing a revoke penalty here. While the Laws don't provide a penalty for declarer's having continued to play prematurely, it was clearly an infraction, so the TD could adjust to restore equity under L12A1 (in effect ruling that E was "trapped" into revoking by declarer's infraction). L45G: "No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick." It's rather a stretch, and I don't think I'd rule this way had I been a TD called to the table (in the final analysis, each player should be held responsible for knowing whether or not he has played to the previous trick), but one could, especially if one follows the "Kaplan doctrine" of "determine equity first, then find the right 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 Thu May 8 00:38:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 00:38:05 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09751 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 00:37:59 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-465.innet.be [194.7.14.165]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA03946 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 16:36:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33707949.2E1A@innet.be> Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 13:44:57 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: New Laws in French Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Belgian Bridge Federation is intending to start using the new Laws from september 1st. But we have a problem : our French-speaking colleagues don't even have a preliminary translation yet. Telephoning to Paris, the FFB's reaction was 'oh, that might take a while'. And then I remembered : from May 27'th (IIRC), the ACBL is using the new Laws, so maybe they have them in the Province du Quebec ? Quelqu'un ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 00:39:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 00:39:57 +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 AAA09774 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 00:39:52 +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 KAA26283 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:39:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02444; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:39:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:39:30 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705071439.KAA02444@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Non-withdrawn call after infraction X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Lighton > South opens 1NT (12-14), West bids 2C, N bids 2D. > > East now wakes up and says "Ooops, I should have alerted that." > EW are playing 2C shows any one suited hand (expected response > is 2D). > > NS play that over a natural 2C, 2D is natural. > Over 2C showing a one-suited hand they play 2D shows 5+ hearts. > 2. May North now bid 2D to show diamonds and a wish to play in > that contract? This thread seems to have petered out, but I don't think the correct answer has been given. NS are allowed (by law, though possibly not by SO regulation) to have any agreement they want about 2D over an artificial 2C. Possible agreements include: 1. Shows diamonds. 2. Shows hearts. 3. Shows hearts if 2C is properly alerted and explained but shows diamonds after failure to alert and subsequent correction. They are not allowed to have agreements based on table talk or other mannerisms of North, e.g. North's questions to the TD. In practice, it is most unlikely that any pair has agreement 3. If the agreement is 2, and North decides to bid 2D, in theory showing hearts, it is AI to South that North has diamonds. However, it is UI to South that North does NOT have hearts. Their agreement has worked badly for NS in this example, but it would have worked very well indeed if North had had both red suits. That seems fair to me. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 04:36:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 04:36:57 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11166 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 04:36:51 +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 UAA18986 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 20:36:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph44.ppp.dknet.dk (cph44.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.44]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA20332 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 20:36:42 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 20:36:40 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3373ca24.6865742@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199705062310.AAA10805@snow.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199705062310.AAA10805@snow.btinternet.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 Wed, 7 May 1997 00:10:21 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Determining what the law means by a word may or may not be the exclusive >right or duty of the Director; certainly in this country we do not = believe >that it is. There have been many occasions on which the Appeals = Committee >or the National Authority have taken the view that the Director's >interpretation of (and application of) the Laws or our Directives was >simply wrong, and I (whether as Chairman of Appeals or a member of the >ruling body) have adjusted scores on that basis. The National Authority has the right to overrule the TD on any point whatsoever (there is no "except" clause in L93C, only in L93B3) - no disagreement about that. >But when a word *is* >clearly defined in the [definition section of] the Laws, no Director and= no >Appeals Committee has any business overrruling that definition. The H10 >*is* an honour, because the Laws say it is (just as the HA is an honour = - >would you really stand by the ruling of a Director who "interpreted" the >Laws to mean that it was not?) So, if the H10 is exposed by a defender >other than by playing it to a trick, it *is* a major penalty card. Indeed it is. But we are discussing the very hypothetical situation in which the TD says "as I read the law, the H10 is not an honor" while the AC says "as we read the law, the H10 is an honor" _and_ the AC is unable to convince the TD. If you allow the AC to overrule our hypothetical stubborn and stupid TD here, then you must of course also allow the AC to overrule the TD when the roles are reversed: assume that the TD says, quite correctly, that the H10 is an honor and the AC says that it is not. If you give the AC the power to overrule the TD in such cases, you give the AC the power to change a correct law ruling into a wrong one. It seems to me that the point of the "except" clause in L93B3 is to tell us that on the rare occasions when the AC believes that the TD has interpreted the laws incorrectly but cannot convince the TD of that, then the TD wins; the reasoning behind L93B3 is probably that the TD is assumed to be a law expert and the AC members are not. Of course it happens often that a TD ruling on a point of law is simply wrong; the AC then has to tell the TD that and recommend that he change his ruling. In practice, he then changes his ruling and there is no problem. The fact that the H10 ruling under discussion is so very very obviously wrong simply means that it will in practice be very easy to convince the TD. By the way, the decision as to whether something is a "point of law" is IMO clearly a point of law itself, so it is the TD himself who has to determine whether the AC is allowed to overrule him on a specific point. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 04:37:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 04:37:03 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11173 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 04:36:57 +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 UAA18990 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 20:36:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph44.ppp.dknet.dk (cph44.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.44]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA20337 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 20:36:46 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 20:36:45 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3371b748.2037940@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@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 Wed, 07 May 1997 08:41:12 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:02 PM 5/6/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: > >>The facts that the TD have established here are: >>(1) the H10 was exposed; >>(2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; >>(3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play. >> >>In order to rule, the TD needs to determine whether or not the H10 is >>an honour. The law uses the word "honour". Determining what the law >>means by a word is IMO interpretation of law, regardless of whether >>the meaning of the word is defined elsewhere in the laws (as in this >>case) or not. > >I still don't get it. Why not write: > >"The facts that the TD have established here are: >(1) the H10 was exposed; >(2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; >(3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play; >(4) the H10 is not an honor. I made the mistake of using words from the law to describe the facts. And now I think I understand what it is you're saying; perhaps that'll give me a better chance to convince you: Determining the "facts" is to determine what actually happened at the table. The facts are not dependent on what words mean; the facts (the events that took place at the table) do not change because we change the meaning of the word "honour", "expose", or "inadvertent". The TD determines the facts, and can be overruled if the AC believes that he has not determined the facts correctly. However, in order to describe the facts that the TD have determined, he must use words. These words can be chosen at different levels of abstraction, and they can use the same terminology as the laws or a different terminology. They can be interpreted differently by different people in any case. Examples of different ways that our TD might describe what happened here are: (a) West inadvertently exposed a non-honour. (b) West inadvertently exposed the H10. (c) West accidentally dropped the H10 on the table. (d) West accidentally dropped a card on the table The side of the card that was visible as it lay on the table had the number "10" and a red heart-shaped figure in each corner. It also had 10 larger red heart-shaped figures distributed over its face. (e) ... and so on IMO, the AC may overrule the TD ("on a point of fact") if it believes that what actually took place at the table is different from what the TD believed took place at the table. In order to judge that, the AC needs a description of the facts phrased with words whose meaning the TD and the AC agree on. In our hypothetical case, the TD and the AC cannot communicate using (a) above, since they do not agree on what the word "honour" means. If they also did not agree on what "the H10" means, (c) would be unusable too, but (d) might be useful. A ruling that says "there were actually only 9 large red heart-shaped figures on the card, and the number in each corner was actually 9, not 10" is a ruling on a point of fact, and with such a ruling the AC can overrule the TD (the AC might happen to have a videotape of the irregularity). I assume here that the TD and the AC agree on what a red heart-shaped figure is and on what the numbers "10" and "9" look like; i.e., that the ruling is not about what words mean but about what took place at the table. A ruling that says "the H10 is an honour" or one that says "the card with the 10 large red heart-shaped figures is not the H10, but the H9" is an interpretation of law. It matches the actual events that everybody agree on ("the facts") with words from the law book. Determining what the words of the law mean is law interpretation and, IMO, "a point of law" in the sense of L93B3. So such a ruling from an AC can only be a recommendation to the TD. In practice, the TD would typically use a statement like (b) above when presenting the case to the AC. Since (b) uses the words "inadvertently", "exposed", and "H10" which are terms from the law, (b) actually includes some interpretation of law - the TD has interpreted the law in order to describe the facts. In order for the AC to understand what happened, they must agree on this law interpretation (i.e., they must know what the TD means when he says "inadvertently" and "exposed" and "H10"); if they do not agree, then the TD and the AC are not communicating and we have a problem that may well result in an incorrect ruling unless somebody (TD, AC; or player) suspects that the facts are not described adequately and takes steps to get the facts described in less "interpreted" terms such as (c) or (d). What if our TD tries to describe the case to the TD using (a)? In that case, the AC does not know what actually happened at the table; but since the interpretation of the word "honour" is what the appeal is all about, everybody will know that (a) is useless as a description of the facts, and (b) will be used instead (or in a comment by a player). >If the definition of "honor" is a question of law rather than fact, why = not >the definitions of "exposed", "inadvertently" and "deliberate" (or, for >that matter, "heart" and "ten")? What I fail to see is where the "drawn >line" between #3 and #4 above comes from. The "drawn line" is between #3 and #4 simply because everybody involved agree that the words used in #3 describe the actual events correctly, but they do not agree that the words used in #4 do so. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 06:01:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 06:01:52 +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 GAA11504 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 06:01:45 +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 QAA15247 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 16:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970507160326.0069adf8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 16:03:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <3371b748.2037940@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:36 PM 5/7/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >On Wed, 07 May 1997 08:41:12 -0400, Eric Landau >wrote: >>At 08:02 PM 5/6/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >> >>>The facts that the TD have established here are: >>>(1) the H10 was exposed; >>>(2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; >>>(3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play. >>> >>>In order to rule, the TD needs to determine whether or not the H10 is >>>an honour. The law uses the word "honour". Determining what the law >>>means by a word is IMO interpretation of law, regardless of whether >>>the meaning of the word is defined elsewhere in the laws (as in this >>>case) or not. >> >>I still don't get it. Why not write: >> >>"The facts that the TD have established here are: >>(1) the H10 was exposed; >>(2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; >>(3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play; >>(4) the H10 is not an honor. > >I made the mistake of using words from the law to describe the facts. >And now I think I understand what it is you're saying; perhaps that'll >give me a better chance to convince you: > >Determining the "facts" is to determine what actually happened at the >table. The facts are not dependent on what words mean; the facts (the >events that took place at the table) do not change because we change >the meaning of the word "honour", "expose", or "inadvertent". > >The TD determines the facts, and can be overruled if the AC believes >that he has not determined the facts correctly. > >However, in order to describe the facts that the TD have determined, >he must use words. These words can be chosen at different levels of >abstraction, and they can use the same terminology as the laws or a >different terminology. They can be interpreted differently by >different people in any case. Examples of different ways that our TD >might describe what happened here are: >(a) West inadvertently exposed a non-honour. >(b) West inadvertently exposed the H10. >(c) West accidentally dropped the H10 on the table. >(d) West accidentally dropped a card on the table The side of the >card that was visible as it lay on the table had the number "10" and a >red heart-shaped figure in each corner. It also had 10 larger red >heart-shaped figures distributed over its face. >(e) ... and so on > >IMO, the AC may overrule the TD ("on a point of fact") if it believes >that what actually took place at the table is different from what the >TD believed took place at the table. In order to judge that, the AC >needs a description of the facts phrased with words whose meaning the >TD and the AC agree on. In our hypothetical case, the TD and the AC >cannot communicate using (a) above, since they do not agree on what >the word "honour" means. If they also did not agree on what "the H10" >means, (c) would be unusable too, but (d) might be useful. > >A ruling that says "there were actually only 9 large red heart-shaped >figures on the card, and the number in each corner was actually 9, not >10" is a ruling on a point of fact, and with such a ruling the AC can >overrule the TD (the AC might happen to have a videotape of the >irregularity). I assume here that the TD and the AC agree on what a >red heart-shaped figure is and on what the numbers "10" and "9" look >like; i.e., that the ruling is not about what words mean but about >what took place at the table. > >A ruling that says "the H10 is an honour" or one that says "the card >with the 10 large red heart-shaped figures is not the H10, but the H9" >is an interpretation of law. It matches the actual events that >everybody agree on ("the facts") with words from the law book. >Determining what the words of the law mean is law interpretation and, >IMO, "a point of law" in the sense of L93B3. So such a ruling from an >AC can only be a recommendation to the TD. > >In practice, the TD would typically use a statement like (b) above >when presenting the case to the AC. Since (b) uses the words >"inadvertently", "exposed", and "H10" which are terms from the law, >(b) actually includes some interpretation of law - the TD has >interpreted the law in order to describe the facts. In order for the >AC to understand what happened, they must agree on this law >interpretation (i.e., they must know what the TD means when he says >"inadvertently" and "exposed" and "H10"); if they do not agree, then >the TD and the AC are not communicating and we have a problem that may >well result in an incorrect ruling unless somebody (TD, AC; or player) >suspects that the facts are not described adequately and takes steps >to get the facts described in less "interpreted" terms such as (c) or >(d). > >What if our TD tries to describe the case to the TD using (a)? In >that case, the AC does not know what actually happened at the table; >but since the interpretation of the word "honour" is what the appeal >is all about, everybody will know that (a) is useless as a description >of the facts, and (b) will be used instead (or in a comment by a >player). > >>If the definition of "honor" is a question of law rather than fact, why not >>the definitions of "exposed", "inadvertently" and "deliberate" (or, for >>that matter, "heart" and "ten")? What I fail to see is where the "drawn >>line" between #3 and #4 above comes from. > >The "drawn line" is between #3 and #4 simply because everybody >involved agree that the words used in #3 describe the actual events >correctly, but they do not agree that the words used in #4 do so. First of all, my appreciation to Jesper for taking the time and effort to write such a complete and lucid explanation of his position. I have very nearly "got it", but not quite. Suppose a TD has adjusted the score for a pair from +420 to +170 in a L16 ruling. The pair appeals, and the TD describes his rationale to the AC as follows: (1) E took a very long huddle before he bid [whatever]. (2) W subsequently bid 4H. (3) Pass was a logical alternative to 4H for W. (4) E's huddle suggested 4H over pass. Clearly, only (1) and (2) describe what actually took place at the table. So does this mean that the AC may overrule the TD only if they determine that either (1) or (2) did not take place, and may not overrule merely because they disagree with either (3) or (4)? In real life, of course, I would never expect to see this ruling overturned on the basis of the AC's disagreeing with (1) or (2), whereas I would consider their overturning it based on a disagreement with either (3) or (4) to be routine. 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 May 8 07:37:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 07:37:47 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11958 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 07:37:40 +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 XAA22199 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 23:37:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph8.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.8]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA25654 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 23:37:32 +0200 Message-Id: <199705072137.XAA25654@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 23:38:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: "Defective"(?) tricks. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > At 11:50 AM 5/7/97 +1200, Michael wrote: > > >Law67B1(b) > > > >... "if the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he > >chooses any card to place among his played cards, and (penalty) he is > >deemed to have revoked on the defective trick ..." > > > >It's rather an odd sort of revoke when any card from your hand could have > >been legally played, but I understand the purpose (you could try to > >unsqueeze yourself in some circumstances by waiting for the next lead > >before deciding your discard.) > > > >So it seems declarer might have claimed a one trick penalty in the > >situation described (since there seems to be no place in the laws which > >deal with the infraction of declarer making a premature lead.) As I said, > >at the table we all knew what had happened and declarer graciously > >permitted me to supply a meaningless discard to trick 9. > > I think we can find justification in the Laws for not imposing a revoke > penalty here. While the Laws don't provide a penalty for declarer's having > continued to play prematurely, it was clearly an infraction, so the TD > could adjust to restore equity under L12A1 (in effect ruling that E was > "trapped" into revoking by declarer's infraction). > > L45G: "No player should turn his card face down until all four players have > played to the trick." > > It's rather a stretch, and I don't think I'd rule this way had I been a TD > called to the table (in the final analysis, each player should be held > responsible for knowing whether or not he has played to the previous > trick), but one could, especially if one follows the "Kaplan doctrine" of > "determine equity first, then find the right law". I think it is too much of a stretch. First, whenever there is a trick with a card missing, we can assume that someone has led somehow prematurely, yet L67 does not even mention punishing the player leading to the next trick. Second, if leading prematurely were a punishable offense (and 'should' in L45G does not suggest that it should be treated as such unless it happens repeatedly in contempt of advice not to), it is surely the spirit of the laws that the penalty is forfeited when then next hand plays to the trick. So I rule by the book: There is a time limit, admittedly arbitrary, after which L67B applies. This limit has been passed; L67B is in effect, and I rule that Eric's ruling is in conflict with L12B. I know: I am a stuffy bore, and my contribution to this debate isn't much fun. So, I shall switch to my current my pet subject: If Eric had been the TD and I was now the AC, would I then be authorized to overrule Eric in this way, or must I recommend to him that he change his ruling and respect his decision if chooses not to? In other words, do Eric and I disagree on a point of law or on something else, such as a fact or a bridge judgement? (See thread on L93B3) -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 07:50:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 07:50:15 +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 HAA11990 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 07:50:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1026435; 7 May 97 22:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:59:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <199705062310.AAA10805@snow.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Jesper > >I don't think this will wash: > >[snip] > >>>Scenario 2: >>>2A. That the 10 is an honor is not stated as, or in, a law, but as a >>>definition. Chapter I does not establish any law; it stipulates >>>definitions on which the laws (which begin in Chapter II) are based. >>>Rulings based on the Definitions are therefore rulings on points of fact, >>>not on points of law, and subject to the AC's power to overrule. > >>The facts that the TD have established here are: >>(1) the H10 was exposed; >>(2) the H10 was exposed inadvertently; >>(3) the H10 was not exposed through deliberate play. > >>In order to rule, the TD needs to determine whether or not the H10 is >>an honour. The law uses the word "honour". Determining what the law >>means by a word is IMO interpretation of law, regardless of whether >>the meaning of the word is defined elsewhere in the laws (as in this >>case) or not. > >>The AC may overrule the TD if it disagrees with (1), (2), or (3) above >>(points of fact), but not if it only disagrees with the TD's law >>interpretation following those facts. 2B. > >Or not 2B, that is... > >Determining what the law means by a word may or may not be the exclusive >right or duty of the Director; certainly in this country we do not believe >that it is. There have been many occasions on which the Appeals Committee >or the National Authority have taken the view that the Director's >interpretation of (and application of) the Laws or our Directives was >simply wrong, and I (whether as Chairman of Appeals or a member of the >ruling body) have adjusted scores on that basis. But when a word *is* >clearly defined in the [definition section of] the Laws, no Director and no >Appeals Committee has any business overrruling that definition. The H10 >*is* an honour, because the Laws say it is (just as the HA is an honour - >would you really stand by the ruling of a Director who "interpreted" the >Laws to mean that it was not?) So, if the H10 is exposed by a defender >other than by playing it to a trick, it *is* a major penalty card. While what you say in this paragraph is without doubt true it does not seem to take us any forrarder. Yes, a ruling that includes treating a ten as a non-honour *is* a wrong ruling, but that is not the question asked: do you have a right under the Laws as an AC to overrule the TD in this case? The National Authority is *not* the same: they have a right to overrule a TD on a point of law, so they should not be in this discussion. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 08:53:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:53:38 +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 IAA12235 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:53:32 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac0528600; 7 May 97 22:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 20:58:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) In-Reply-To: <336C9956.280@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> found the total of 172) are distributed over top-level Internet >> domains. The result shows that we cover quite large areas of the >> world: 28 different top-level domains are represented as follows: >Let's see : > >> au 9 Australia >> be 4 Belgium (who are the other two ?) >> ca 7 Canada >> ch 2 Switzerland >> de 7 Germany >> dk 4 Denmark (only 4 ?) >> es 1 Spain >> fi 1 Finland >> fr 1 France >> gl 1 Greenland ????????????? Hi Martin Ben Shalmi! >> hk 1 Hong Kong >> hr 1 Croatia >> il 3 Israel >> jp 1 Japan lu 0 Luxembourg Sadly, Nikos has left us: he said it was temporary. >> nl 7 Netherlands (I find this disproportionnally few) >> no 2 Norway >> nz 4 New Zealand >> pt 1 Portugal Hi Rui! >> ru 1 Russia (all alone to baffle us for weeks ...) Sergei Litvak, Chief TD RCBL, has posted here frequently. >> tr 1 Turkey >> tw 1 Taiwan >> gb 1 one provider using the correct ISO code Please explain? >> uk 14 = 15 UK >> com 58 34 I do not know: but of the other 24: S Africa 1 Netherlands 1 Canada 1 UK 3 USA 18 >> edu 9 6 I do not know: but of the other 3: Australia 1 USA 2 >> gov 1 Jeff Goldsmith, USA >> net 22 = (I presume) 96 USA 20 I do not know: but of the other 2: USA 2 >> org 6 3 I do not know: but of the other 3: Australia 1 USA 2 >> --------- >> Total 171 > >Meanwhile, Jesper answered me these already : > >> >> be 4 Belgium (who are the other two ?) >> boite@gambrinus.fpms.ac.be >> gi31451@glo.be >> hermandw@innet.be >> jan.boets@glo.be > >Ahh, Jan is already here - but I heard his computer is on the brink. >Wellcome Jean-Marc (pourquoi tu ne m'as rien dit ?) Jan Boets and Jean-Marc Boite? -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 09:27:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:27:24 +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 JAA12490 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:27:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac1124034; 7 May 97 22:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 22:07:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >On Fri, 2 May 1997, David Stevenson wrote: >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >(ii) who the biggest, or most frequent, posters are >> >> >> >> How do you define the biggest poster? Weight? Height? >> >> >In weight, you and I might qualify (and in volume). >> >> What about David Burn? >> >> >In height, Richard could very well take the title. >> >> How does he compare with Ian Muir? > >Assuming I am the Richard referred to (there are probably others >in a list of 172) I think he meant Richard Bley, who is tall, but I do not think as tall as Ian Muir. >Ht: 1.88 meters (6ft 2in for the metric disabled) 6ft 5in for Ian. >Wt: 91 Kg (200+lb) normally clothed (no jacket) How about the pounds-disabled? In other words, what is that in stones, please? >Could we be off-topic here :-) Certainly not. >Law 107Ba2: No left handed player over 1.85 meters tall may lead > trumps at trick 3 when sitting to declarer's left. In England we have two types of TDs: Real TDs and thin TDs. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 09:48:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:48:13 +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 JAA12728 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:48:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac0623734; 7 May 97 22:33 BST Message-ID: <4kwPJ7AxYOczEwwq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 21:29:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: pair suspended because ineligible to compete In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970505103652.006d395c@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:40 PM 5/4/97 +0000, Herman wrote: >>What is your opinion on the following problem which has just arisen in >>Belgium : >> >>We have an annual tournament for beginning players. >> >>At the end of the tournament, it turns out that one player was there >>under false pretences and should not have been allowed. >>(Actually, this is still under debate, but that's not your problem. >>Let's assume the AC upholds the decision that the pair was not >>eligible). >> >>The TD has decided that all scores for this pair and their opponents >>should be stricken (as if not played at all). >> >>I think this is acceptable in these conditions. Agreed ? >The Laws give SOs the authority to establish conditions of entry, and >therefore to determine how such conditions will be enforced and what >procedures will be used if they are violated, so this is clearly acceptable >under the Laws. Any determination (at least by me) as to whether it is >subjectively "acceptable" based on common sense or judgment would require >much more information about the circumstances. I am confused by this answer. Has the SO laid down conditions of contest? I read Herman's account that they had not in fact done so. You will have read David Martin's answer based on the EBU Director's Guide. That gives an authority to the EBU if they are the SO, and no- one can contest it with profit. If the SO in Herman's case has a regulation covering this, whether the same or differing from the EBU's regulation, then I believe that ends the matter. *But*, if this were the case, I do not believe that Herman would have asked the question. >>One pair of opponents however contests this decision. They had scored >>73% on the three boards at their table and they want to keep that score. >> >>I don't want to give them that, but I would like to hear your arguments >>for or against. >I see absolutely no grounds in the Laws for this pair to contest the SO's >decision (if they're basing their claim on the Laws, I'd ask which law they >think applies). There is no evidence that this was the SO's decision. Herman's account says >The TD has decided Are you suggesting that a TD's decision is not appealable? >OTOH, the Laws, which require SOs to hear appeals based on the Laws, do not >forbid SOs from hearing appeals on other grounds, such as fairness or >equity, so the SO may choose to hear this appeal if they want to. The only >way this pair could be deemed to have a right to such a hearing, however, >is if the SO's own regulations grant it -- the Laws do not. We differ. ------------- The original question, as I see it, is nothing to do with the rights of the pair to appeal: Herman asked what we thought of the decision. Assuming it is not covered by regulation, then natural justice can certainly be understood to apply in either direction. Herman says he does not want to give them their 73%. Why on earth not? In my view it is time that Lawmakers, TDs, ACs and people who run bridge tournaments remembered that making the game attractive to players should be an important part of their job. How do think you would feel if you won an event, and afterwards you were told that the results had been changed, reducing your score, and taking away your win, despite you doing *nothing* wrong whatever? You would be round to your solicitors, and who could blame you. I am a little surprised, Herman, that you say that you do not want to give this pair their 73% on the three boards. They did nothing wrong, so you *definitely* should *want* to give them their score. That does not mean that you can or should. Who has done something wrong? The player who played, certainly. That doesn't help anyone. Of course he is to be disqualified, but how does that help? What about the tournament organisers? Did they check the eligibility of players at or before the start? Why not? Of course, the answer is probably No, it was not practical to check them. But surely you should have more sympathy for the pair having their good boards removed without anything wrong on their part than for the tournament organisers who have erred, however reasonably. In my view, the tournament organisers should produce two lists, one including the scores of the guilty pair, and one excluding them. They should pay prizes out, and give masterpoints, based on each pair's better position in the two lists. If I am third in one list and second in the other, then I shall get second prize: if another pair is second and third respectively, they shall also get a second prize. However, you need a winner, and excluding a disqualified players' scores seems fairest. There seemed some doubt in the actual case, but this seems the best approach. Remember, whatever else, we must retain sympathy for pairs that do no wrong. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 11:02:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 11:02:53 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA13129 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 11:02:46 +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 DAA27077 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 03:02:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph138.ppp.dknet.dk (cph138.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.138]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA00902 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 03:02:39 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 03:02:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33742226.4163837@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507160326.0069adf8@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970507160326.0069adf8@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 Wed, 07 May 1997 16:03:26 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >First of all, my appreciation to Jesper for taking the time and effort = to >write such a complete and lucid explanation of his position. Thank you. >Suppose a TD has adjusted the score for a pair from +420 to +170 in a = L16 >ruling. The pair appeals, and the TD describes his rationale to the AC = as >follows: > >(1) E took a very long huddle before he bid [whatever]. >(2) W subsequently bid 4H. >(3) Pass was a logical alternative to 4H for W. >(4) E's huddle suggested 4H over pass. > >Clearly, only (1) and (2) describe what actually took place at the = table. >So does this mean that the AC may overrule the TD only if they determine >that either (1) or (2) did not take place, and may not overrule merely >because they disagree with either (3) or (4)? No - I would say that (3) and (4) are not matters of law interpretation, but of bridge judgement. And the AC is allowed to overrule the TD in matters of bridge judgement as well as in matters of fact. Matters of bridge judgement should indeed be the primary area of expertise for an AC. The statement "If (3) and (4) are both true, then an adjusted score is in order" is a a matter of law, but the question of whether (3) and (4) actually are true is a matter of bridge judgement. So the AC is the authority on whether (3) and (4) are true. If the AC finds (3) and (4) true, then it is a matter of law (where the TD is the authority) that the score should then be adjusted. >In real life, of course, I would never expect to see this ruling = overturned >on the basis of the AC's disagreeing with (1) or (2), whereas I would >consider their overturning it based on a disagreement with either (3) or >(4) to be routine. I agree completely with that, of course. Our discussion until now has had a tendency to focus on "point of fact" and "point of law" because Jens gave us an example in which there is no bridge judgement involved. In your example, the AC will (almost) never have any reason to doubt the TD's finding of fact ((1) and (2)). The AC members do not need to be experts in law, provided the TD explains to them that their primary job is to determine whether they agree on (3) and (4) and to cancel the score adjustment if they do not. To quote Jens' original posting: >L93B3 states that an AC may not overrule a TD in two cases: > * on a point of law or regulations > * on exercise of his disciplinary powers > >In these cases, the AC can (only) recommend to the TD that he change=20 >is ruling. In all other cases, the AC can overrule the TD. > >Overruling is thus authorized on many points, including: > * the facts established by the TD > * the bridge judgement exercised when deciding whether a side is=20 > damaged > * the bridge judgement exercised when determining what an adjusted=20 > score should be --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 11:02:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 11:02:56 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA13135 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 11:02:51 +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 DAA27089 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 03:02:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph138.ppp.dknet.dk (cph138.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.138]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA00908 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 03:02:42 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Defective"(?) tricks. Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 03:02:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33731f80.3485021@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199705072137.XAA25654@pip.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199705072137.XAA25654@pip.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 On Wed, 7 May 1997 23:38:11 +0200, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >I know: I am a stuffy bore, and my contribution to this debate isn't >much fun. Correct. However, though I do see Eric's point, I happen to agree with your boring contribution. >So, I shall switch to my current my pet subject: If Eric >had been the TD and I was now the AC, would I then be authorized to >overrule Eric in this way, or must I recommend to him that he change >his ruling and respect his decision if chooses not to? In other >words, do Eric and I disagree on a point of law or on something else, >such as a fact or a bridge judgement? (See thread on L93B3) I won't miss the chance to repeat my "all power to the TD" attitude in this question: this is a matter of law interpretation, and I firmly believe such matters to fall within the category "a point of law" in the sense of L93B3. You cannot overrule Eric - you can only recommend that he change his ruling. Unless, of course, the AC happens to also be the National Authority (as is often the case when Jens appears as an AC member in real life). The National Authority can overrule the TD on any point whatsoever. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 11:27:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 11:27:33 +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 LAA13227 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 11:27:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1116693; 8 May 97 2:23 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 22:54:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-withdrawn call after infraction In-Reply-To: <199705041438.QAA00412@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >> South opens 1NT (12-14), West bids 2C, N bids 2D. >> >> East now wakes up and says "Ooops, I should have alerted that." >> EW are playing 2C shows any one suited hand (expected response >> is 2D). >> >> NS play that over a natural 2C, 2D is natural. >> Over 2C showing a one-suited hand they play 2D shows 5+ hearts. >> >> Laws 16 and 21 say that North may withdraw his 2D call and >> substitute a pass, and South has the authorised information >> that North has diamonds. >> >> >> North wants the chance to play in 2D. If he passes, East will bid >> 2D conventionally, and West will correct. If he repeats 2D, it >> would now show hearts. >> >> It is possible that North knew all along that 2C was conventional, >> but he did not. >> >> 1. Is it authorised information that North did not know opponents' >> agreements? > >Yes, if he changes his call. He may only change his call if he was >not aware of the opponents' agreements (L21B1). That the rules work >this way is authorized information to everyone. Information from >his withdrawn call is authorized to South but not EW, and the fact >that he changes his call shows that he had not understood the >situation. > >> >> 2. May North now bid 2D to show diamonds and a wish to play in >> that contract? > >No. He cannot legally change his agreement with his partner about >the meaning of the 2D bid in the middle of an auction. But if he >wishes to play 2D, why not see what happens when he passes? It is UI >to EW that he has diamonds, so they must stay in 2D, since 2D is >almost certain to be a logical alternative to any other contract. If >NS can win 2D, they should have a better result by defending 2D. Why can he not bid 2D to show diamonds? It is based on his agreements with partner, namely that over a natural 2C, 2D is natural. Surely opponent's infractions and the conclusions therefrom are AI? >>Laws 16 and 21 only refer to change of call after a failure to alert. >>Here we have a change in meaning, depending on whether North knew >>E-W's methods or not. > >In my opinion, N should be allowed to *change* his natural 2D to a >transfer 2D, so that the fact that he has indeed changed is call >(in meaning, though not in syntax) is AI to S and UI to EW. Although >the situation is different, the footnote to L26 does address the >issue of repeating a call with a different meaning. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 20:29:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 20:29:02 +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 UAA14644 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 20:28:56 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA16946 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 06:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 06:28:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 7 May 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Richard Lighton wrote: [snip] > >Wt: 91 Kg (200+lb) normally clothed (no jacket) > > How about the pounds-disabled? In other words, what is that in > stones, please? > Of the 171 or 172 who read this list, I think it is only those who reside in the US portion of ACBLand who do not officially deal in Kg. Those may not know to multiply Kg by 2.20something to get to lb. Those who used to deal in that quaint unit of measure called "stones" (I am one) are expected to know that lb have to be divided by 14 :-) For the division disabled, 14 stone, 4 lb, and a few ounces. -- Richard Lighton | Anything worth doing is worth (lighton@idt.net) | doing badly. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | -- G. K. Chesterton > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 8 22:46:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 22:46:26 +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 WAA15082 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 22:46:20 +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 IAA17503 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:46:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970508084808.006c84c8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 08:48:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <199705071500.AA15673@POST.TANDEM.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:56 PM 5/7/97 -0700, Wally wrote: >I object to your implied premise that the TD is stating these portions of >his rationale as 'facts'. I believe that (1) and (2) are the facts that he >is relating, and that (3) and (4) are his rationale for ruling as he has. >Neither one is considered to be a 'fact'; neither one is a matter of 'law'; >they are presented as his basis for making the initial adjustment. IMO, the >adjudication of the case would (or perhaps 'should') be identical whether >or not the TD actually states points (3) and (4) -- they are matters of >bridge judgment and thus fitting grist for the AC mill. I didn't intend to imply that the TD represented these as "facts". These were simply the necessary factors for the adjustment to occur. The question at issue is which are facts (on which the AC has the final say) and which are "points of law" (on which the TD has the final say). 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 May 8 22:58:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 22:58:36 +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 WAA15137 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 22:58:31 +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 IAA17830 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970508090020.0069a18c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 09:00:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "Defective"(?) tricks. In-Reply-To: <199705071513.AA3385@POST.TANDEM.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:09 PM 5/7/97 -0700, Wally wrote: >> I know: I am a stuffy bore, and my contribution to this debate isn't >> much fun. So, I shall switch to my current my pet subject: If Eric >> had been the TD and I was now the AC, would I then be authorized to >> overrule Eric in this way, or must I recommend to him that he change >> his ruling and respect his decision if chooses not to? In other >> words, do Eric and I disagree on a point of law or on something else, >> such as a fact or a bridge judgement? (See thread on L93B3) > >I think it is clear that this is a matter of law, not of fact. I think >it would be *most* interesting to see Eric, with his penchant (which I >share) for Kaplan's edict, "First seek equity, then find the Law(s) which >support such a rulng", twist slowly, slowly in the wind at the AC's request. >Absent any equity consideration, I agree completely with your ruling. With >equity being considered, I'd probably be digging through the FLB to see if >there were any other way to construe the situation. Perhaps this makes me >not a stuffy bore but a wide-eyed idealist, but probably exactly as much >as you seriously meant your self-aimed comment. > >Of course, if Eric refuses to acquiesce and you are after the full and >complete pound of flesh, I believe that as AC you may refer the dispute to >the National Laws Commission. I'd enjoy that hearing, too! Hey, guys, you're picking on me. Unfair! In reply to Michael's original question, I said (or at least thought I said) that a follower of Kaplan's "equity first, law second" philosopy could find a way to stretch the Laws to attempt to justify a ruling of "result stands." I also said (or at least thought I said) that were I a TD called to the table I would not rule that way. I am NOT a believer in Kaplan's approach, and agree with Jens and Wally that what they are calling "Eric's ruling" is inappropriate. So c'mon guys, I'm already in enough trouble with BLML over Law 93B3! 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 May 8 23:36:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 1997 23:36:53 +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 XAA15278 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 23:36:47 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id JAA26364 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970508093826.00687e60@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 09:38:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <33742226.4163837@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970507160326.0069adf8@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507160326.0069adf8@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper has provided the last piece of the puzzle, and now I do "get it". We have been distinguishing "points of law" from "points of fact", while "bridge judgment", which is not a term used in the Laws, is neither. But L93 doesn't use the term "point of fact" either; it says that the TD is the final authority on points of law, and leaves all other judgments to the AC. So Jesper's view is that, in the various situations that have been brought into this discussion, the AC has the power to definitively overrule the TD based on disagreement about either (a) what actually happened at the table, or (b) matters of bridge judgment, which, in the terms we've been using, are also treated as "facts". That seems reasonable and consistent, and I am now convinced that it is correct. That said, I must confess that my canonical conversion will have no practical effect on my future actions as a TD or AC member. Common practice "on the ground" in North America (somewhat modified at NABCs, which have a pre-appeal screening procedure handled by TDs, but I don't direct or serve on ACs at NABCs) is to allow any word out of a TDs mouth to be the subject of an appeal, and to allow the AC to overrule whatever the TD has decided with little or no consideration given to L93B3. I have learned from BLML that this is a uniquely North American way of doing things. It is certainly not the only case, or even one of the more important cases, in which ACBL practice is (perforce arguably) at variance with the Laws. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 9 03:55:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 1997 03:55:56 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA18858 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 03:55:49 +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 TAA10141 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 19:55:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph58.ppp.dknet.dk (cph58.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.58]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA22394 for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 19:55:41 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 19:55:39 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33730c8e.1136133@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970507160326.0069adf8@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970505095301.006d9c8c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507084112.006c325c@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970507160326.0069adf8@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970508093826.00687e60@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970508093826.00687e60@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 Thu, 08 May 1997 09:38:26 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Common >practice "on the ground" in North America (somewhat modified at NABCs, >which have a pre-appeal screening procedure handled by TDs, but I don't >direct or serve on ACs at NABCs) is to allow any word out of a TDs mouth= to >be the subject of an appeal, and to allow the AC to overrule whatever = the >TD has decided with little or no consideration given to L93B3. I have >learned from BLML that this is a uniquely North American way of doing >things. I have to admit that it does sometimes happen in Denmark that an AC overrules a TD on points of law with no consideration given to the restrictions in L93B3. Many ACs and, I fear, several TDs are not aware of L93B3. I can only hope that the AC's ruling is typically right when this happens, and take this discussion as a reminder that perhaps we need an educational effort concerning the relations between ACs and TDs. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 9 07:35:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 1997 07:35:02 +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 HAA20063 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 07:34:53 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1121501; 8 May 97 22:32 BST Message-ID: <5avv2YAMRgczEwzM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 17:50:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >On Wed, 7 May 1997, David Stevenson wrote: >> Richard Lighton wrote: > >[snip] >> >Wt: 91 Kg (200+lb) normally clothed (no jacket) >> >> How about the pounds-disabled? In other words, what is that in >> stones, please? >> >Of the 171 or 172 who read this list, I think it is only those who reside >in the US portion of ACBLand who do not officially deal in Kg. Those >may not know to multiply Kg by 2.20something to get to lb. We in the UK do not officially deal in Kg. People's weight is still given in stones: but not in pounds. >Those who used to deal in that quaint unit of measure called "stones" >(I am one) are expected to know that lb have to be divided by 14 :-) I am one who does so currently. I do not expect to know how to convert imperial measures, which I believe to be anachronistic. >For the division disabled, 14 stone, 4 lb, and a few ounces. Aaaah: so you are not as heavy as me. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 9 12:48:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 1997 12:48:53 +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 MAA21619 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 12:48:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1116012; 9 May 97 3:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 01:45:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <33730c8e.1136133@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >I have to admit that it does sometimes happen in Denmark that an AC >overrules a TD on points of law with no consideration given to the >restrictions in L93B3. Many ACs and, I fear, several TDs are not >aware of L93B3. > >I can only hope that the AC's ruling is typically right when this >happens, and take this discussion as a reminder that perhaps we need >an educational effort concerning the relations between ACs and TDs. I have not been as interested as usual in this thread. The actual distinction between points of law and other things is not one that really interests me. But now it occurs to me: if you have something that *might* be a point of law, do you let the AC decide whether it is, because it requires judgement to decide, or do you let the TD decide, because it is a point of law whether something is a point of law? -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June Liz wins first County event! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 9 20:52:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 1997 20:52:27 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA23452 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 20:52:22 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-476.innet.be [194.7.14.176]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01021 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 12:50:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3371D53C.3D87@innet.be> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 14:29:32 +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: pair suspended because ineligible to compete References: <4kwPJ7AxYOczEwwq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > The original question, as I see it, is nothing to do with the rights > of the pair to appeal: Herman asked what we thought of the decision. > Assuming it is not covered by regulation, then natural justice can > certainly be understood to apply in either direction. Herman says he > does not want to give them their 73%. Why on earth not? > I understand your concern. > In my view it is time that Lawmakers, TDs, ACs and people who run > bridge tournaments remembered that making the game attractive to players > should be an important part of their job. How do think you would feel > if you won an event, and afterwards you were told that the results had > been changed, reducing your score, and taking away your win, despite you > doing *nothing* wrong whatever? You would be round to your solicitors, > and who could blame you. > I understand your reasoning. > I am a little surprised, Herman, that you say that you do not want to > give this pair their 73% on the three boards. They did nothing wrong, > so you *definitely* should *want* to give them their score. That does > not mean that you can or should. > OK, I may *want* to so so, but I feel I *cannot* > Who has done something wrong? The player who played, certainly. That > doesn't help anyone. Of course he is to be disqualified, but how does > that help? What about the tournament organisers? Did they check the > eligibility of players at or before the start? Why not? Of course, > the answer is probably No, it was not practical to check them. But > surely you should have more sympathy for the pair having their good > boards removed without anything wrong on their part than for the > tournament organisers who have erred, however reasonably. > > In my view, the tournament organisers should produce two lists, one > including the scores of the guilty pair, and one excluding them. They > should pay prizes out, and give masterpoints, based on each pair's > better position in the two lists. If I am third in one list and second > in the other, then I shall get second prize: if another pair is second > and third respectively, they shall also get a second prize. > Now that would be very difficult. > However, you need a winner, and excluding a disqualified players' > scores seems fairest. > > There seemed some doubt in the actual case, but this seems the best > approach. Remember, whatever else, we must retain sympathy for pairs > that do no wrong. > OK, let's assume we agree to eliminate all the results by the unauthorised pair, but we keep the good ones for their opponent's. Probably, the pair that appeals has two tops and a bottom. Do we give them 100% on two boards and scratch the other ? Many other pairs have scored one good board against this pair. Do we keep those results for everybody ? What percentage do we use to decide whether or not to keep a particular score ? 50% ? The opponent's score ? before or after the scratching of some results ? And remember : every leaving or scratching of scores influences all other results. And so on. It really is not practical. I do sympathise with the opponents, and since they are novices, I really would like to accomodate them. I cannot be expected to explain to them fully the intricacies of the problem, and I don't want to be hautain and say "that's the way it's done and now go away". I am at a dilemna. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 9 20:52:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 1997 20:52:23 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA23446 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 20:52:16 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-476.innet.be [194.7.14.176]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01008 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 12:50:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3371C821.5F3D@innet.be> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 13:33:37 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Defective"(?) tricks. References: <199705072137.XAA25654@pip.dknet.dk> <33731f80.3485021@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > I agree - of course with his conclusion that the AC may not overrule the TD on such an issue. But then : > > Unless, of course, the AC happens to also be the National Authority > (as is often the case when Jens appears as an AC member in real life). > The National Authority can overrule the TD on any point whatsoever. On what grounds is that ??? I would say that by L93C, the national authority may overrule the AC, but again, not the TD. Of course it would be unwise for any TD to refuse to follow Jens's advice (whether Jens be wearing the hat of player, AC, NA, or God Himself), unless that TD would be called HDW or DWS. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 00:49:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 00:49:22 +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 AAA26923 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 00:49:14 +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 KAA03708 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 10:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03667; Fri, 9 May 1997 10:48:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:48:57 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705091448.KAA03667@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The actual distinction between points of law and other things As a straw man definition, how about this: a point of law is a question you can answer without seeing the hands or interviewing witnesses? "Is the H-T an honor?" is clearly in this category, while "Was pass a LA?" is clearly not, so the definition works in the obvious cases. Does it handle the tricky cases? > But now it occurs to me: if you have something that *might* be a point > of law, do you let the AC decide whether it is, because it requires > judgement to decide, or do you let the TD decide, because it is a point > of law whether something is a point of law? I think the question is a point of law. It is one under the above definition, and the result accords with my own understanding of what ought to be the roles of TD and AC. > From: Herman De Wael > I would say that by L93C, the national authority may overrule the AC, > but again, not the TD. There is no such qualification in the text of L93C, in marked contrast to the text of L93B. I gather that custom and usage support the national authority overruling the TD. The point is quite explicit in the ACBL edition, which includes a phrase saying that further appeal on a point of law goes to the National Laws Commission. It appears that the national authority may not overrule the TD on exercise of his L91A authority and arguably not under L91B. It seems fairly clear to allow overruling an interpretation of law; otherwise there would be no way to overrule a decision that was simply a mistake. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 02:30:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 02:30:54 +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 CAA27651 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 02:30:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1120324; 9 May 97 17:04 BST Message-ID: <9JteSwBEPzczEwCd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 15:25:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: pair suspended because ineligible to compete In-Reply-To: <3371D53C.3D87@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> The original question, as I see it, is nothing to do with the rights >> of the pair to appeal: Herman asked what we thought of the decision. >> Assuming it is not covered by regulation, then natural justice can >> certainly be understood to apply in either direction. Herman says he >> does not want to give them their 73%. Why on earth not? >I understand your concern. >> In my view it is time that Lawmakers, TDs, ACs and people who run >> bridge tournaments remembered that making the game attractive to players >> should be an important part of their job. How do think you would feel >> if you won an event, and afterwards you were told that the results had >> been changed, reducing your score, and taking away your win, despite you >> doing *nothing* wrong whatever? You would be round to your solicitors, >> and who could blame you. >I understand your reasoning. >> I am a little surprised, Herman, that you say that you do not want to >> give this pair their 73% on the three boards. They did nothing wrong, >> so you *definitely* should *want* to give them their score. That does >> not mean that you can or should. >OK, I may *want* to so so, but I feel I *cannot* >> Who has done something wrong? The player who played, certainly. That >> doesn't help anyone. Of course he is to be disqualified, but how does >> that help? What about the tournament organisers? Did they check the >> eligibility of players at or before the start? Why not? Of course, >> the answer is probably No, it was not practical to check them. But >> surely you should have more sympathy for the pair having their good >> boards removed without anything wrong on their part than for the >> tournament organisers who have erred, however reasonably. >> >> In my view, the tournament organisers should produce two lists, one >> including the scores of the guilty pair, and one excluding them. They >> should pay prizes out, and give masterpoints, based on each pair's >> better position in the two lists. If I am third in one list and second >> in the other, then I shall get second prize: if another pair is second >> and third respectively, they shall also get a second prize. >Now that would be very difficult. Why? Seems easy enough to me! >> However, you need a winner, and excluding a disqualified players' >> scores seems fairest. >> >> There seemed some doubt in the actual case, but this seems the best >> approach. Remember, whatever else, we must retain sympathy for pairs >> that do no wrong. >OK, let's assume we agree to eliminate all the results by the >unauthorised pair, but we keep the good ones for their opponent's. >Probably, the pair that appeals has two tops and a bottom. >Do we give them 100% on two boards and scratch the other ? > >Many other pairs have scored one good board against this pair. >Do we keep those results for everybody ? >What percentage do we use to decide whether or not to keep a particular >score ? 50% ? The opponent's score ? before or after the scratching of >some results ? > >And remember : every leaving or scratching of scores influences all >other results. > >And so on. > >It really is not practical. That is nothing to do with what I suggested, so presumably I have not made myself clear. There are *only* two possibilities. Either you leave in all the pair's scores, or none of them. Nothing else is possible. I merely suggested both as an alternative to one of them. >I do sympathise with the opponents, and since they are novices, I really >would like to accomodate them. I cannot be expected to explain to them >fully the intricacies of the problem, and I don't want to be hautain and >say "that's the way it's done and now go away". > >I am at a dilemna. You have to decide a winner, and taking the scores away is fairest. But for prizes and masterpoints, I still cannot see the difficulty in producing two results lists and giving people the benefit of their better position. There is no suggestion of going through board by board. People accept apparent injustices rather more readily if they are clearly laid down. So I suggest for the future that *everyone* who reads this makes sure that any SOs that they deal with have a regulation covering this. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June Liz wins first County event! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 02:59:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 02:59:17 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA27785 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 02:59:10 +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 SAA10015 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 18:59:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph62.ppp.dknet.dk (cph62.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.62]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA01477 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 18:58:59 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 18:58:58 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33754e9a.13649506@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: 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 Fri, 9 May 1997 01:45:50 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I have not been as interested as usual in this thread. The actual=20 >distinction between points of law and other things is not one that=20 >really interests me. Not an unreasonable point of view - the distinction is not one we need every day, to put it mildly. > But now it occurs to me: if you have something that *might* be a point= =20 >of law, do you let the AC decide whether it is, because it requires=20 >judgement to decide, or do you let the TD decide, because it is a point=20 >of law whether something is a point of law? In case you've overlooked it, let me repeat my opinion of that from a recent reply to a posting from David Burn: Jesper wrote: >By the way, the decision as to whether something is a "point of law" >is IMO clearly a point of law itself, so it is the TD himself who has >to determine whether the AC is allowed to overrule him on a specific >point. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 02:59:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 02:59:21 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA27791 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 02:59:15 +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 SAA10019 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 18:59:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph62.ppp.dknet.dk (cph62.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.62]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA01489 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 18:59:06 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Defective"(?) tricks. Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 18:59:05 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33785788.15935293@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199705072137.XAA25654@pip.dknet.dk> <33731f80.3485021@pipmail.dknet.dk> <3371C821.5F3D@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <3371C821.5F3D@innet.be> 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, 08 May 1997 13:33:37 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> Unless, of course, the AC happens to also be the National Authority >> (as is often the case when Jens appears as an AC member in real life). >> The National Authority can overrule the TD on any point whatsoever. > >On what grounds is that ??? > >I would say that by L93C, the national authority may overrule the AC, >but again, not the TD. L93C says nothing at all about what the national authority can do or cannot do. My interpretation is that the national authority can do anything it wants to, since that is what we would normally expect an appeals authority to be allowed to do unless the laws specify otherwise. Your interpretation seems to be that "further appeal" means that what is being taken to the NA (a candidate to the abbreviation list, David?) is not the TD & AC ruling combined, but only the AC ruling, and that the NA can therefore only do what the AC can do. I find both interpretations consistent with the wording of L93, but it seems to me that my interpretation is obviously the useful and natural one. In fact, I find it absolutely necessary to have some ultimate authority on law interpretation; if we did not have national authorities on law interpretation, there would be nobody to set precedents of law interpretation, and each TD would effectively be on his own. It would be impossible to tell a stubborn TD that his ruling was wrong, since there would be no authority with the power to determine that the ruling was wrong. Assume that the Danish First Division is playing. Half the teams play in one location with TD A, and the other half play elsewhere with TD B. Assume that the same irregularity occurs on the same hand in these two different locations, ruled by the two different directors. If they read the law differently, and none of them can be convinced that they're wrong, and there is no appeals authority to overrule them, then we'd have to live with the fact that the laws of the game effectively depends on which TD happens to be ruling. This is not acceptable; we want the same law interpretation throughout the country, at least for those players who take the trouble to appeal to the NA. With a NA that has the authority to say which law interpretation is correct in Denmark, we can tell TDs who ask what the correct ruling in some case is: "this matter came up in an appeals case in 1993, and the NA ruled that a trick should be transferred; you should therefore do the same in that situation". If we did not have such a national authority, we'd have to say things like "in the First Division in 1993, this matter came up twice, and TDs A and B insisted on different rulings, so we have no authoritative precedent to help you rule similar situations". In other words, we really need some authority who can overrule a TD's incorrect ruling. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 04:06:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 04:06:59 +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 EAA28443 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 04:06:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0509124; 9 May 97 17:04 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 15:39:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Defective"(?) tricks. In-Reply-To: <3371C821.5F3D@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >I agree - of course with his conclusion that the AC may not overrule the >TD on such an issue. > >But then : >> Unless, of course, the AC happens to also be the National Authority >> (as is often the case when Jens appears as an AC member in real life). >> The National Authority can overrule the TD on any point whatsoever. >On what grounds is that ??? > >I would say that by L93C, the national authority may overrule the AC, >but again, not the TD. Law 93 - Procedures of Appeal B. Appeals Committee Available If a committee is available, 1. Appeal Concerns Law The Chief Director shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee. 3. Adjudication of Appeals In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling. C. Appeal to National Authority After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority. The preceding remedies referred to in L93C include everything that has gone before. Thus points of law may be first appealed to the Chief TD [L93B1], then to an AC [L93B1], who may recommend but not overturn [L93B3]. Having been through that route, L93C takes you to the National Authority. *But* L93C does not say that the NA may not overturn a point of Law [L93B3 only refers to the Committee]. So a point of law may be overturned by the NA. Of course, this is as it should be. >Of course it would be unwise for any TD to refuse to follow Jens's >advice (whether Jens be wearing the hat of player, AC, NA, or God >Himself), unless that TD would be called HDW or DWS. Rarely would any TD *ignore* any AC. However, the Law gives him the right, and that is sensible where there will be cases when an AC is chosen for its bridge ability and not its knowledge of the laws. In England, when an AC thinks a point of law is involved, they often call the TD back to ask him what the law is. If an AC thought the TD had erred, it would be more likely that they would recall him and discuss it, and L73B3 seems to allow for that as the correct procedure. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June Liz wins first County event! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 06:16:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 06:16:57 +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 GAA29350 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 06:16:50 +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 PAA04868 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 15:16:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA14550; Fri, 9 May 97 15:16:38 CDT Message-Id: <9705092016.AA14550@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Fri, 09 May 97 15:16 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 09 May 1997 18:58:58 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Fri, 9 May 1997 01:45:50 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > >> But now it occurs to me: if you have something that *might* be a point >>of law, do you let the AC decide whether it is, because it requires >>judgement to decide, or do you let the TD decide, because it is a point >>of law whether something is a point of law? > >In case you've overlooked it, let me repeat my opinion of that from a >recent reply to a posting from David Burn: >Jesper wrote: >>By the way, the decision as to whether something is a "point of law" >>is IMO clearly a point of law itself, so it is the TD himself who has >>to determine whether the AC is allowed to overrule him on a specific >>point. >-- >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark That is the same view expressed by Edgar Kaplan, in a pamphlet he wrote in 1975 explaining the changes in the Laws that occurred at that time. -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 07:41:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 07:41:56 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29812 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 07:41:49 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA22203 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 17:41:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03968; Fri, 9 May 1997 17:41:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 17:41:30 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705092141.RAA03968@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L40E2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I know, I know, everyone thought they had seen the last of this. Well, almost, but not quite, my friends! I took the liberty of asking for an opinion from the Bridge World, and got the following rather interesting response. Three comments from me, and then I'll shut up. 1) There's something here for everyone. 2) I think everyone agrees on the intention of the laws, at least in most cases. 3) You sure can tell what was written by professional writers! Q. Does Law 40E2 prohibit looking at the opponents' convention card when it is not your turn, or is it silent on the subject? May I share your answer with Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML)? (By the magic of cut and paste, L40E2:) 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own [footnote about no aids to memory or calculation]. A. You may share this with anyone, but when doing so please state it is not an official opinion of any entity. Kaplan and Rubens disagree on some meanings. If a sign says, "One-hour parking on Sundays" Kaplan thinks it means no parking on other days while Rubens thinks it means full parking allowed (the default in absence of any sign) on other days. Not surprisingly, therefore, Kaplan thinks that 40E2 implies you cannot look at other times during auction and play while Rubens thinks the law is silent on that subject. [Note that this difference is purely a matter of semantics. K. and R.agree that the intention of the laws is, and should be, "Except for certain weird exceptions, during auction and play you may look at opponents' card only at your turn." or the like. Kaplan says it was not written that way because it was not meant to be that strong. You can easily guess which of these two has degrees in mathematics and which does not. Each thinks the other's posiiton on this matter is ridiculous.] From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 10:47:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 10:47:54 +1000 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA00683 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 10:47:48 +1000 From: DANDEE4727@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id UAA01141; Fri, 9 May 1997 20:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 20:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970509204535_908577932@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm a professional writer and have degrees in mathematics. In my mind Kaplan is a nonpareil. This is the first time in reading all of his material that I have ever had the gall to disagree. I can only believe that he is reporting the mindset of the authors of the original laws in this area. I t doesn't in my mind, however, change what Steve W. thinks the words say. HTML is the greatest thing I have ever experienced in 6 decades of directing. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 13:24:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 13:24:16 +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 NAA01102 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 13:24:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab0614189; 10 May 97 4:20 BST Message-ID: <4l2fp6EqY+czEwwx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 04:06:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Defective"(?) tricks. In-Reply-To: <33785788.15935293@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was first !!!!!!! Jesper Dybdal wrote on Friday, 9 May at 17.59.05: >Your interpretation seems to be that "further appeal" means that what >is being taken to the NA (a candidate to the abbreviation list, >David?) David Stevenson wrote on Friday, 9 May at 15.39.05: > The preceding remedies referred to in L93C include everything that has >gone before. Thus points of law may be first appealed to the Chief TD >[L93B1], then to an AC [L93B1], who may recommend but not overturn >[L93B3]. Having been through that route, L93C takes you to the National >Authority. *But* L93C does not say that the NA may not overturn a point >of Law [L93B3 only refers to the Committee]. So a point of law may be >overturned by the NA. Of course, this is as it should be. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June Liz wins first County event! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 10 19:21:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 19:21:30 +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 TAA01950 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 19:21:20 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wQ8Qh-0000gw-00; Sat, 10 May 1997 09:27:03 +0000 Received: from default ([195.99.47.250]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id KAA25566; Sat, 10 May 1997 10:21:09 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199705100921.KAA25566@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 10:21:01 +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 [snip] I wrote: >>But when a word *is* >>clearly defined in the [definition section of] the Laws, no Director and no >>Appeals Committee has any business overrruling that definition. The H10 >>*is* an honour, because the Laws say it is (just as the HA is an honour - >>would you really stand by the ruling of a Director who "interpreted" the >>Laws to mean that it was not?) So, if the H10 is exposed by a defender >>other than by playing it to a trick, it *is* a major penalty card. and you wrote: >Indeed it is. But we are discussing the very hypothetical situation >in which the TD says "as I read the law, the H10 is not an honor" >while the AC says "as we read the law, the H10 is an honor" _and_ the >AC is unable to convince the TD. >If you allow the AC to overrule our hypothetical stubborn and stupid >TD here, then you must of course also allow the AC to overrule the TD >when the roles are reversed: assume that the TD says, quite correctly, >that the H10 is an honor and the AC says that it is not. If you give >the AC the power to overrule the TD in such cases, you give the AC the >power to change a correct law ruling into a wrong one. That is so, of course, but my belief is that it should be so. The question is really: "what is a fact?" Suppose that a pair came to your Appeals Committee in order to appeal this ruling: "Our opponent dropped the D9 on the table - quite by accident, but face up - and the Director ruled that he could pick it up again because Law 50 did not apply." "Why, Mr Chief Tournament Director, did you do this?" "Because I am a Scottish tournament director, and for historical reasons we in Scotland do not regard the D9 as a card." [Historical reasons will be explained on request to non-British or ignorant British readers.] "Since the D9 is not a card, it is not a card prematurely exposed, so Law 50 is inapplicable. That is my reading of the Laws, and I will not change my mind, whatever the Appeals Committee may say." Now, it should in my opinion be open to the Appeals Committee to say that the D9 is "in fact" a card. To say that it is only a card because Law 1 of the game says that it is, and Law 1 is open to interpretation, flies in the face of reason. Similarly, to say that the D9 is an honour (or that the H10 is not) is to state a fact, not to "interpret" the definitions section of the Laws. Where our human experience, external definitions, and the Laws of the game all agree on a point ("the D9 is a card", "the CK is an honour"), it appears reasonable to me that the point is a matter of fact and not a matter of Law. I suppose that this discussion is rooted in the differing views that we hold (even within Europe, never mind other countries) of the powers of the Director and Appeals Committees. My impression is that you believe that Directors should have more autonomy than I believe they should have, which is borne out more strongly by the next point I'd like to make. [snip] You wrote: >By the way, the decision as to whether something is a "point of law" >is IMO clearly a point of law itself, so it is the TD himself who has >to determine whether the AC is allowed to overrule him on a specific >point. This seems to me a dangerous approach. In my opinion, all statements of the form "X is Y" are statements of fact unless they contain words whose meaning is subjective. Put more simply, statements of the form "X is Y" are statements of fact where X and Y are both unqualified nouns. Thus: "a 4S bid is reasonable" is not a fact - "reasonable" is a subjective word. But: "X is a point of law" is a statement of fact which is either true or false, and in justice its truth or falsity should not be determined by the person who has ruled on the basis of X in the first place. In effect, your approach gives the Tournament Director (or, via Law 93, the Chief TD at any rate) sole power to determine what may or may not be altered by Appeals Committees. It appears to leave the Appeals Committee as arbiters of bridge judgement *and bridge judgement only*, and I do not believe that this is their role. Certainly, Appeals Committees exist *primarily* to allow questions concerning a player's judgement-based actions to be evaluated by expert players. But, in my opinion, they exist also to prevent absurd and contra-factual rulings from changing the result of an event. It may be that in other countries, the National Authority has power to amend the result of an event restrospectively, with all that this entails (redistribution of prizes, replay of matches where the "wrong" team has won a knockout match etc.) In England, we have found this to be an impractical approach. The National Authority cannot and does not meet at every event; often it does not meet until many weeks after the events which lead to a Law 93C appeal have taken place. If a Gold Cup semi-final were to be decided on the basis that a Director had ruled (a) that the H10 was not an honour and (b) that he would not change his mind on the recommendation of the on-site Appeals Committee, then the wrong team would play in the final (and the final would not be replayed once the National Authority had concluded that the Director was wrong). Perhaps in this regard our organisation is at fault. But I believe, at any rate, that our view of the powers of an Appeals Committee allows players the best practical chance to have the game judged correctly. With best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 11 02:06:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 1997 02:06:18 +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 CAA05650 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 02:06:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0513612; 10 May 97 16:15 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 16:05:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <199705100921.KAA25566@snow.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Hi Jesper >you wrote: >>By the way, the decision as to whether something is a "point of law" >>is IMO clearly a point of law itself, so it is the TD himself who has >>to determine whether the AC is allowed to overrule him on a specific >>point. > >This seems to me a dangerous approach. In my opinion, all statements of the >form "X is Y" are statements of fact unless they contain words whose >meaning is subjective. Put more simply, statements of the form "X is Y" are >statements of fact where X and Y are both unqualified nouns. Thus: "a 4S >bid is reasonable" is not a fact - "reasonable" is a subjective word. But: >"X is a point of law" is a statement of fact which is either true or false, >and in justice its truth or falsity should not be determined by the person >who has ruled on the basis of X in the first place. > >In effect, your approach gives the Tournament Director (or, via Law 93, the >Chief TD at any rate) sole power to determine what may or may not be >altered by Appeals Committees. It appears to leave the Appeals Committee as >arbiters of bridge judgement *and bridge judgement only*, and I do not >believe that this is their role. Certainly, Appeals Committees exist >*primarily* to allow questions concerning a player's judgement-based >actions to be evaluated by expert players. But, in my opinion, they exist >also to prevent absurd and contra-factual rulings from changing the result >of an event. The trouble with this approach, David, is that if we follow your view then the reverse may be true. If you give the power to the AC to amend a TD's decision on whether a thing is a point of Law, then they can overturn the TD on such a matter. While this might be a good idea when the TD has made a dog's breakfast of his reading of the Laws, that is balanced by the times that an AC misunderstands the Laws, which IMO is far more likely, if for no better reason than ACs are generally not composed of people trained in the Laws. Apart from Appeals to the National Authority, the Law book has split the final arbiter between the TD and the AC. The split seems fairly well placed to me. "... except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers." To make the decision whether a matter is a point of law has to be the province of one or the other, and saying a TD may go wrong if it is his decision is completely balanced by the AC who may go wrong if it is theirs. It seems to me that whether a thing is a point of law *is* a point of law. Where the split is should just about never matter. But when the time comes that it actually does, I shall feel happier if the decision is based on the above. >It may be that in other countries, the National Authority has power to >amend the result of an event restrospectively, with all that this entails >(redistribution of prizes, replay of matches where the "wrong" team has won >a knockout match etc.) In England, we have found this to be an impractical >approach. The National Authority cannot and does not meet at every event; >often it does not meet until many weeks after the events which lead to a >Law 93C appeal have taken place. If a Gold Cup semi-final were to be >decided on the basis that a Director had ruled (a) that the H10 was not an >honour and (b) that he would not change his mind on the recommendation of >the on-site Appeals Committee, then the wrong team would play in the final >(and the final would not be replayed once the National Authority had >concluded that the Director was wrong). Perhaps in this regard our >organisation is at fault. But I believe, at any rate, that our view of the >powers of an Appeals Committee allows players the best practical chance to >have the game judged correctly. Where a point of law is at issue, then I do *not* believe that it is the best practical chance to let the AC overrule the TD if the TD will not accept their recommendation. -- David Stevenson Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Liverpool, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June Liz wins first County event! See my Homepage for details From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 11 11:37:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 1997 11:37:46 +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 LAA07336 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 11:37:37 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wQNfc-0006zp-00; Sun, 11 May 1997 01:43:28 +0000 Received: from default ([195.99.45.163]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA17109; Sun, 11 May 1997 02:37:19 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199705110137.CAA17109@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 02:37:05 +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 David You wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > >Hi Jesper > >you wrote: > > >>By the way, the decision as to whether something is a "point of law" > >>is IMO clearly a point of law itself, so it is the TD himself who has > >>to determine whether the AC is allowed to overrule him on a specific > >>point. I wrote: > >This seems to me a dangerous approach. In my opinion, all statements of the > >form "X is Y" are statements of fact unless they contain words whose > >meaning is subjective. Put more simply, statements of the form "X is Y" are > >statements of fact where X and Y are both unqualified nouns. Thus: "a 4S > >bid is reasonable" is not a fact - "reasonable" is a subjective word. But: > >"X is a point of law" is a statement of fact which is either true or false, > >and in justice its truth or falsity should not be determined by the person > >who has ruled on the basis of X in the first place. > > > >In effect, your approach gives the Tournament Director (or, via Law 93, the > >Chief TD at any rate) sole power to determine what may or may not be > >altered by Appeals Committees. It appears to leave the Appeals Committee as > >arbiters of bridge judgement *and bridge judgement only*, and I do not > >believe that this is their role. Certainly, Appeals Committees exist > >*primarily* to allow questions concerning a player's judgement-based > >actions to be evaluated by expert players. But, in my opinion, they exist > >also to prevent absurd and contra-factual rulings from changing the result > >of an event. You then wrote: >The trouble with this approach, David, is that if we follow your view > then the reverse may be true. If you give the power to the AC to amend > a TD's decision on whether a thing is a point of Law, then they can > overturn the TD on such a matter. While this might be a good idea when > the TD has made a dog's breakfast of his reading of the Laws, that is > balanced by the times that an AC misunderstands the Laws, which IMO is > far more likely, if for no better reason than ACs are generally not > composed of people trained in the Laws. > Apart from Appeals to the National Authority, the Law book has split > the final arbiter between the TD and the AC. The split seems fairly > well placed to me. "... except that the committee may not overrule the > Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his > disciplinary powers." To make the decision whether a matter is a point > of law has to be the province of one or the other, and saying a TD may > go wrong if it is his decision is completely balanced by the AC who may > go wrong if it is theirs. It seems to me that whether a thing is a > point of law *is* a point of law. > > Where the split is should just about never matter. But when the time > comes that it actually does, I shall feel happier if the decision is > based on the above. I agree that it should "just about never matter". For practical purposes, should the question ever arise in an event where you (or Jesper) were Chief TD and I was Chairman of Appeals, I would imagine that you and I would consult long and earnestly about what powers we actually had. You might say: "this is a point of law; my decision [as Chief TD] is final [given that I will not accept any Appeals Committee recommendation to change my mind]." I might say: "this is a point of fact; the Appeals Committee may therefore overrrule you for the purposes of determining the result of this event." You are as likely - perhaps more likely, for you and Jesper are trained professionals, while I am not - to be right. (In the case where the question was: "is the H10 an honour?" we would not even have the discussion, but in other cases we might.) But I firmly believe that Appeals Committees exist (in part) to check the excesses of over-zealous TDs. I also believe that no Director should have the power to say, in effect: "This is the Law, because I say so, and as far as the result of this event [or match, or whatever] is concerned, my ruling is final." Part of my rationale for this is that I believe that *all* referees' decisions should be subject to review by whatvever means are available (I simply cannot understand the arguments of those who object to the use of the "third umpire" in cricket, or to its introduction in football or any other sport.) The other part is that my sense of justice simply will not allow any individual, not even a Chief Tournament Director, to have the power to say: "This is the Law because I say that it is." Tyrannies work (go to Singapore if you don't believe me), but they do not deserve to, and I would rather put up with the mess involved than wear a yoke. I wrote: > > >It may be that in other countries, the National Authority has power to > >amend the result of an event restrospectively, with all that this entails > >(redistribution of prizes, replay of matches where the "wrong" team has won > >a knockout match etc.) In England, we have found this to be an impractical > >approach. The National Authority cannot and does not meet at every event; > >often it does not meet until many weeks after the events which lead to a > >Law 93C appeal have taken place. If a Gold Cup semi-final were to be > >decided on the basis that a Director had ruled (a) that the H10 was not an > >honour and (b) that he would not change his mind on the recommendation of > >the on-site Appeals Committee, then the wrong team would play in the final > >(and the final would not be replayed once the National Authority had > >concluded that the Director was wrong). Perhaps in this regard our > >organisation is at fault. But I believe, at any rate, that our view of the > >powers of an Appeals Committee allows players the best practical chance to > >have the game judged correctly. > and you wrote: > Where a point of law is at issue, then I do *not* believe that it is > the best practical chance to let the AC overrule the TD if the TD will > not accept their recommendation. I guess that this amounts to no more than our differing views about the powers of the TD and the AC. I re-state my opinion that no one has the right to say simultaneously: "This is my ruling on a point of Law", and: "This is a point of Law because I say so." Facts is facts, and that's a fact. With best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 12 05:44:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 1997 05:44:37 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12346 for ; Mon, 12 May 1997 05:44:32 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by ns.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA09426 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 21:44:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph28.ppp.dknet.dk (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA22794 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 21:44:20 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 21:44:18 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <338220e0.18624831@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199705110137.CAA17109@snow.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199705110137.CAA17109@snow.btinternet.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 Sun, 11 May 1997 02:37:05 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >But I firmly believe that Appeals >Committees exist (in part) to check the excesses of over-zealous TDs. Yes, indeed. When I say that the TD is assumed to be good at law interpretation, of course I do not mean that he will never make a stupid mistake "on a point of law" that the AC will discover. But every TD, even one who is not very good at law interpretation, should have an even more important qualification: he should have an open mind and be willing to listen when an AC (or anybody else) tries to tell him that he has made an incorrect ruling. Assuming that the TD and the AC members are sensible persons who can discuss the matter in a civilized way, the question of who has the final word will matter only when the interpretation really is not obvious, and in that case I would generally put my money on the TD. >I >also believe that no Director should have the power to say, in effect: >"This is the Law, because I say so, and as far as the result of this = event >[or match, or whatever] is concerned, my ruling is final." I don't think he has the power to say "because I say so". But (ignoring the NA for the moment) he does have the power to say "This is how I interpret the law, and since you haven't been able to convince me that my interpretation is wrong, as far as the result of this event [or match, or whatever] is concerned, my ruling is final." Yes, this means that a TD can enforce a wrong ruling, at least until it gets to the NA. But it happens only when the TD practically sabotages the event deliberately - and if a TD wants to do that, there any many other ways of doing it anyway. So I don't see it as a problem that the TD has that power. I am a TD, after all :-). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 12 05:44:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 1997 05:44:29 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12339 for ; Mon, 12 May 1997 05:44:23 +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 VAA09422 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 21:44:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph28.ppp.dknet.dk (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA22789 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 21:44:16 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 21:44:15 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33812075.18517897@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199705100921.KAA25566@snow.btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <199705100921.KAA25566@snow.btinternet.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 Sat, 10 May 1997 10:21:01 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >"Because I am a Scottish tournament director, and for historical reasons= we >in Scotland do not regard the D9 as a card." [Historical reasons will be >explained on request to non-British or ignorant British readers.]=20 This ignorant non-British reader would appreciate an explanation. >"Since >the D9 is not a card, it is not a card prematurely exposed, so Law 50 is >inapplicable. That is my reading of the Laws, and I will not change my >mind, whatever the Appeals Committee may say." This is not really law interpretation. The TD even admits it himself by referring to Scottish history instead of the international laws of bridge - he is not even trying to interpret the laws of the game, but ignoring them. The SO should fire him immediately for not doing his job. Which raises a side question: can the SO effectively overrule the TD by firing him halfway through the handling of an appeal? If, on the other hand, the TD argued persistently that the words of L1 clearly states that the D9 is not a card, it would be a law interpretation. The TD is doing his job, however bad we may find his interpretation: he is really convinced that L1 says that the D9 is not a card, and the AC cannot make him change his mind. There are only two parts available in such a dispute - one is the AC and the other is the TD. When there is no BLML member available to tell them who is "obviously wrong" :-), it cannot be considered "obvious" who is wrong. One or the other part must have priority in such disputes. You say the AC should have the priority - as I understand you, your primary reason for that is that the AC consists of more than one member and therefore is not so vulnerable to idiocy as a single-person TD. On the other hand, David S and I believe the TD should have priority because a TD is assumed to be good at law interpretation. Having to choose between these two perfectly reasonable points of view, L93B3 have chosen to give the priority to the TD. When choosing your preference here, you should remember that the real-life cases of unresolvable law interpretation disagreement between AC and TD are not typically cases where one part is completely wrong. A much more realistic example is the other we've discussed: is a non-honour shown deliberately (because the player thought he had revoked on the previous trick) but not played, a minor or major penalty card? In such matters, I prefer a trained TD to have the final word if the TD and AC cannot find agreement - and that is why I like the choice of L93B3. But what if the "D9 is not a card" dispute did happen in practice after all? Well, in Denmark at least, I expect that the chairman of the national appeals committee in this rather unusual situation would take the responsibility of giving a "National Authority" ruling immediately over the phone without consulting the other members first. And if the chairman was unavailable, any other member would probably do it. The TD's further career as a TD might be short. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 12 21:23:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 1997 21:23:03 +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 VAA14715 for ; Mon, 12 May 1997 21:22:47 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id PAA27840; Mon, 12 May 1997 15:20:37 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199705121120.PAA27840@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "David Burn" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Date: Sun, 11 May 97 14:44:37 +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: L93B3, second attempt Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Everybody knows what we are speaking about... On my opinion AC may not overrule the TD on the point of Law or Regulation. But don't forget about L93B1. If we have bad TD Chief TD may overrule him. If our Chief TD also thinks that "H10 is not an honour" there is nothing to do in this event. But I hope that this problem will never arise in future. Sincerly, 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 May 12 22:08:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 1997 22:08:14 +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 WAA14859 for ; Mon, 12 May 1997 22:08:08 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1012173; 12 May 97 13:03 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC5ED1.35452130@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 12 May 1997 12:37:09 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: New L25B - 40% rule Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 12:37:04 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 18 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE Wael wrote: > SNIP > >>c) Butler system : > >>average : (620*3 + 170*5) / 8 = 338.75 = 340 > >>score for pair 1 : +7, corrected to -3 >>score for pair 21 : -7 In England, average plus and average minus at Butler scoring is +2 and -2 IMPs respectively, this being the square root of 4X where X is the number of times that the board is played and where X=1 for Butler, X=2 for teams of four, X=4 for teams of eight, etc. > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 14 09:27:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 1997 09:27:03 +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 JAA27067 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 09:26:52 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wRR3Y-0001hE-00; Tue, 13 May 1997 23:32:32 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-46-25.btinternet.com [195.99.46.25]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA01332; Wed, 14 May 1997 00:26:35 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199705132326.AAA01332@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Sergei Litvak" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 00:26:26 +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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Sergei You wrote: > > Everybody knows what we are speaking about... > > On my opinion AC may not overrule the TD on the point of Law or Regulation. > But don't forget about L93B1. If we have bad TD Chief TD may overrule him. > If our Chief TD also thinks that "H10 is not an honour" there is nothing to do in this > event. But I hope that this problem will never arise in future. > You and I both know that "this problem" will never arise. Of course, there is no TD in the world (and certainly there is no Chief TD in the world) who does not believe that the H10 is an honour. But I think that we have a difference of opinion. I believe that an Appeals Committee *could* overrule a Chief TD who thought that the H10 was not an honour. I think that anything that is defined in the Definitions section of the Laws is a fact, not a "point of Law or Regulation". This is probably no more than simple arrogance. You (and Jesper Dybdal, and David Stevenson) are TDs, and very good TDs into the bargain. I am not a trained TD; I am simply a poor soul who sits on a lot of Appeals Committees. But I believe, as I have always believed, that "if we have a bad TD, the Chief TD may overrule him, *and if we have a bad Chief TD, the Appeals Committee may overrule him.* In England, we have Max Bavin, and no Appeals Committee has ever overruled him. In Denmark, they have Jesper Dybdal, and I don't expect that any AC has ever overruled him either. In Russia, they have Sergei Litvak, and it would be a mild winter in Omsk before anyone overruled him :) But, if it came to the crunch, I believe that if a Chief TD said one thing and an expert AC said the other, it should be the AC's vote that carried the day. TDs, after all, have a professional interest in being right. ACs have none - they are the truly disinterested parties. With best wishes David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 14 20:09:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 1997 20:09:42 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA28849 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 20:09:30 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-438.innet.be [194.7.14.138]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA11243 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 12:07:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <337836D9.7758@innet.be> Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 10:39:37 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New L25B - 40% rule References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > In England, average plus and average minus at Butler scoring is +2 and > -2 IMPs respectively, this being the square root of 4X where X is the > number of times that the board is played and where X=1 for Butler, X=2 > for teams of four, X=4 for teams of eight, etc. > > > > How does the EBU bring this in line with L86A : 'in IMP play, that score is 3 IMP.' I have once calculated that on average, a 60% score in a tournament corresponds to about +2.5 IMP per board, so the 3IMP is probably too much. But I've never found a good reason to depart from the 3IMPs of L86. And the square-root formula must come from somewhere, but why ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 14 21:45:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 1997 21:45:43 +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 VAA29426 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 21:45:37 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id EAA22371; Wed, 14 May 1997 04:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma022325; Wed, 14 May 97 04:45:55 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id EAA09985 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 May 1997 04:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705141154.EAA09985@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 14 May 97 12:41:49 GMT Subject: Re: New L25B - 40% rule Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For once I may be able to make a useful contribution. Herman DE WAEL said >David Martin wrote: >> >> >> In England, average plus and average minus at Butler scoring is +2 and >> -2 IMPs respectively, this being the square root of 4X where X is the >> number of times that the board is played and where X=1 for Butler, X=2 >> for teams of four, X=4 for teams of eight, etc. >> > >> > >How does the EBU bring this in line with L86A : The EBU's view is that Law 86A applies only to IMP scoring within Law 78B. Butler scoring is within Law 78D (special scoring methods). The EBU has published its scoring methods, etc., as required by Law 78D. In fact the 2 imps comes from the table published at 12.24 of the EBU's Supplement to the EBL Tournament Directors' Guide. It does *not* arise from the square root formula, which applies in some other circumstances. The fact that, sensibly, it gives the same result, is more than just coincidence, of course. BTW, as far as I know, the EBU do not use match pointing within Law 78A for any of its events. Instead it uses a(nother) special method under Law 78D. This special method is much like ordinary match points, but works to one decimal place (e.g. if artificial adjusted scores arise, or otherwise boards are not played the same number of times). Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 14 22:39:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA29577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 1997 22:39:02 +1000 Received: from worldcom.ch (ns.worldcom.ch [194.51.96.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA29572 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 22:38:56 +1000 Received: from Default by worldcom.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04046; Wed, 14 May 1997 14:39:33 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 14:39:33 +0200 Message-Id: <199705141239.OAA04046@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Y. Calame" Subject: 1997 law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A letter from the EBL: EUROPEAN BRIDGE LEAGUE BILL PENCHARZ President 6th May 1997 TO ALL NATIONAL CONTRACT BRIDGE ORGANIZATIONS Dear Mr President, Re: The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 The new International Code ( Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997) will be finalized and promulgated by the World Bridge Federation by the 1st July. At that time the new Code will also be agreed upon by the Portland Club, the European Bridge League and the American Contract Bridge League. It is the very strong wish of the World Bridge Federation and the European Bridge League that the new Code comes into force in all NCBOs by the 1st October 1997. The 1997 World Championships (Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup) will be played under the new Code. Sent with this letter are the following: 1. A print containing both the 1987 and the 1997 Codes, showing the major changes. 2. A separate print of the 1997 Code. 3. A PC disc containing the 1997 Code in Word 6 format and text format. Will you please note that the new Code is not yet finalized. There are, for example, some spelling errors and inconsistencies which need to be corrected. In addition, there may be some other small, final adjustments to the text. However, there will not be any material alterations. In preparation for introducing the new Code by 1st October 1997 the EBL strongly recommends that you start translating the new Code immediately and all Tournament Directors and players in your Federation start to familiarize themselves with the changes that have taken place. I shall write again in July with a final copy of the 1997 Code, as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation, and agreed upon by the EBL and other relevant bodies. Yours sincerly Bill Pencharz President From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 15 07:29:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 1997 07:29:19 +1000 Received: from internauts.ca ([205.236.185.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA04778 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 07:29:12 +1000 Received: from mail.internauts.ca ([205.236.185.103]) by internauts.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17064 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 17:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 17:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199705142123.RAA17064@internauts.ca> X-Sender: ddobridge@mail.internauts.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: ddobridge@internauts.ca (bob scruton) Subject: 1997 law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >A letter from the EBL: > >EUROPEAN BRIDGE LEAGUE > >BILL PENCHARZ President > >6th May 1997 > >TO ALL NATIONAL CONTRACT BRIDGE ORGANIZATIONS > >Dear Mr President, > >Re: The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997 > >The new International Code ( Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997) will >be finalized and promulgated by the World Bridge Federation by the 1st July. > >At that time the new Code will also be agreed upon by the Portland Club, the >European Bridge League and the American Contract Bridge League. > >It is the very strong wish of the World Bridge Federation and the European >Bridge League that the new Code comes into force in all NCBOs by the 1st >October 1997. > >The 1997 World Championships (Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup) will be played >under the new Code. > >Sent with this letter are the following: > >1. A print containing both the 1987 and the 1997 Codes, showing the major >changes. > >2. A separate print of the 1997 Code. > >3. A PC disc containing the 1997 Code in Word 6 format and text format. > >Will you please note that the new Code is not yet finalized. There are, for >example, some spelling errors and inconsistencies which need to be >corrected. In addition, there may be some other small, final adjustments to >the text. However, there will not be any material alterations. > > In preparation for introducing the new Code by 1st October 1997 the EBL >strongly recommends that you start translating the new Code immediately and >all Tournament Directors and players in your Federation start to familiarize >themselves with the changes that have taken place. > >I shall write again in July with a final copy of the 1997 Code, as >promulgated by the World Bridge Federation, and agreed upon by the EBL and >other relevant bodies. > >Yours sincerly > >Bill Pencharz >President > > This seems odd as the A.C.B.L. has already published the new rules that are to come into effect next Tuesday. Does this mean that further changes are possible? Bob Scruton From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 15 09:34:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:34:45 +1000 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05303 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 09:34:40 +1000 From: DANDEE4727@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id TAA13027; Wed, 14 May 1997 19:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 19:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970514193103_-631739238@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: ddobridge@internauts.ca, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-05-14 17:56:07 EDT, ddobridge@internauts.ca (bob scruton) writes: << This seems odd as the A.C.B.L. has already published the new rules that are to come into effect next Tuesday. Does this mean that further changes are possible? >> That would be nice to know - I direct next Wednesday From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 15 14:34:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 1997 14:34:37 +1000 Received: from ozemail.com.au (server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net [203.108.7.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA06427 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 14:34:31 +1000 From: ardelm@ozemail.com.au Received: from oznet07.ozemail.com.au (oznet07.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.122]) by ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15060 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 14:34:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.63.221.36]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA12466 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 14:34:25 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 14:34:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199705150434.OAA12466@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_863732297==_" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law25B: 40% rule X-Attachments: C:\EMAIL\BLAW.DOC; Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --=====================_863732297==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_863732297==_ Content-Type: application/msword; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BLAW.DOC" In the original posting of Herman de Wael, the correct adjustment procedure for scores under the new Law 25B was addressed. It seems clear that using MP scoring, it will be natural to simply multiply the actual MP score of the offending pair by 0.4 to give their adjusted score. In Butler scored pairs, a further complication may arise. The example hand provided IMP scores ranging between +7 IMP and -7 IMP. The offending pair scored +7 IMP , which HdW suggests should convert to -3 (or -2 IMP as suggested by later correspondents), after the average minus ceiling is imposed. Although not explicitly stated, it seems that a linear shifting of the offending pair's Butler scores is proposed. Thus, if they had scored -7 IMP before adjustment, their new score would shift down to -16 IMP. This seems to be a rather severe penalty, and certainly greater relatively than would happen under match points. A fairer method might be to simply transform the range Xh (upper Butler score) to Xl (lower Butler score), into the new range ( -2 to Xl) to give an adjusted score Y' in the form Y' = -2 - { (-2-Xl ) . (Xh - Y) / (Xh - Xl) }, (Y' < -2) where Y is the unadjusted score. This is a similar transformation to that which occurs for match points. However, when Xl is greater than -2, or when Xh = Xl ( a flat board), the adjusted score would simply revert to average minus. Tony Musgrove --=====================_863732297==_-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 15 20:11:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 1997 20:11:37 +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 UAA07256 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 20:11:31 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id DAA22446; Thu, 15 May 1997 03:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma022418; Thu, 15 May 97 03:12:09 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id DAA25809 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 May 1997 03:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705151021.DAA25809@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 15 May 97 11:07:43 GMT Subject: David Stevenson Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson's hard disk crashed last weekend. He thus has no access to BLML for the time being. He hopes to be back on line in a week or so. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 16 06:00:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 May 1997 06:00:25 +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 GAA12404 for ; Fri, 16 May 1997 06:00:18 +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 QAA05266 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 16:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06255; Thu, 15 May 1997 16:00:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 16:00:22 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705152000.QAA06255@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: ardelm@ozemail.com.au > In the original posting of Herman de Wael, the correct adjustment > procedure for scores under the new Law 25B was addressed. It > seems clear that using MP scoring, it will be natural to simply > multiply the actual MP score of the offending pair by 0.4 to give > their adjusted score. I'm afraid I missed the original posting. An alternate interpretation would be to give the offending pair their earned score if lower than 40% or 40% if their score is higher. This has the virtue of being easy to calculate. Can anyone see a reason to prefer one interpretation over the other? From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 16 17:12:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 May 1997 17:12:04 +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 RAA14399 for ; Fri, 16 May 1997 17:11:57 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1005945; 16 May 97 8:00 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC6174.43558530@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 15 May 1997 21:09:23 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law25B: 40% rule Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 21:09:16 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 13 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk EXCUSE THE CAPITAL LETTERS BUT I AM HAVING A FEW PROBLEMS REMOTE CONTROLLING A MACHINE WITH THE CAPS LOCK ON! MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ABOVE RULE IS THAT THE OFFENDERS SCORE IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 40%> *NOT* THAT THERE IS A MANDATORY PENALTY EVEN IF THE OFFENDER ACHIEVES A BAD SCORE THUS THE OFFENDERS GET THE LOWER OF 40% OF THE AVAILABLE MATCHPOINTS OR THEIR SCORE ON THE BOARD IN MATCHPOINTED EVENTS IN BUTLER THEY GET THE LOWER OF MINUS TWO IMPS OR THEIR ACTUAL SCORE< HENCE A PAIR WITH A SCORE OF MINUS SEVEN DO NOT GET THEIR SCORE FUTHER REDUCED> From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 17 14:56:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA21443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 May 1997 14:56:22 +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 OAA21438 for ; Sat, 17 May 1997 14:56:16 +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 AAA22883 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 May 1997 00:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 00:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970517005535_-1767134430@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Fwd: Law25B: 40% rule Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Re: Law25B: 40% rule Date: 97-05-17 00:55:05 EDT From: KRAllison To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Yes, I can see a reason.. the law is intended to allow for a maximum of 40%, but no minimum score. It gives an opportunity to improve a zero to something more, but in no case more than 40%. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 01:17:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 01:17:14 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06562 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 01:17:04 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 19 May 1997 16:16:21 +0100 Date: Mon, 19 May 97 16:16:20 BST Message-Id: <19828.9705191516@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: ardelm@ozemail.com.au, hermandw@innet.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi There are two interpretations of how the "at most 40%" score in the new Law 25B should be calculated. [ I am just thinking about match points for the moment. ] Herman suggests a "ceiling", a score of x match points becomes x (if x <= 0.4) or 0.4 (if x >= 0.4) Tony Musgrove suggests "multiply the actual MP score of the offending pair by 0.4 to give their adjusted score." i.e. "scaling" a score of x becomes an adjusted score of 0.4x . Discussion of the new law in the UK had always assumed "ceiling" but I do not have the new laws so I do know if the "scaling" interpretation is a plausible interpretation (or even "the" correct interpretation). The purpose of this post is to suggest that the "scaling" interpretation is better as it ensures both side are still playing the same game. Under the "ceiling" interpretation the declaring and the defending sides are not playing the same game: the Law25B-offending side is only interested in winning enough tricks for 40% but the non-offending side still wants as many tricks as possible*. Under the "scaling" interpretation the declaring and defending side still want as many tricks as possible*. This allows the non-offending side not to have to cope with (and not be damaged by) strange tactics adopted the offending side who are playing a (slightly) different game. Robin * really: to adopt a trick winning strategy that will maximise their match point score. Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 04:34:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 04:34:21 +1000 Received: from worldcom.ch (ns.worldcom.ch [194.51.96.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA07584 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 04:34:14 +1000 Received: from Default by worldcom.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA27871; Mon, 19 May 1997 20:34:53 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:34:53 +0200 Message-Id: <199705191834.UAA27871@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Y. Calame" Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16,16 19.05.97 BST, Robin wrote: >Discussion of the new law in the UK had always assumed "ceiling" but I >do not have the new laws so I do know if the "scaling" interpretation >is a plausible interpretation (or even "the" correct interpretation). Ceiling looks right, the law: 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 (see Law 12C1). (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. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 08:55:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 08:55:05 +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 IAA08866 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 08:54:59 +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 SAA29665 for ; Mon, 19 May 1997 18:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA08663; Mon, 19 May 1997 18:54:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:54:46 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705192254.SAA08663@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: misinformation?? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's the situation: a first time partnership agree as follows: 1) Anything not agreed is natural. 2) Over strong 1C, a 1D bid shows hearts or both black suits. (There is no discussion of strong 2C.) Well, you can guess what happens: (2C)-2D- , and the explanation given is simply "It's natural." Is this misinformation? (Of course the bidder does not in fact have diamonds, else we would never hear about the hand.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 10:36:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 10:36:22 +1000 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA09347 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 10:36:17 +1000 Received: from [131.217.5.53] (mg4-53.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.53]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA00386 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 10:36:13 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:36:13 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: misinformation?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Here's the situation: a first time partnership agree as follows: >1) Anything not agreed is natural. >2) Over strong 1C, a 1D bid shows hearts or both black suits. >(There is no discussion of strong 2C.) > >Well, you can guess what happens: (2C)-2D- , and the explanation given >is simply "It's natural." There is no specific partnership agreement in this case, so the explanation is correct, and there will be no direct penalty... > >Is this misinformation? (Of course the bidder does not in fact have >diamonds, else we would never hear about the hand.) This does not constitute an infraction - only if partner had not disclosed the full extent of partnership agreement or experience would that be the case. Here partner is obviously as much in the dark as the opponents. , The 2D bidder is then obliged to ignore the unauthorised information gained from his parter's incorrect explanation. (See Laws 75 and 40 for examples of incorrect explanantion ie misinformation, versus mistaken bid) Sadly, often inexperienced players will come leaping to the rescue with an explanation of their own bid "...so as not to deceive the opponents" when in fact they are making available to their partner the grossest unauthorised information. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 11:00:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 11:00:56 +1000 Received: from server.inti.co.id (root@server.inti.co.id [202.159.25.204]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09462 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 11:00:38 +1000 Received: from syahrial.inti.co.id ([202.159.116.45]) by server.inti.co.id (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA21096 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 07:53:20 +0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970520011011.0067eb14@inti.co.id> X-Sender: ali@inti.co.id X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 08:10:11 +0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Syahrial Ali Subject: Waiting for 1997 law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am still waiting for the posting of the new law (1997 law). If someone has it please posting to bridge-laws. Thank you for your kind attention. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 11:05:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 11:05:40 +1000 Received: from buttons.ihug.co.nz (buttons.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09514 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 11:05:35 +1000 Received: from port1574-Auck.ihug.co.nz (port1574-Auck.ihug.co.nz [203.29.172.50]) by buttons.ihug.co.nz (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id MAA14939; Tue, 20 May 1997 12:04:26 +1300 Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:04:26 +1300 Message-Id: <199705192304.MAA14939@buttons.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) From: patrick carter Subject: Re: misinformation?? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:54 19/05/97 -0400, you wrote: >Here's the situation: a first time partnership agree as follows: >1) Anything not agreed is natural. >2) Over strong 1C, a 1D bid shows hearts or both black suits. >(There is no discussion of strong 2C.) > >Well, you can guess what happens: (2C)-2D- , and the explanation given >is simply "It's natural." > >Is this misinformation? (Of course the bidder does not in fact have >diamonds, else we would never hear about the hand.) > Provided the above was adequately detailed on either their system card or system notes (or possibly, but somewhat unusually, confirmed by another player present when they made an oral agreement) then I would rule misbid and therefore no redress (which presumably is being sought O/W we wouldn't be reaading this) I don't believe they are required to say "our agreement is natural, but just in case there is some confusion, this is our defence to a strong ONE club" If the above is not the case then I would rule misinformation and consider how the opponents had been damaged and what redress, if any, was required. Both members of the partnership stating this is our agreement is not, IMHO, what is meant by Law 75D, when it talks about 'evidence to the contrary' Patrick Carter Director, Auckland BC Chairman, Laws & Ethics, NZCBA From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 11:34:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 11:34:18 +1000 Received: from pimaia2y.prodigy.com (pimaia2y.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09608 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 11:34:12 +1000 Received: from mime3.prodigy.com (mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.253.27]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA31640; Mon, 19 May 1997 21:34:08 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id VAB69478; Mon, 19 May 1997 21:31:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199705200131.VAB69478@mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 21:31:05, -0500 To: ali@inti.co.id, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Waiting for 1997 law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am still waiting for the posting of the new law (1997 law). If someone has it please posting to bridge-laws. Thank you for your kind attention. ============================== I am not quite sure how all the copyrights work, but it seems to me that in order to put the Laws on the web, the ACBL and the Portland Club had to give permission. The ACBL has already decided that it will not allow the 1997 laws to be put on the ACBL web site until the cost of printing the books has been recovered. In other words, they want to at least break even. Since I assume that books will be purchased for club and tournament directors who need the books, I hope this does not mean more than 6 months. If you want to see the laws now, buy the book. You can communicate with the ACBL through acbl@compuserve.com Sales (U.S.) 800-264-2743 Sales (Canada) 800-264-878 $5.95 for non-ACBL members, $5.35 for ACBL members $3.50 shipping for North America. Kent doesn't know what it is to ship to other continents. I do know that even though the ACBL has decided the new laws will go into effect May 27th, that date is NOT the same for the EBL and WBF. At first we thought the WBF was not going to meet until Tunisia? (Bermuda Bowl). But there was a note posted to this list said they were going to try to resolve everything in a meeting in June. -Chyah, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 12:50:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 12:50:01 +1000 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA09845 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 12:49:54 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA26268; Mon, 19 May 1997 22:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 22:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970519224817_-929353057@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: misinformation?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>s this misinformation? (Of course the bidder does not in fact have diamonds, else we would never hear about the hand.)<< In my opinion, the information given was incomplete. The two agreements should have been restated for the benefit of the opponents so they could draw their own conclusions with full information. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 21:47:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 21:47:46 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA11133 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 21:47:40 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-150.innet.be [194.7.10.150]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26980 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 13:44:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33818EE5.14C4@innet.be> Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:45:41 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule References: <19828.9705191516@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > Hi > > There are two interpretations of how the "at most 40%" score in the new > Law 25B should be calculated. > > [ I am just thinking about match points for the moment. ] > > Herman suggests a "ceiling", a score of x match points becomes > x (if x <= 0.4) > or 0.4 (if x >= 0.4) > > Tony Musgrove suggests "multiply the actual MP score of the offending > pair by 0.4 to give their adjusted score." i.e. "scaling" > a score of x becomes an adjusted score of 0.4x . > > Discussion of the new law in the UK had always assumed "ceiling" but I > do not have the new laws so I do know if the "scaling" interpretation > is a plausible interpretation (or even "the" correct interpretation). > > The purpose of this post is to suggest that the "scaling" > interpretation is better as it ensures both side are still playing the > same game. Under the "ceiling" interpretation the declaring and the > defending sides are not playing the same game: the Law25B-offending > side is only interested in winning enough tricks for 40% but the > non-offending side still wants as many tricks as possible*. Under the > "scaling" interpretation the declaring and defending side still want as > many tricks as possible*. This allows the non-offending side not to > have to cope with (and not be damaged by) strange tactics adopted the > offending side who are playing a (slightly) different game. > > Robin > > * really: to adopt a trick winning strategy that will maximise their > match point score. > Very good analysis. I would also prefer the scaling as it insures a correct way of playing. But I'd think the 40% scaling would then be too harsh, and 80% might be better. Also, that would have resulted in a very much different wording of the new Law, and I don't think that this was the Lawmakers' intent. Shall we consider this recommendation no 1. for the 2007 Laws ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 20 22:34:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 22:34:53 +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 WAA11270 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 22:34:47 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id IAA29032 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 08:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970520083538.006a5520@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 08:35:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: misinformation?? In-Reply-To: <199705192254.SAA08663@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:54 PM 5/19/97 -0400, Steve wrote: >Here's the situation: a first time partnership agree as follows: >1) Anything not agreed is natural. >2) Over strong 1C, a 1D bid shows hearts or both black suits. >(There is no discussion of strong 2C.) > >Well, you can guess what happens: (2C)-2D- , and the explanation given >is simply "It's natural." > >Is this misinformation? (Of course the bidder does not in fact have >diamonds, else we would never hear about the hand.) Sounds like one of those "you had to be there"s, but offhand I'd say no. If I had had the discussion as stated above with a pickup partner I'd certainly think that I had agreed unambiguously that it was natural. I would not expect that an agreement about defense to a strong club would have any bearing on what I'd be playing over a strong 2C (perhaps I'm conditioned by the fact that in some of my established partnerships 1D would be conventional over a strong club, but 2D would always be natural over 2C). Assuming that the explainer's subsequent actions were consistent with 2D being natural, I'd rule misbid, not misinformation, no adjustment. 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 May 20 23:54:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 23:54:46 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11639 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 23:54:41 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id JAA11401 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 09:54:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970520095533.0068f62c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:55:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? In-Reply-To: <199705192233.SAA08626@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:33 PM 5/19/97 -0400, Steve wrote: >In article <5lpo8m$kv7@news2.cais.com>, you write: >> A "wild and gambling action" subsequent to an irregularity, because it >> may represent a prospective "double shot" for the non-offending side, >> may "break the connection between infraction and damage", > >I don't think it matters whether the infraction is known at the time. >The issue is not so much a double shot as where the damage comes >from. Does it come from the infraction or from the non-offender's >stupidity? For example, suppose the non-offender gets MI and then >revokes. Wouldn't we still apply the revoke penalty? Of course we would; I can't imagine a player convincing a TD or AC that MI caused him to revoke. There are two questions at issue: 1. Was there a connection between the infraction and the damage (i.e. would the damage not have occurred absent the infraction)? 2. If so, did the NO commit a subsequent egregious error which "broke" that connection? In the original case, the NO claimed that without the MI he would not have bid 4S. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, we accept this at face value. So the answer to #1 is yes, and the resolution depends on our judgment with regard to #2. In the case of a revoke, the answer to #1 is no, and we never get to #2. A more interesting question for debate is whether or not the Laws support the validity of addressing #2 at all. That it does is a theory which was promulgated in The Bridge World by Edgar Kaplan sometime (IIRC) in the early 1970s, and which has come to be accepted in North America. (Is Kaplan's interpretation generally accepted elsewhere?) Personally, I don't think so, but when I have my TD hat on I accept it as established, if misguided, doctrine. But even if you fully accept the Kaplan doctrine, breaking the connection requires not merely that the NO make a stupid error, but that he make an EGREGIOUS (AHD: "Outstandingly bad; blatant; outrageous") error. And even on this point, the NO is still entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 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 May 21 04:11:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:11:26 +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 EAA15080 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:11:18 +1000 Received: from localhost (ppp26.tronet.de [194.231.97.90]) by einstein.tronet.de (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id UAA09838 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 20:21:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199705201821.UAA09838@einstein.tronet.de> From: "Gyoergy Fazekas" To: "bridge laws" Date: Tue, 20 May 97 20:05:22 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 Subject: how 2 decide Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hi, the biddig went as follows: W N E S pass pass pass 1 SA (15-17) 2 S pass * pass dbl = * very long pause before bidding, but nobody = protests/calls tournament director pass 3 h* = * now will TD be called by W and said that DBL = should be taken back, because of the very very long = pause of N; not allowable information has been used S's hand: xx AKxx AKxx Qxxx TD: 2 spade - without dbl - should be played, because not allowed informatio= n had been used & S alone has not got a hand for double. Result: 2p (without DBL) - 1 2/3 h =3D could only be found in the score up to that point. Me: I am really not so positive about it: E & W had the opportunity to protest again the long thinking without bid= ding anything else as pass So, why not to let 3h play? ?: And how do u see it? Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen: G.FAZEKAS fazekas@tronet.de url: http://home.tronet.de/fazekas From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 04:48:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:48:13 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA15356 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:48:05 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 20 May 1997 16:26:47 +0100 Date: Tue, 20 May 97 16:26:46 BST Message-Id: <20237.9705201526@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > [snip] > > 2. If so, did the NO commit a subsequent egregious error which "broke" that > connection? > > [snip] > > A more interesting question for debate is whether or not the Laws support > the validity of addressing #2 at all. That it does is a theory which was > promulgated in The Bridge World by Edgar Kaplan sometime (IIRC) in the > early 1970s, and which has come to be accepted in North America. (Is > Kaplan's interpretation generally accepted elsewhere?) Personally, I don't > think so, but when I have my TD hat on I accept it as established, if > misguided, doctrine. The EBU has a regulation/interpretation which talks of a "wild and gambling action" which prevents NOS from getting an adjusted score. > But even if you fully accept the Kaplan doctrine, breaking the connection > requires not merely that the NO make a stupid error, but that he make an > EGREGIOUS (AHD: "Outstandingly bad; blatant; outrageous") error. And even > on this point, the NO is still entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The interpretation of "wild and gambling" has much the same effect. I have a question re "benefit of the doubt": are TDs in ACBL-land instructed how to rule in these cases? In particular if there is a dubious action by NOS and there is doubt whether it is "egregious" does the TD routinely rule in favour of NOS and therefore rule on the basis that there was no egregious error. I am worried about case such as: NS end in 6H after one of them has used UI, EW doubled 6H (an action which may be "egregious") which makes. NS +1660 The TD is called and (giving EW any benefit) rules 4H+2 = NS +680/EW -680. NS do not appeal because (on reflection) the use of UI is blatant, so they will always get +680: perhaps the AC will change EW score back to +1660 but this will not benefit NS. EW do not appeal either(!). So the AC do not get to judge the "egregious" nature of double of 6H. In England, I think I am right in saying (where are you DS when I need you?) that if there is a hint of "wild and gambling" we treat EW as not non-offending (i.e. as potentially offending). Then we would rule against both (potentially) offending side: NS +680/EW -1660. Now, either of NS or EW (usually both) will appeal and both the use of UI and the issue of "wild and gambling action" will be addressed by the AC. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 04:50:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:50:43 +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 EAA15390 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:50:38 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id OAA22484 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 14:50:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970520145131.0068b768@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 14:51:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? In-Reply-To: <20237.9705201526@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:26 PM 5/20/97 BST, Robin wrote: >I have a question re "benefit of the doubt": >are TDs in ACBL-land instructed how to rule in these cases? > >In particular if there is a dubious action by NOS and there is doubt >whether it is "egregious" does the TD routinely rule in favour of NOS >and therefore rule on the basis that there was no egregious error. > > >I am worried about case such as: > >NS end in 6H after one of them has used UI, EW doubled 6H (an action >which may be "egregious") which makes. NS +1660 > >The TD is called and (giving EW any benefit) rules 4H+2 = NS +680/EW -680. > >NS do not appeal because (on reflection) the use of UI is blatant, so >they will always get +680: perhaps the AC will change EW score back to >+1660 but this will not benefit NS. > >EW do not appeal either(!). So the AC do not get to judge the "egregious" >nature of double of 6H. > > >In England, I think I am right in saying (where are you DS when I need you?) >that if there is a hint of "wild and gambling" we treat EW as not non-offending >(i.e. as potentially offending). Then we would rule against both >(potentially) offending side: NS +680/EW -1660. > >Now, either of NS or EW (usually both) will appeal and both the use of UI >and the issue of "wild and gambling action" will be addressed by the AC. TDs in ACBL-land (at least at the lower levels, where I work) are rarely "instructed" at all. We are told to give non-offenders "the benefit of the doubt", but I've never been offered any official interpretation as to just what that is supposed to mean in practice. In Robin's scenario, I would expect the adjudication to play out much as he expects -- +680/-680, assuming no appeal. Permit me to elaborate on this: - ACBL TDs are instructed to avoid making "bridge judgments" unless they're 100% clear-cut; there's a general feeling that that's what ACs are for. If there's an arguable bridge judgment involved (or if he is simply unsure about how to rule), the TD will routinely rule for the NOs, and let the AC sort it out. Rulings of this sort are made with an implicit assumption that they will be appealed to an AC (and they usually are). - Even if it's 100% clear cut that the NOs made an error, the question of whether it was sufficiently egregious to "break the connection" would almost always be arguable, and thus left to the AC. Although ACs quite frequently rule that an egregious error has broken the connection, I don't think I've ever seen a floor TD do so. (Screening room TDs will often consider an error to be sufficiently egregious to break the connection, but they are, officially, only opining, not ruling.) - There's a definite double standard in ACs' judgments regarding egregious errors. A given error is far more likely to be considered egregious if the AC feels that it is a "double shot" situation. In effect, the AC (but not the TD) will take the "English" position if they "smell" a possible double shot, by treating both sides as potential offenders, thus eliminating the "benefit of the doubt" for the non-offending (relative to the UI) side. Personally, I think this is a good thing. This often means a split score ("to avoid giving the NOs the benefit of the double shot"). An AC (but not a TD) would be likely to award +680/-1660 in Robin's scenario in this case. - In general, the only situation in which a TD will award a split score is when applying L12C2, i.e. when he finds that the "most favorable result that was likely" and "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" do not match. Split scores for other reasons (see above) are generally considered to be within the province of the AC. 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 May 21 04:57:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:57:56 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA15485 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:57:51 +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 OAA23495 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 14:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09107; Tue, 20 May 1997 14:57:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 14:57:40 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705201857.OAA09107@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: misinformation?? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for all responses so far. An email correspondent points out that my original message was subject to misinterpretation, so let me try again in case anyone else is confused. I apologize for lack of clarity, but fortunately all posted responses seem to have been directed at what I meant, not what I wrote. :-) North and South, a first time partnership, agree as follows: 1) Anything not agreed is natural. 2) Over an opponent's strong 1C, our 1D overcall shows hearts or both black suits. (There is no discussion of what to do over an opponent's strong 2C.) East opens 2C, strong and artificial. South overcalls 2D. North, when asked, explains simply "It's natural." Is this misinformation? (Of course the bidder does not in fact have diamonds, else we would never hear about the hand. And in response to another comment, UI might well be an issue, but it isn't in this case. Even if it were, we would all know how to deal with it.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 06:01:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 06:01:30 +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 GAA15915 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 06:01:20 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id AAA26827; Wed, 21 May 1997 00:00:55 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199705202000.AAA26827@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "bridge laws" Date: Wed, 21 May 97 00:01:12 +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: how 2 decide Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 May 97 20:05:22, Gyoergy Fazekas wrote: >hi, > >the biddig went as follows: > > >W N E S >pass pass pass 1 SA (15-17) >2 S pass * pass dbl * very long pause before bidding, but nobody > protests/calls tournament director >pass 3 h* * now will TD be called by W and said that DBL > should be taken back, because of the very very long > pause of N; not allowable information has been used >S's hand: >xx >AKxx >AKxx >Qxxx > >TD: >2 spade - without dbl - should be played, because not allowed information had been used & S alone has not got a hand for double. > >Result: >2p (without DBL) - 1 >2/3 h = >could only be found in the score up to that point. > >Me: >I am really not so positive about it: >E & W had the opportunity to protest again the long thinking without bidding anything else as pass >So, why not to let 3h play? > >?: >And how do u see it? > > > >Mit freundlichen Gr en: > >G.FAZEKAS >fazekas@tronet.de >url: http://home.tronet.de/fazekas > > TD should be called at the moment of S's dbl. But it is possible to call him after 3H The ruling is very strange. First of all let them continue bidding and playing. May be EW will have enough in 3H or in some other contract. If they fill unsatisfied with results they can call TD again. South has 16HCP without spades. Balance is about 20-20. (He opened 4th hand) If N has spades he will pass over dbl or he will bid anything. And who is vulnerable BTW? :-) If NS is vulnerable may I will assign 2 spades down 1, if not - 3 hearts just made. And if anybody want to go to AC - welcome. 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 Wed May 21 06:09:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 06:09:45 +1000 Received: from msri.org ([198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA15952 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 06:09:39 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id NAA15824; Tue, 20 May 1997 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: msri.org: smap set sender to using -f Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma015807; Tue May 20 13:08:38 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id NAA12980; Tue, 20 May 1997 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705202008.NAA12980@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com In-reply-to: <20237.9705201526@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> (message from Robin Barker on Tue, 20 May 97 16:26:46 BST) Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > I have a question re "benefit of the doubt": > are TDs in ACBL-land instructed how to rule in these cases? > In particular if there is a dubious action by NOS and there is doubt > whether it is "egregious" does the TD routinely rule in favour of NOS > and therefore rule on the basis that there was no egregious error. > I am worried about case such as: > NS end in 6H after one of them has used UI, EW doubled 6H (an action > which may be "egregious") which makes. NS +1660 > The TD is called and (giving EW any benefit) rules 4H+2 = NS +680/EW -680. > NS do not appeal because (on reflection) the use of UI is blatant, so > they will always get +680: perhaps the AC will change EW score back to > +1660 but this will not benefit NS. > EW do not appeal either(!). So the AC do not get to judge the "egregious" > nature of double of 6H. In your example, there's another problem. If 6H was making anyway, then the double could not have broken the chain of causality; EW were damaged by 750 points as a direct result of the use of UI. In this case, I would suggest treating the double as a separate event; EW get the score for -680, minus the difference between the scores for -1430 and -1660. For example, if the other table was +1430 at IMPs, EW are entitled to +12 IMPs for their -680, and the double should cost the same 6 IMPs that it would if there had been no infraction, for a net of +6. -- 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 May 21 06:11:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 06:11:13 +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 GAA15971 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 06:11:04 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id AAA27555; Wed, 21 May 1997 00:10:58 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199705202010.AAA27555@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Date: Wed, 21 May 97 00:11:16 +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: misinformation?? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 May 1997 14:57:40 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >Thanks for all responses so far. An email correspondent points out >that my original message was subject to misinterpretation, so let me >try again in case anyone else is confused. I apologize for lack >of clarity, but fortunately all posted responses seem to have been >directed at what I meant, not what I wrote. :-) > >North and South, a first time partnership, agree as follows: >1) Anything not agreed is natural. >2) Over an opponent's strong 1C, our 1D overcall shows hearts or both >black suits. (There is no discussion of what to do over an opponent's >strong 2C.) if there's no agreement (see in brackets) it is natural by partnership agreement (see above) >East opens 2C, strong and artificial. South overcalls 2D. North, when >asked, explains simply "It's natural." > >Is this misinformation? (Of course the bidder does not in fact have >diamonds, else we would never hear about the hand. And in response >to another comment, UI might well be an issue, but it isn't in this >case. Even if it were, we would all know how to deal with it.) > No, under L75A and L75B this is misbid, but not misexplanation. (see 2 examples in the Law-book). 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 Wed May 21 07:40:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 07:40:03 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA16392 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 07:39:54 +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 RAA27562 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 17:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09211; Tue, 20 May 1997 17:39:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 17:39:46 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705202139.RAA09211@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: how 2 decide X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On Tue, 20 May 97 20:05:22, Gyoergy Fazekas wrote: > >W N E S > >pass pass pass 1 SA (15-17) > >2 S pass * pass dbl > > * very long pause before bidding, but nobody > > protests/calls tournament director > >pass 3 h* > > * now will TD be called by W and said that DBL > >S's hand: > >xx > >AKxx > >AKxx > >Qxxx > From: "Sergei Litvak" > TD should be called at the moment of S's dbl. But it is possible to > call him after 3H > The ruling is very strange. First of all let them continue bidding and > playing. > May be EW will have enough in 3H or in some other contract. > If they fill unsatisfied with results they can call TD again. I'm afraid I have a minor disagreement with this. It seems to me that the TD should be called either at the time of the long pause (L16A1) or when the South hand is revealed (L16A2). As Sergei says, there is nothing the TD can do after either the double or the 3H bid except let the auction and play continue, and there's no reason to call at either of those times. On the bridge judgment issues, surely the long hesitation suggests double, so the only question is whether pass is a logical alternative. I personally would never even consider pass with South's hand: pure values, nothing wasted in spades. If the definition of LA is the usual European one of 20-25%, I don't think pass comes close. Here in the US, the question might be argued. On an AC, I'd still vote that pass is not a LA, but I wouldn't be upset to be outvoted. If NS are vulnerable at IMP scoring, I might even change my vote -- it's likely some players would consider pass, though not actually do it. Under European rules, I'd feel upset to be outvoted unless there is something about the hand that I'm missing. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 08:10:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 08:10:49 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [205.252.116.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16520 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 08:10:44 +1000 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (rkv-as1s59.erols.com [207.172.239.59]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA28478 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 18:10:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970520181023.006c9e80@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 18:10:23 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: how 2 decide Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At , you wrote: >At 05:39 PM 5/20/97 -0400, you wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 May 97 20:05:22, Gyoergy Fazekas wrote: >>> >W N E S >>> >pass pass pass 1 SA (15-17) >>> >2 S pass * pass dbl >>> > * very long pause before bidding, but nobody >>> > protests/calls tournament director >>> >pass 3 h* >>> > * now will TD be called by W and said that DBL >> >>> >S's hand: >>> >xx >>> >AKxx >>> >AKxx >>> >Qxxx >> >>> From: "Sergei Litvak" >>> TD should be called at the moment of S's dbl. But it is possible to >>> call him after 3H >>> The ruling is very strange. First of all let them continue bidding and >>> playing. >>> May be EW will have enough in 3H or in some other contract. >>> If they fill unsatisfied with results they can call TD again. >> >>I'm afraid I have a minor disagreement with this. It seems to me that >>the TD should be called either at the time of the long pause (L16A1) or >>when the South hand is revealed (L16A2). As Sergei says, there is >>nothing the TD can do after either the double or the 3H bid except let >>the auction and play continue, and there's no reason to call at either >>of those times. >> >>On the bridge judgment issues, surely the long hesitation suggests >>double, so the only question is whether pass is a logical alternative. >>I personally would never even consider pass with South's hand: pure >>values, nothing wasted in spades. If the definition of LA is the usual >>European one of 20-25%, I don't think pass comes close. Here in the >>US, the question might be argued. On an AC, I'd still vote that pass >>is not a LA, but I wouldn't be upset to be outvoted. If NS are >>vulnerable at IMP scoring, I might even change my vote -- it's likely >>some players would consider pass, though not actually do it. Under >>European rules, I'd feel upset to be outvoted unless there is something >>about the hand that I'm missing. >> >> I must confess that I think the director should have been called much earlier than you suggest. After all, the S hand has 14 cards. :) Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 08:11:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 08:11:10 +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 IAA16538 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 08:11:04 +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 SAA27453 for ; Tue, 20 May 1997 18:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA09240; Tue, 20 May 1997 18:10:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 18:10:57 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705202210.SAA09240@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: how 2 decide X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >S's hand: > > >xx > > >AKxx > > >AKxx > > >Qxxx And I wrote: > I personally would never even consider pass with South's hand: On looking at this again, I think perhaps it depends on which of my 14 cards the director takes away. If it's a low heart or any honor, pass might well be a LA. If it's a minor suit spot card, my original view holds. It pays to take time to think. Now everyone knows why I play so badly. :-( From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 08:31:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 08:31:36 +1000 Received: from zeus (root@Zeus.es.co.nz [202.36.94.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA16614 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 08:31:30 +1000 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 May 97 10:31 GMT+1200 X-Sender: tripack@ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: "Gyoergy Fazekas" From: patrick carter Subject: Re: how 2 decide Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:05 20/05/97, you wrote: >hi, > >the biddig went as follows: > > >W N E S >pass pass pass 1 SA (15-17) >2 S pass * pass dbl * very long pause before bidding, but nobody > protests/calls tournament director >pass 3 h* * now will TD be called by W and said that DBL=20 > should be taken back, because of the very very long > pause of N; not allowable information has been used > >S's hand: >xx >AKxx >AKxx >Qxxx > >TD:=20 >2 spade - without dbl - should be played, because not allowed information had been used & S alone has not got a hand for double. > >Result: >2p (without DBL) - 1 =20 >2/3 h =3D >could only be found in the score up to that point. > >Me: >I am really not so positive about it:=20 >E & W had the opportunity to protest again the long thinking without bidding anything else as pass >So, why not to let 3h play? > >?: >And how do u see it? >=20 > > >Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen: > >G.FAZEKAS >fazekas@tronet.de >url: http://home.tronet.de/fazekas > > EW should advise NS that they reserve the right to call the director at the end of the hand when South takes action after the slow pass, in which case NS can then call the director if they dispute the break in tempo. All of which is as per Law 16A(1) If EW fail to advise that intention then, IMHO, they have not lost any rights, but they may find it harder to establish the break in tempo if it is disputed by NS. On the actual hand in question I would clearly adjust to 2S undoubled down 1 unless one of the following two things applied. 1) Unless NS had it on their convention card that they automatically balance with a double after an overcall of their 1NT is passed back to them and they have only 2 of the overcalled this suit. I have a pair with this on their cc who play weak NT and negative doubles of overcalls. 2) Unless the defence to 3H was sufficiently stupid as to say they should have beaten it, and bad defence was the reason for their bad score. Note that EW don't have to defend like champions or find the best opening lead, they simply have to avoid doing something stupid in the defence. Patrick Carter Director, Auckland Bridge Club Chairman, NZCBA Laws & Ethics =09 =09 =09 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 19:54:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 19:54:17 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA19143 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 19:54:06 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:52:56 +0100 Date: Wed, 21 May 97 10:52:54 BST Message-Id: <20315.9705210952@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Double shot; Re: How Would You Rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Talking of double shots, what do people think of this: [ My local club came up trumps with a potential double shot, while the thread BLML was live. ] Board 18 10 9 8 7 6 4 W N E S Dealer E 10 5 P 1NT Game NS 2 X 2H P P K Q 9 6 X 2S End K 5 3 J 2 A K Q 9 3 7 6 2S+1 NS+140 K 5 J 10 9 8 6 4 8 4 2 A 7 4 A Q J 8 4 2 A Q 7 3 J 10 3 No alerts. N explained that 2H was a transfer: no suprise to anyone. W was given the opportunity to change her final pass but did not. Many people at the club play 1NT-X-2H as a transfer, and the convention cards did not give any agreement over 1NT-X. So I ruled misinformation. I adjusted to 2H-2, NS-200/EW+200. What do you think of West's double of 2H? She would have looked very silly if the convention cards both said "1NT-X-2H natural". (Unless you think South fielded a misbid.) Doubling 2H is a double shot in as much as West will always get the score for 2H undoubled if she has been misinformed. So it does not cost to double and see if a better score can be obtained. (But I don't think that doubling 2H on AKQ93 is "wild and gambling".) Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 22:12:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 22:12:03 +1000 Received: from llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (root@llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA19813 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 22:11:37 +1000 Received: from siva.cee.hw.ac.uk by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp tap_id root (Smail3.1.28.1 #97) id m0wUAEe-00075yC; Wed, 21 May 97 13:11 BST Received: by siva.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m0wUAEc-0001XjC; Wed, 21 May 97 13:11 BST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 May 97 13:11 BST From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Double shot; Re: How Would You Rule? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Robin Barker's message of Wed, 21 May 97 10:52:54 BST Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Sendmail/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Talking of double shots, what do people think of this: > > Board 18 10 9 8 7 6 4 W N E S > Dealer E 10 5 P 1NT > Game NS 2 X 2H P P > K Q 9 6 X 2S End > K 5 3 J 2 > A K Q 9 3 7 6 2S+1 NS+140 > K 5 J 10 9 8 6 4 > 8 4 2 A 7 4 > A Q > J 8 4 2 > A Q 7 3 > J 10 3 > > No alerts. N explained that 2H was a transfer: no suprise to anyone. > W was given the opportunity to change her final pass but did not. I assume North offered the explanation before the opening lead was faced, the Director was called and West was advised of her right under L21B1 to change her call (the final double). The situation would be complicated if the players made their own ruling and West was perhaps not fully aware of her options. > Many people at the club play 1NT-X-2H as a transfer, and the convention > cards did not give any agreement over 1NT-X. So I ruled misinformation. > I adjusted to 2H-2, NS-200/EW+200. But West had no misinformation at the time she decided not to change her final double. Then we come to North's 2S bid. He is in possession of UI (no alert of 2H) but is pass a LA to 2S? I don't think so: 2H must be at most a 5-2 fit, it has been penalty doubled and we have at least an eight card spade fit. I'd leave the score at 2S doubled +1. --- A train station is where a train stops. A bus station is where a bus stops. On my desk I have a workstation . . . . From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 21 23:52:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 23:52:48 +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 XAA20334 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 23:52:36 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id RAA26123; Wed, 21 May 1997 17:52:25 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199705211352.RAA26123@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Date: Wed, 21 May 97 12:13:26 +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: how 2 decide Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 May 1997 17:39:46 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> On Tue, 20 May 97 20:05:22, Gyoergy Fazekas wrote: >> >W N E S >> >pass pass pass 1 SA (15-17) >> >2 S pass * pass dbl >> > * very long pause before bidding, but nobody >> > protests/calls tournament director >> >pass 3 h* >> > * now will TD be called by W and said that DBL > >> >S's hand: >> >xx >> >AKxx >> >AKxx >> >Qxxx > >> From: "Sergei Litvak" >> TD should be called at the moment of S's dbl. But it is possible to >> call him after 3H >> The ruling is very strange. First of all let them continue bidding and >> playing. >> May be EW will have enough in 3H or in some other contract. >> If they fill unsatisfied with results they can call TD again. > >I'm afraid I have a minor disagreement with this. It seems to me that >the TD should be called either at the time of the long pause (L16A1) or >when the South hand is revealed (L16A2). As Sergei says, there is >nothing the TD can do after either the double or the 3H bid except let >the auction and play continue, and there's no reason to call at either >of those times. In Russia players usually call TD when one of the opponents thinks ( I don't like word "hesitates"!), and another acts. We do so to establish the fact oth long pause immediately. Of course, TD should act after the end of the play. And of course I didn't count 14 cards at South ;-) Rest skipped... Sergei Litvak, RCBL Chief TD. ----------------------- Phone:+7(8312)365593(eve),384255(day) FAX: +7(8312)362061 From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 22 00:01:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 1997 00:01:55 +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 AAA20398 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 00:01:44 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id SAA26524; Wed, 21 May 1997 18:01:14 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199705211401.SAA26524@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "Ian D Crorie" Date: Wed, 21 May 97 17:24:09 +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: Double shot; Re: How Would You Rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 21 May 97 13:11 BST, Ian D Crorie wrote: > >> Talking of double shots, what do people think of this: >> >> Board 18 10 9 8 7 6 4 W N E S >> Dealer E 10 5 P 1NT >> Game NS 2 X 2H P P >> K Q 9 6 X 2S End >> K 5 3 J 2 >> A K Q 9 3 7 6 2S+1 NS+140 >> K 5 J 10 9 8 6 4 >> 8 4 2 A 7 4 >> A Q >> J 8 4 2 >> A Q 7 3 >> J 10 3 >> >> No alerts. N explained that 2H was a transfer: no suprise to anyone. >> W was given the opportunity to change her final pass but did not. > >I assume North offered the explanation before the opening lead was faced, >the Director was called and West was advised of her right under L21B1 to >change her call (the final double). The situation would be complicated >if the players made their own ruling and West was perhaps not fully aware >of her options. > >> Many people at the club play 1NT-X-2H as a transfer, and the convention >> cards did not give any agreement over 1NT-X. So I ruled misinformation. >> I adjusted to 2H-2, NS-200/EW+200. > >But West had no misinformation at the time she decided not to change >her final double. > >Then we come to North's 2S bid. He is in possession of UI (no alert of >2H) but is pass a LA to 2S? I don't think so: 2H must be at most a >5-2 fit, it has been penalty doubled and we have at least an eight >card spade fit. I'd leave the score at 2S doubled +1. It's impossible to assign 2s doubled +1 because nobody doubled 2S :-) > >--- > A train station is where a train stops. > A bus station is where a bus stops. > On my desk I have a workstation . . . . > > Sergei Litvak, RCBL Chief TD. ----------------------- Phone:+7(8312)365593(eve),384255(day) FAX: +7(8312)362061 From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 22 00:09:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 1997 00:09:08 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20471 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 00:08:58 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 21 May 1997 14:21:44 +0100 Date: Wed, 21 May 97 14:21:42 BST Message-Id: <20484.9705211321@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: idc@cee.hw.ac.uk Subject: Re: Double shot; Re: How Would You Rule? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian Your wrote: > I assume North offered the explanation before the opening lead was faced, > the Director was called and West was advised of her right under L21B1 to > change her call (the final double). The situation would be complicated > if the players made their own ruling and West was perhaps not fully aware > of her options. The TD was called before Wests final pass: everyone (except the TD) was convinced there had been misinformation, rather than North had misbid or was bidding with both majors. N (after prompting by the TD) explained the 2H was a transfer before the opening lead was faced and W was given the option of changing her final pass (the last call of the auction) by the TD. I hope that is clearer. > > Many people at the club play 1NT-X-2H as a transfer, and the convention > > cards did not give any agreement over 1NT-X. So I ruled misinformation. > > I adjusted to 2H-2, NS-200/EW+200. > > But West had no misinformation at the time she decided not to change > her final double. > West's final call was a pass over 2S. West could not be given an opportunity to change her double of 2H. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 22 01:25:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 1997 01:25:40 +1000 Received: from llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (root@llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23304 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 01:25:28 +1000 Received: from siva.cee.hw.ac.uk by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp tap_id root (Smail3.1.28.1 #97) id m0wUDGG-00075yC; Wed, 21 May 97 16:25 BST Received: by siva.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m0wUDGD-0001XqC; Wed, 21 May 97 16:25 BST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 21 May 97 16:25 BST From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Double shot; Re: How Would You Rule? To: Robin Barker In-Reply-To: Robin Barker's message of Wed, 21 May 97 14:21:42 BST Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Sendmail/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I (idc) wrote: > > I assume North offered the explanation before the opening lead was faced, > > the Director was called and West was advised of her right under L21B1 to > > change her call (the final double). The situation would be complicated > > if the players made their own ruling and West was perhaps not fully aware > > of her options. Robin: > The TD was called before Wests final pass: everyone (except the TD) was > convinced there had been misinformation, rather than North had misbid > or was bidding with both majors. > > N (after prompting by the TD) explained the 2H was a transfer before > the opening lead was faced and W was given the option of changing her > final pass (the last call of the auction) by the TD. > > I hope that is clearer. As Sergei and Robin have politely pointed out to me, the auction ended after 2S. I can't believe I checked it twice and still convinced myself that it ended with a double of 2S (sigh). Hand again: Board 18 10 9 8 7 6 4 W N E S Dealer E 10 5 P 1NT Game NS 2 X 2H P P K Q 9 6 X 2S End K 5 3 J 2 A K Q 9 3 7 6 2S+1 NS+140 K 5 J 10 9 8 6 4 8 4 2 A 7 4 A Q J 8 4 2 A Q 7 3 J 10 3 I agree with Robin's ruling (adjusting to 2H by N down some number). On the question of whether this is a double shot: while West might suspect that the opponents have had a bidding misunderstanding I don't think the double counts as a double shot. I've always taken that term to apply only where the player knows that the opponents have committed some irregularity. Here West can't be sure and shouldn't be punished IMHO for just bidding the cards in front of them. --- A train station is where a train stops. A bus station is where a bus stops. On my desk I have a workstation . . . . From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 22 01:53:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 1997 01:53:09 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA23492 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 01:53:03 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA06920 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 11:52:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09656; Wed, 21 May 1997 11:52:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 11:52:56 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705211552.LAA09656@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: how 2 decide X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: patrick carter > EW should advise NS that they reserve the right to call the director at > the end of the hand when South takes action after the slow pass, in which > case NS can then call the director if they dispute the break in tempo. All > of which is as per Law 16A(1) > From: "Sergei Litvak" > In Russia players usually call TD when one of the opponents thinks ( I don't > like word "hesitates"!), and another acts. We do so to establish the fact > oth long pause immediately. This procedure is common here too, but I don't believe it's what L16A1 actually says. L16A1 begins "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available...." To me, this means at the time of the long think (or whatever), NOT when an opponent subsequently takes action. After all, we really want to establish (or refute) the fact of UI _before_ a possibly questionable action is taken. That way, the player who may want to take action can know whether his options are restricted or not. The above procedure is especially easy outside the ACBL, where no director call is needed to establish the fact of UI. All that is needed is agreement on the facts, and the TD can be called in the unlikely event that there is a disagreement. Personally, I consider it rude and insulting, though probably based on ignorance, not malice, for a player to call the TD when a possibly questionable action is taken. I don't mind at all if the TD is called at a more appropriate time. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 22 02:00:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 1997 02:00:53 +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 CAA23718 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 02:00:46 +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 MAA28161; Wed, 21 May 1997 12:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970521120138.0068c8fc@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 12:01:38 -0400 To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <199705202206.SAA09238@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve. I hope I'm not being (or about to be) too incoherent; I always get into a bit of a muddle on this subject. That's because my personal view of how these situations should be handled differs widely from what I perceive to be required by general consensus and precedent, and because I believe that the consensus is moving in the wrong direction. So in any given consequent-vs-subsequent debate, there are three questions to which I might well give three different answers: (1) What do I believe the "correct" (in some moral or theoretical sense) ruling to be? (2) How would I actually rule as an AC member? (3) How would I expect most ACs to rule? I'll try to make clear distinctions, but... At 06:06 PM 5/20/97 -0400, you wrote: >> The Kaplan doctrine says that a subsequent egregious action by an NO can >> break the connection between the offenders' infraction and the damage to >> the NOs. But there has to BE a connection before the NOs can break it. >> That connection exists because the damage would not have occurred without >> the infraction having occurred. When we adjudicate under the Kaplan >> doctrine, we decide what caused the damage: Was it the infraction itself >> (connection not broken), or was it the (egregious) nature of the NO's >> subsequent (but connected) action (connection broken)? > >I don't see why you need "but connected" in the last, but we'll get to >that later. In order to adjudicate an alleged infraction, we ask three questions: (1) Was there an infraction? (2) If so, did the infraction cause damage to the NOs? (3) If so, was the causal connection between the infraction and the damage subsequently broken by an NO's egregious action? The "but connected" just means that we answer "yes" to #2. >> In the original scenario, we accept that the NO would not have bid 4S had >> there been no MI. That makes the connection. If the 4S bid was an >> egregious action, however, the connection gets broken. > >OK. > >> There are two reasons why we might consider the action of bidding 4S to be >> egregious. One is the inherent nature of the bid itself; if it was >> "outstandingly bad" then the connection is broken, and it doesn't matter >> whether or not he was aware of the infraction. The other is the possible >> motivation for the bid; if the NO bid 4S in order to get a "double shot," >> hoping that if he got a poor score it would be reversed by the AC on >> appeal, then we can find that his ACTION (bidding 4S) was "outrageous", >> even though the bid itself was not inherently egregious. In either case, >> the NO loses his entitlement to redress. > >This is quite a reasonable view, but it's not how I understand the >Kaplan doctrine. I don't believe a player's possible motivation >should be the basis for a score adjustment decision. I personally doubt that it's what Kaplan intended; his view is simply that NOs should not get an undeserved good result just because their opponents committed an infraction. That doesn't bring motivation into the picture, unless we choose to split hairs over what makes a good result "undeserved." I do believe, though, that this is what 25 years or so of precedent and practice have led us to today. Again personally, I agree with you; motivation shouldn't be considered. I do not find what most people think of as the "classic double shot" particularly objectionable, and would not be concerned with preventing it (although sympathetic to the argument that my view would mean more work for ACs). These double shots are never entirely risk free (even without the Kaplan doctrine [Q #3], the presumptive NO can't know for sure that an AC will find in his favor on Q #1 or #2). But precedent and practice say that double shots are a bad thing and should be discouraged, and that we reflect this in our rulings. A deeper argument is that we may be too "quick on the trigger" to make adjustments in UI or MI (especially UI) situations, so double shots are perhaps more "risk-free" than they ought to be, and that if we solved that problem the double shot "problem" would take care of itself. I'm not really sure what I think of this. >> It's my view (and, in my experience, most ACs') that the connection being >> broken for the first reason should be a rarity ("outstandingly" implies >> that it's rare, by definition), whereas its being broken for the second >> reason should be far more common (I am, and ACs are, loath to allow >> possible double shots to be rewarded). For the second reason to apply, of >> course, the NO must have been aware that an infraction was (or at least was >> likely to have been) committed. > >I agree that this is often a factor in practice. I oppose it, but you >would no doubt get lots of agreement that it is proper. More of my muddle. The statement above is "my view" of what precedent and practice require, and reflects how I would rule with my "working" hat on. My personal view is that the Kaplan doctrine shouldn't have any force at all. >> But a revoke after an infraction is a whole different kettle of fish. >> There is no connection: We would never have any reason to suspect, or >> presume, that if the NO had had complete and correct information as to the >> meaning of the 4C bid he wouldn't have revoked. So the question of whether >> it has been broken simply doesn't arise. Therefore there's nothing >> inconsistent in rejecting the Kaplan doctrine entirely (thus leaving us no >> way to "punish" either a double shot or an "outstandingly bad" bid), but >> still allowing a revoke to be penalized. > >Doesn't all this really go back to the BLML discussion of "subsequent >versus consequent?" At some level, you can make the same argument about >a revoke: if there hadn't been an infraction, the bidding and the >contract would have been different, and the player might well not have >revoked. It seems to me that something like the Kaplan doctrine is >called for by L40C "damaged by its opponents' failure to explain." >If the damage is caused by my own stupidity -- either a revoke or >a hopeless 4S bid -- I'm not entitled to redress. Do we agree this >far, at least if you accept something like the Kaplan doctrine as >settled law and the 4S bid as truly ridiculous? The level at which you can make the same argument about a revoke is the level of "universal causality" -- if some particular dinosaur at some particular moment had put his foot down two inches to the left and squashed some particular small mammal that got away, humans might not have evolved. The question we must ask is whether we have reason to believe (or presume) that the revoke would not have occurred absent the infraction. Or rather, using the wording in the Laws, whether the possibility that the player might not have revoked under other circumstances is "at all probable." I'd have to construct a wildly unlikely scenario to even imagine the possibility of reasonably answering "yes" to that. Once we conclude that the revoke was not due to the infraction, I believe that the damage from the revoke can be severed from the damage from the infraction. Scenario: 6S is on two finesses, which both lose. N-S take blatant advantage of UI to arrive in the good but doomed 6S contract. E revokes in the early play; declarer subsequently loses two tricks. With the revoke penalty, the score at the table is N-S +980. The field is divided between N-S +450 in 4S/5S and N-S -50 in 6S. My ruling would be that the fact that N-S contracted for 12 tricks was a result of the infraction; the fact that they made 12 tricks was the result of the revoke; N-S +480. But I don't see ACs making these kinds of distinctions, and I'd expect a typical AC to (incorrectly) award a split score on the grounds that E-W, by revoking, damaged themselves; +480/-980, possibly even +450/-980. In my view, that's additionally punishing E-W for N-S's infraction over and above the punishment they inflicted on themselves by revoking. The 4S bid, on the other hand, is due to the infraction once we presume (giving the benefit of the doubt) that it would not have been made absent the MI. So we can't sever. Here the normal result is N-S +420; the table result is N-S +800. Either the 4S bid was an egregious action that broke the presumed connection (there was an infraction, but it didn't cause the damage; N-S +800) or it wasn't (the infraction caused the damage; N-S +420). Again, though, I'd expect a typical AC to (incorrectly) split the score to +420/-800. FWIW, I don't think Kaplan ever intended that his "doctrine" be used as the basis for awarding split scores, since, at the time he promulgated it, split-score adjudications were virtually unheard of. >Now what I think you are arguing is that in practice, and perhaps in >law as well, a potential double shot is to be judged by a lower >standard. Instead of requiring a hopelessly stupid action, we require >merely a poor one, but we also require that the player know that an >infraction has occurred and that he may already be entitled to an >adjusted score. Is this a fair summary? In practice, yes. Permitted by law, yes, but arguable. Required by law, no. >If so, as I say above, I don't agree. I think it's better to establish >a qualitative standard for how bad an action must be, and I don't think >it should depend on whether there was known to be an infraction. >Reasonable people can no doubt disagree, but I don't see anything in >the Laws that suggests that there should be a distinction. Perhaps >I'm missing something. And I (speaking personally now) don't think it should matter how bad the action is. What should matter is only whether or not it would have occurred absent the infraction. Once we decide that E-W would have been -420 if N-S hadn't committed the infraction, E-W should get -420, period. That view, however, rejects both the Kaplan doctrine and the consensus that E-W should not be allowed to benefit from a potential double shot, so it's not the way I would rule, merely the way I would like to be able to. >FWIW, I think the 4S bid is the original post is horrible enough that >it qualifies as an egregious error. You apparently disagree; fair >enough. That is a perfectly reasonable question of bridge judgment. Quite so. I can agree that 4S is a horrible bid, but "egregious" is a very strong word, and I don't think 4S is totally ridiculous. My criterion is roughly that, for a bid to be an "egregious error" it should be so far out that, under other circumstances, we would rule it "not an LA." My biggest quarrel with the Kaplan doctrine is that we would all agree (Kaplan certainly would, as he has made quite clear) that what constitutes an egregious error for Paul Soloway does not necessarily constitute an egregious error for Aunt Tillie. So when we get down to cases, huge swings in adjudicated results can be based on fine distinctions in an AC's evaluation of players' abilities. >If we can agree on where we disagree, what about taking the question to >BLML? I'm very curious what the other folks might have to say (and willing to risk getting flamed for re-raising an issue already discussed at some length), and so have already done so by CCing this message to the group. /eric Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 22 03:59:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 1997 03:59:57 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA24528 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 03:59:50 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id NAA02326 for ; Wed, 21 May 1997 13:59:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970521140051.006aedb8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 14:00:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Double shot; Re: How Would You Rule? In-Reply-To: <20315.9705210952@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:52 AM 5/21/97 BST, Robin wrote: >Talking of double shots, what do people think of this: > >[ My local club came up trumps with a potential > double shot, while the thread BLML was live. ] > > >Board 18 10 9 8 7 6 4 W N E S >Dealer E 10 5 P 1NT >Game NS 2 X 2H P P > K Q 9 6 X 2S End >K 5 3 J 2 >A K Q 9 3 7 6 2S+1 NS+140 >K 5 J 10 9 8 6 4 >8 4 2 A 7 4 > A Q > J 8 4 2 > A Q 7 3 > J 10 3 > >No alerts. N explained that 2H was a transfer: no suprise to anyone. >W was given the opportunity to change her final pass but did not. > >Many people at the club play 1NT-X-2H as a transfer, and the convention >cards did not give any agreement over 1NT-X. So I ruled misinformation. >I adjusted to 2H-2, NS-200/EW+200. My first take was that we could assume that (a) N thought that 2H was a transfer, (b) S thought that 2H was natural, and (c) W thought that 2H was natural; had she known it was intended as a transfer, she would have passed it out. So which was it? Was N or S correct about their (presumptive) agreement? We normally resolve this by determining which of them "agrees" with their CC. Since it was silent, it said, in effect, that their agreement is to treat this sequence as "standard". So the ruling should depend on what's "standard" in your neck of the woods. Around here, "standard" would be natural, and I'd rule misbid, not misinformation, score stands. But... >What do you think of West's double of 2H? >She would have looked very silly if the convention cards both said >"1NT-X-2H natural". (Unless you think South fielded a misbid.) If so marking the CC would be normal, then the implication is that absent such an explicit agreement 2H would be a transfer (given that 1NT-P-2H would be a transfer). In that case, misinformation, not misbid, N-S -200. >Doubling 2H is a double shot in as much as West will always get the score >for 2H undoubled if she has been misinformed. So it does not cost to >double and see if a better score can be obtained. >(But I don't think that doubling 2H on AKQ93 is "wild and gambling".) I don't find a double shot here, unless N's "explanation" came before W's double (or there was some such other additional table action), which is not how I read the scenario. To call "double shot" would be saying that W should be able to tell from her hand that N-S are having a misunderstanding. It looks to me like W took a very real risk that there was no MI, that N-S knew what they were doing, that her double would reveal the 5-0 trump break, and that she'd be -670 when the smoke cleared. But later, Robin wrote: > The TD was called before Wests final pass: everyone (except the TD) was > convinced there had been misinformation, rather than North had misbid > or was bidding with both majors. So my assumption (b) above was incorrect: N-S did have an agreement; S simply forgot it when she failed to alert and then passed 2H. So Robin's ruling was clearly correct: misinformation rather than misbid, N-S -200. 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 May 22 19:21:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA28425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 1997 19:21:56 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA28420 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 19:21:49 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-168.innet.be [194.7.10.168]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02026 for ; Thu, 22 May 1997 11:19:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <338417B3.242F@innet.be> Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 10:53:55 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? References: <199705202008.NAA12980@boole.msri.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > > In your example, there's another problem. If 6H was making anyway, then > the double could not have broken the chain of causality; EW were damaged > by 750 points as a direct result of the use of UI. > > In this case, I would suggest treating the double as a separate event; > EW get the score for -680, minus the difference between the scores for > -1430 and -1660. For example, if the other table was +1430 at IMPs, EW > are entitled to +12 IMPs for their -680, and the double should cost the > same 6 IMPs that it would if there had been no infraction, for a net of > +6. > Nice one, David, I like it. I shall use this as an example of 'strange calculating decisions' that I'm so fond of. The principle sounds OK. I'm not so sure about the method of calculation though. In team play, the final score (+1660-1430 = +10IMPs) is the result of two actions. Without the infraction, the score would have been (+680-1430 = -12IMPs) This is a difference of 22 IMPs. Where do they come from ? The infraction (use of UI) raised the score by 12 IMPs (1430-680) The doubling raised the score again , but by how much ? - you could consider that the raise is now (1660-1430 = 10 IMPs) - but you could also consider it to be (1660-680 = 14 IMPs - 12 = just two extra IMPs) Of course the first interpretation must be the correct one. So the offenders get a score of -12 IMPs, but the double-shotters would get +12-10 = +2IMPs. (I do believe this is a calculation error from your part, David, not necessarily an error in principle) But this all depends on the score at the other table. Suppose the other table plays in a ludicrous contract : 2HX-2 = +300 to NS. Now the original score is (1660-300 = +16 IMPs) Without the infraction this becomes (680-300 = +9 IMPs) Now there's only seven points difference - How many of these are due to the infraction and how many to the double-shot ? Perhaps something like (1430-300 = +15 IMPs) would say 6IMPs to the infraction and 1IMP for the double shot. So offenders would now score +9, double-shotters -9-1 = -10 ? OK, this might work. And then in Pairs ... (some other time) Sorry for the perhaps strange style, but I've been writing this down while thinking. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 23 06:16:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 May 1997 06:16:15 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04328 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 06:16:08 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id NAA29240; Thu, 22 May 1997 13:16:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: msri.org: smap set sender to using -f Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma029231; Thu May 22 13:15:55 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id NAA13396; Thu, 22 May 1997 13:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705222015.NAA13396@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: hermandw@innet.be CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <338417B3.242F@innet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Thu, 22 May 1997 10:53:55 +0000) Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > David Grabiner wrote: >> >> >> In your example, there's another problem. If 6H was making anyway, then >> the double could not have broken the chain of causality; EW were damaged >> by 750 points as a direct result of the use of UI. >> >> In this case, I would suggest treating the double as a separate event; >> EW get the score for -680, minus the difference between the scores for >> -1430 and -1660. For example, if the other table was +1430 at IMPs, EW >> are entitled to +12 IMPs for their -680, and the double should cost the >> same 6 IMPs that it would if there had been no infraction, for a net of >> +6. > Nice one, David, I like it. > I shall use this as an example of 'strange calculating decisions' that > I'm so fond of. > The principle sounds OK. > I'm not so sure about the method of calculation though. > In team play, the final score (+1660-1430 = +10IMPs) is the result of > two actions. 1660-1430=230, which is 6 IMPs. > Without the infraction, the score would have been (+680-1430 = -12IMPs) > This is a difference of 22 IMPs. Where do they come from ? 18 IMPs now, but the same principle applies. > The infraction (use of UI) raised the score by 12 IMPs (1430-680) > The doubling raised the score again , but by how much ? > - you could consider that the raise is now (1660-1430 = 10 IMPs) > - but you could also consider it to be (1660-680 = 14 IMPs - 12 = just > two extra IMPs) The reason that the double is considered to cost 6 IMPs is that the double should be evaluated based on its effect on the table result, independent of what happened at the other table. The double turned -1430 into -1660, and the cost of the double is thus the difference between -1430 and -1660. This happens to be 6 IMPs; if the other table had been -680, the double would have cost only 2 IMPs. > Suppose the other table plays in a ludicrous contract : 2HX-2 = +300 to > NS. > Now the original score is (1660-300 = +16 IMPs) > Without the infraction this becomes (680-300 = +9 IMPs) > Now there's only seven points difference - How many of these are due to > the infraction and how many to the double-shot ? > Perhaps something like (1430-300 = +15 IMPs) would say 6IMPs to the > infraction and 1IMP for the double shot. > So offenders would now score +9, double-shotters -9-1 = -10 ? That's how I would score it. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 23 23:36:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 May 1997 23:36:50 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09133 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 23:36:44 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id IAA01062 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 May 1997 08:36:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0C3VJ009 Fri, 23 May 97 08:37:07 Message-ID: <9705230837.0C3VJ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 23 May 97 08:37:07 Subject: LAW25B: 4 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au O>Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule O>References: <19828.9705191516@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> O>Robin Barker wrote: O>> O>> Hi O>> O>> There are two interpretations of how the "at most 40%" score in the new O>> Law 25B should be calculated. O>> O>> [ I am just thinking about match points for the moment. ] O>> O>> Herman suggests a "ceiling", a score of x match points becomes O>> x (if x <= 0.4) O>> or 0.4 (if x >= 0.4) O>> O>> Tony Musgrove suggests "multiply the actual MP score of the offending O>> pair by 0.4 to give their adjusted score." i.e. "scaling" O>> a score of x becomes an adjusted score of 0.4x . O>> O>> Discussion of the new law in the UK had always assumed "ceiling" but I O>> do not have the new laws so I do know if the "scaling" interpretation O>> is a plausible interpretation (or even "the" correct interpretation). O>> O>> The purpose of this post is to suggest that the "scaling" O>> interpretation is better as it ensures both side are still playing the O>> same game. Under the "ceiling" interpretation the declaring and the O>> defending sides are not playing the same game: the Law25B-offending O>> side is only interested in winning enough tricks for 40% but the O>> non-offending side still wants as many tricks as possible*. Under the O>> "scaling" interpretation the declaring and defending side still want as O>> many tricks as possible*. This allows the non-offending side not to O>> have to cope with (and not be damaged by) strange tactics adopted the O>> offending side who are playing a (slightly) different game. O>> O>> Robin O>> O>> * really: to adopt a trick winning strategy that will maximise their O>> match point score. and Herman wrote: O>Very good analysis. I tend to disagree. First, consider the the theory that putting a multiplier to the OS's score would provide imputus for the OS play the 'same game' as the other pairs. By reducing the maximum possible result to 40%, then by definition, they are playing a 'different game' so to speak. As long as the maximum available score is less than 100% the OS is experiencing different rules and of course their psychology will change. Does scaling the result tend to cause a trick winning strategy. Probably much the opposite. Consider that with no penalty, a typical result will be in the 40 to 60% range. if a factor of 40% is then applied they are now in actuality playing for an expected 16% to 24% which is only one or two matchpoints for playing their hearts out- hardly worth while IMO. Ostensibly, their best hope for a maximum score [40%] would be the strategy of trying for an extraordinary result in the bidding or play since the cost would be negligible if it does not work and if it does work they would better the likely result by a factor of 2 or 3. That is pretty good odds. Almost certainly, the tendency on the affected board would be a result of gambling as opposed to bridge play. Is it the law's intention to affect the entire field as the result of the infraction of one player? I hope not. I think that scaling would give the OS almost nothing to fight for except giving their opponents a bad score and thus would be detrimental. I also think that the best interpretation of the 40% rule is that it acts as a ceiling for the OS's score. O>I would also prefer the scaling as it insures a correct way of playing. O>But I'd think the 40% scaling would then be too harsh, and 80% might be O>better. Are you suggesting that the offending side is entitled to achieve an above average result when they land in a great place? I thought the intention of the penalty was to achieve a bridge result for the NOS and a limit for the OS [in the place of an 'accident' or 'misbid' which would frequently be a bottom for the OS]. O>Also, that would have resulted in a very much different wording of the O>new Law, and I don't think that this was the Lawmakers' intent. I concur. I think that if it was the law's intention to require scaling, the wording should have been very different. O>Shall we consider this recommendation no 1. for the 2007 Laws ? I vote no. O>Herman DE WAEL O>Antwerpen Belgium O>http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm R Pewick Houston r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.2 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 24 03:48:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 1997 03:48:10 +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 DAA12934 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 03:48:03 +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 TAA17841 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 19:47:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph56.ppp.dknet.dk (cph56.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.56]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA23663 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 19:47:55 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 19:47:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <338bcd14.1619468@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970521120138.0068c8fc@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970521120138.0068c8fc@cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.01/32.397 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 21 May 1997 12:01:38 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >And I (speaking personally now) don't think it should matter how bad the >action is. What should matter is only whether or not it would have >occurred absent the infraction. Once we decide that E-W would have been >-420 if N-S hadn't committed the infraction, E-W should get -420, = period. Speaking just as personally, and with the risk of repeating an earlier discussion, I would like to support this view. I have that opinion for two reasons: (a) It seems to me to be what the laws say. I can find no law that allows us to adjust for the offending side but not for the non-offending side. It seems to me that if we refuse to adjust for the non-offenders because we find that they were damaged by their own actions rather than by the offenders' actions, then the actions of the so-called "offenders" have not resulted in damage and there is no basis for an adjusted score for them either. (b) I have no problem at all with NOs getting a good score for free. We all get good scores for free when our opponents make stupid errors such as miscounting trumps or revoking. An irregularity that requires an adjusted score is IMO just another type of stupid error. I'd prefer it to be perfectly legal and ethical for the NOs to try a double shot; the offenders have (perhaps!) presented the non-offenders with two chances to do well, and if the NOs want to try these two chances, they should be welcome to do so - running, of course, the risk that the TD/AC determines that there was no irregularity and therefore no adjusted score. >That view, however, rejects both the Kaplan doctrine and the consensus = that >E-W should not be allowed to benefit from a potential double shot, so = it's >not the way I would rule, merely the way I would like to be able to. That goes for me too. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 24 03:48:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 1997 03:48:12 +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 DAA12936 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 03:48:05 +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 TAA17845 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 19:48:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph56.ppp.dknet.dk (cph56.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.56]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA23667 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 19:47:58 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 19:47:58 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <338dd47a.3512901@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <19828.9705191516@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> <33818EE5.14C4@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <33818EE5.14C4@innet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.01/32.397 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 May 1997 12:45:41 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >I would also prefer the scaling as it insures a correct way of playing. >But I'd think the 40% scaling would then be too harsh, and 80% might be >better. >Also, that would have resulted in a very much different wording of the >new Law, and I don't think that this was the Lawmakers' intent. > >Shall we consider this recommendation no 1. for the 2007 Laws ? I think recommendation no. 1 should be to change L25B radically into something sensible. L25B (1997) has two serious problems: (a) It allows certain changes of calls and them prescribes "penalties" for such _legal_ changes. This weakens the extremely important L72B1 (1987) / L72B2 (1997) by creating a silly exception. (b) Any possible interpretation of the 40% rule still leads to the two sides playing quite different games on that board. This is unreasonable. NOs should not be forced to play against opponents who can gamble wildly and not risk losing more than 40% of a top. My suggestion is (as I've probably said several times before) to make clear rules that define which changes of call are legal and which are not (allowing only the L25A (1997) changes seems reasonable); legal changes of calls should then be truly legal (no penalty), and all illegal changes of calls should be withdrawn, UI for partner, no further penalty. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 24 04:48:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 1997 04:48:27 +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 EAA13328 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 04:48:18 +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 OAA02502 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 14:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10729; Fri, 23 May 1997 14:48:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:48:14 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705231848.OAA10729@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal (expressing a fervent wish of many of us on BLML) > legal > changes of calls should then be truly legal (no penalty), and all > illegal changes of calls should be withdrawn, UI for partner, no > further penalty. An alternative is to let LHO pick which of the offered calls shall stand, but anything sensible would be better than the present muddle. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 24 05:08:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 1997 05:08:44 +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 FAA13409 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 05:08:38 +1000 Received: from isdn149.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <28732-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Fri, 23 May 1997 21:08:19 +0000 Message-ID: <3385EBB5.6187@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:10:45 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Fwd: Re: How Would You Rule?] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2A3556E54F96" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format. --------------2A3556E54F96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Richard Bley "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." - Robert Wilensky, ILP 1996 --------------2A3556E54F96 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <3381E4CC.8E4@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 19:52:12 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? References: <3.0.1.32.19970520095533.0068f62c@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Eric Landau wrote: (snip) > 1. Was there a connection between the infraction and the damage (i.e. w= ould > the damage not have occurred absent the infraction)? > = > 2. If so, did the NO commit a subsequent egregious error which "broke" = that > connection? > = > In the original case, the NO claimed that without the MI he would not h= ave > bid 4S. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, we accept this at face va= lue. > So the answer to #1 is yes, and the resolution depends on our judgment= > with regard to #2. In the case of a revoke, the answer to #1 is no, an= d we > never get to #2. > = > A more interesting question for debate is whether or not the Laws suppo= rt > the validity of addressing #2 at all. That it does is a theory which w= as > promulgated in The Bridge World by Edgar Kaplan sometime (IIRC) in the > early 1970s, and which has come to be accepted in North America. (Is > Kaplan's interpretation generally accepted elsewhere?) Personally, I d= on't > think so, but when I have my TD hat on I accept it as established, if > misguided, doctrine. > = > But even if you fully accept the Kaplan doctrine, breaking the connecti= on > requires not merely that the NO make a stupid error, but that he make a= n > EGREGIOUS (AHD: "Outstandingly bad; blatant; outrageous") error. And e= ven > on this point, the NO is still entitled to the benefit of the doubt. That=B4s nearly the same as we handle this cases in Germany (and perhaps over Europe, but I=B4m not sure about it). There is a unorthodox new idea which came suddenly in my mind, after I had read ur mail: May it be possible to give an adjusted score as u usually did and subtract from this new score two tricks? e. g.: There was an UI and u as a TD decide to score 4H+1 instead of 5CX=3D (because of a revoke; 5CX-1 was reasonable without it; 2tricks were added to 5CX-2). Then u can assume that the same revoke would have been made and score to 4H=3D (if it was 4H-1 there is no infraction at all). I= would call it "transfer the rubbish"-rule. Perhaps this idea is just wild und not very thoughtful, but perhaps somebody can use this for another idea? -- = Richard Bley "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." - Robert Wilensky, ILP 1996 --------------2A3556E54F96-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 24 05:13:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 1997 05:13:20 +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 FAA13437 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 05:13:15 +1000 Received: from isdn149.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <28926-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Fri, 23 May 1997 21:13:07 +0000 Message-ID: <3385ECD4.1B7D@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:15:32 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: automatic responses Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, I have a problem (am I the only one???): that is if I like to respond to an mail which came from blml, I always have to change the reply-adress to blml. I know, that in other mailservices the reply adress is from the mailserver by itself, so that u have to change the e-mail adress only if u want to make ur reply private. Can anyone change it? --- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 24 05:46:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 1997 05:46:57 +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 FAA13610 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 05:46:51 +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 PAA03220 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 15:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10808; Fri, 23 May 1997 15:46:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 15:46:50 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705231946.PAA10808@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: automatic responses X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Bley > I have a problem (am I the only one???): that is if I like to respond to > an mail which came from blml, I always have to change the reply-adress > to blml. This is not a problem, it's a feature. :-) Seriously, this seems necessary to prevent a mail loop when a list address is invalid or unavailable. Since a mail loop is potential disaster for those of us who depend on email for business, it is better to leave things the way they are unless there is an alternative that is very safe. Another mailing list I'm on generated something like 200 messages when an address in Europe (and fortunately on a slow connection) became invalid. I shudder to think what would have happened had the invalid address been local. Most mailers have a "reply to all" function. Try that, and then just delete the unwanted address. It only takes a second. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 24 06:58:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 1997 06:58:06 +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 GAA13893 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 06:58:01 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id QAB15758 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 16:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970523165919.006adf04@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 16:59:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? In-Reply-To: <338bcd14.1619468@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970521120138.0068c8fc@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970521120138.0068c8fc@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:47 PM 5/23/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >Speaking just as personally, and with the risk of repeating an earlier >discussion, I would like to support this view. I have that opinion >for two reasons: [snip] >(b) I have no problem at all with NOs getting a good score for free. >We all get good scores for free when our opponents make stupid errors >such as miscounting trumps or revoking. An irregularity that requires >an adjusted score is IMO just another type of stupid error. I'd >prefer it to be perfectly legal and ethical for the NOs to try a >double shot; the offenders have (perhaps!) presented the non-offenders >with two chances to do well, and if the NOs want to try these two >chances, they should be welcome to do so - running, of course, the >risk that the TD/AC determines that there was no irregularity and >therefore no adjusted score. A thought occurred to me while reading Jesper's comment. Suppose I need to bring in four tricks with xxxx opposite AKJ10 and no entry problem. Under normal circumstances I will cash the A, then, if the Q doesn't fall, return to hand and finesse the 10. But suppose my RHO has a small card of the suit as a major penalty card. Now, obviously, I will take a first-round finesse. By making this "inferior" play, I will succeed whenever the normal play would have succeeded, and may also succeed as the result of the penalty imposed on my opponents due to their prior infraction. This is a risk-free double shot. Why should such double shots be considered perfectly appropriate in the play of the hand, but not in the auction? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 25 18:54:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 May 1997 18:54:04 +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 SAA21294 for ; Sun, 25 May 1997 18:53:44 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0519273; 25 May 97 9:43 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 01:54:27 +0100 To: bob scruton Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 law In-Reply-To: <199705142123.RAA17064@internauts.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199705142123.RAA17064@internauts.ca>, bob scruton writes > >> >>A letter from the EBL: >> >> >>Will you please note that the new Code is not yet finalized. There are, for >>example, some spelling errors and inconsistencies which need to be >>corrected. In addition, there may be some other small, final adjustments to >>the text. However, there will not be any material alterations. >>Bill Pencharz >>President >> >> > >This seems odd as the A.C.B.L. has already published the new rules that are >to come into effect next Tuesday. Does this mean that further changes are >possible? > Labeo : odd, yes. It just looks like a good old fashioned muddle - the ACBL seems to have misunderstood the position reached by the WBF. With any luck changes should they occur will be slight. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 26 02:40:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 1997 02:40:56 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA24776 for ; Mon, 26 May 1997 02:40:50 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-178.innet.be [194.7.10.178]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18997 for ; Sun, 25 May 1997 18:37:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3386CFA0.118B@innet.be> Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 12:23:12 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? References: <3.0.1.32.19970521120138.0068c8fc@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970521120138.0068c8fc@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970523165919.006adf04@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > Suppose I need to bring in four tricks with xxxx opposite AKJ10 and no > entry problem. Under normal circumstances I will cash the A, then, if the > Q doesn't fall, return to hand and finesse the 10. But suppose my RHO has > a small card of the suit as a major penalty card. Now, obviously, I will > take a first-round finesse. By making this "inferior" play, I will succeed > whenever the normal play would have succeeded, and may also succeed as the > result of the penalty imposed on my opponents due to their prior infraction. > > This is a risk-free double shot. > > Why should such double shots be considered perfectly appropriate in the > play of the hand, but not in the auction? > Because this is not a double-shot. You are using the normal rules of the game. You know that RHO must play the small card. In the auction, you must always assume that opponents know the rules and have applied them. Therefor, if a player bids after his partner's hesitation, you must assume that he has no LA in passing. If you then double, hoping that he has not followed L16 to the letter, this is a wild action, because you should be assuming your opponent to be stronger than he actually is. I don't think this is very clear, but I do hope you see the difference between the two types of double-shot that you describe. Oh yeah and : - in the case of a MPC : the infraction has already occured, and a penalty has been given - in the case of L16 : you cannot be certain that an infraction has occured, and certainly no penalty has been assessed so far. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 26 08:09:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 1997 08:09:35 +1000 Received: from out2.ibm.net (out2.ibm.net [165.87.201.252]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA25753 for ; Mon, 26 May 1997 08:09:29 +1000 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by out2.ibm.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id WAA260619 for ; Sun, 25 May 1997 22:09:25 GMT Received: from slip279.advantis.net.il(192.116.76.30) by out2.ibm.net via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma_qwDmb; Sun May 25 22:09:17 1997 Message-ID: <3388B87C.4BC9@ibm.net> Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 01:09:00 +0300 From: ILAN SHEZIFI Reply-To: shezifi@ibm.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: How Would You Rule 2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all N-S VUL, N Dealer, MP event (Finel of netional juniors championship) West holds : AKXX AQX KQ KJXX the bidding : North East South West ===== ==== ===== ==== 2H(1) pass 3H Dbl. pass ...4Cl(2) pass 4Nt(3) pass 5D(4) pass 6Cl pass pass pass (1) = 6 - 10 HCP, 6 cards (2) = unmistakable hesitation (very long) (3) = Blackwood (4) = 1 ace the contract made, this is the only pair in this contract. You, the director, called to the table, HOW WOULD YOU RULE ??? Ilan Shezifi From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 26 09:18:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 1997 09:18:09 +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 JAA26002 for ; Mon, 26 May 1997 09:18:04 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id QAA09629; Sun, 25 May 1997 16:18:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: msri.org: smap set sender to using -f Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma009626; Sun May 25 16:17:31 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id QAA14015; Sun, 25 May 1997 16:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 16:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705252317.QAA14015@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: shezifi@ibm.net CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3388B87C.4BC9@ibm.net> (message from ILAN SHEZIFI on Mon, 26 May 1997 01:09:00 +0300) Subject: Re: How Would You Rule 2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > N-S VUL, N Dealer, MP event (Finel of netional juniors championship) > West holds : AKXX > AQX > KQ > KJXX > the bidding : > North East South West > ===== ==== ===== ==== > 2H(1) pass 3H Dbl. > pass ...4Cl(2) pass 4Nt(3) > pass 5D(4) pass 6Cl > pass pass pass > (1) = 6 - 10 HCP, 6 cards > (2) = unmistakable hesitation (very long) > (3) = Blackwood > (4) = 1 ace > the contract made, this is the only pair in this contract. > You, the director, called to the table, The issues to consider here are: Was there a hesitation? Yes. Did it suggest some alternative to 4NT? 4C was a minimum bid, and West's hand makes it clear partner couldn't have been considerfing 3NT. 4NT forces a slam if partner has an ace, and this is made more attractive, compared to an invitational 4H or a 5C signoff, by the UI that partner probably has a good hand. He could also have been considering 4D rather than 4C, but I think it can be assumed here that the slow response suggests a good hand, and a partner considering 4H or 5C. Was 4H or 5C a logical alternative? Partner's expected strength, given only that he has one ace, is about 6 useful HCP, and you can assume that LHO has the HK. If partner doesn't have the CQ or six clubs, slam will be on a finesse at best; if he does have the CQ, you still have a potential spade loser unless partner has two or the SQ. I think this establishes that 4NT was not automatic, and 4H is a logical alternative. As director, I can't really say whether 5C is logical, and I'll give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. On a committee, I would be inclined to allow 4H given the standard as actually applied in the ACBL; I might need to know more about E-W's style, though. Did damage result? If West is allowed to bid 4H, I need to see East's hand to answer this. If East can bid 4NT, 5D, or 6C over 4H, then there was no damage; if East has a possible signoff in 5C over 4H, then the score should be adjusted to 5C. If West is not allowed to bid 4H, then damage obviously occurred. Conclusion: Director adjusts to 5C, +420 for E-W, and informs both sides of the right to appeal. I do not recommend a procedural penalty here; 4NT wasn't a flagrant foul. Committee probably adjusts the 4NT bid to 4H, and if there is at least a 5/6 chance that E-W would reach slam after that cue-bid, restores the table result; if the chance is between 2/3 and 5/6, then +420 for E-W, -920 for N-S. (These are ACBL standards.) The fact that this was the only pair to reach the slam suggests that this is not what would have happened, and the score will be +420. -- 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 Mon May 26 15:08:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 1997 15:08:55 +1000 Received: from out2.ibm.net (out2.ibm.net [165.87.201.252]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA27105 for ; Mon, 26 May 1997 15:08:48 +1000 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by out2.ibm.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id EAA133270; Mon, 26 May 1997 04:53:18 GMT Received: from slip279.advantis.net.il(192.116.76.30) by out2.ibm.net via smap (V1.3mjr) id smaEr4Bpo; Sun May 25 23:36:36 1997 Message-ID: <3388CCFC.1B1A@ibm.net> Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:36:28 +0300 From: ILAN SHEZIFI Reply-To: shezifi@ibm.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: How Would You Rule 2 References: <199705252317.QAA14015@boole.msri.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > You write: > > > N-S VUL, N Dealer, MP event (Finel of netional juniors championship) > > > West holds : AKXX > > AQX > > KQ > > KJXX > > > the bidding : > > > North East South West > > ===== ==== ===== ==== > > 2H(1) pass 3H Dbl. > > pass ...4Cl(2) pass 4Nt(3) > > pass 5D(4) pass 6Cl > > pass pass pass > > > (1) = 6 - 10 HCP, 6 cards > > (2) = unmistakable hesitation (very long) > > (3) = Blackwood > > (4) = 1 ace > > > the contract made, this is the only pair in this contract. > > > You, the director, called to the table, > > The issues to consider here are: > > Was there a hesitation? Yes. > > Did it suggest some alternative to 4NT? 4C was a minimum bid, and > West's hand makes it clear partner couldn't have been considerfing 3NT. > 4NT forces a slam if partner has an ace, and this is made more > attractive, compared to an invitational 4H or a 5C signoff, by the UI > that partner probably has a good hand. He could also have been > considering 4D rather than 4C, but I think it can be assumed here that > the slow response suggests a good hand, and a partner considering 4H or > 5C. > > Was 4H or 5C a logical alternative? Partner's expected strength, given > only that he has one ace, is about 6 useful HCP, and you can assume that > LHO has the HK. If partner doesn't have the CQ or six clubs, slam will > be on a finesse at best; if he does have the CQ, you still have a > potential spade loser unless partner has two or the SQ. I think this > establishes that 4NT was not automatic, and 4H is a logical alternative. > As director, I can't really say whether 5C is logical, and I'll give the > non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. On a committee, I would be > inclined to allow 4H given the standard as actually applied in the ACBL; > I might need to know more about E-W's style, though. > > Did damage result? If West is allowed to bid 4H, I need to see East's > hand to answer this. If East can bid 4NT, 5D, or 6C over 4H, then there > was no damage; if East has a possible signoff in 5C over 4H, then the > score should be adjusted to 5C. If West is not allowed to bid 4H, then > damage obviously occurred. > > Conclusion: Director adjusts to 5C, +420 for E-W, and informs both sides > of the right to appeal. I do not recommend a procedural penalty here; > 4NT wasn't a flagrant foul. Committee probably adjusts the 4NT bid to > 4H, and if there is at least a 5/6 chance that E-W would reach slam > after that cue-bid, restores the table result; if the chance is between > 2/3 and 5/6, then +420 for E-W, -920 for N-S. (These are ACBL > standards.) The fact that this was the only pair to reach the slam > suggests that this is not what would have happened, and the score will > be +420. > > -- > 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. The East hand is : QXX X JTXXX ATXX Ilan Shezifi From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 27 09:06:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 1997 09:06:55 +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 JAA03314 for ; Tue, 27 May 1997 09:06:49 +1000 Received: from mime4.prodigy.com (mime4.prodigy.com [192.168.254.43]) by pimaia2w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA60178; Mon, 26 May 1997 19:06:42 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime4.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA83452; Mon, 26 May 1997 19:02:37 -0400 Message-Id: <199705262302.TAA83452@mime4.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: burghard@prodigy.com (MR KENT V BURGHARD) Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 19:02:37, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: 1997 law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo writes > bob scruton writes >>This seems odd as the A.C.B.L. has already published the new rules that are >>to come into effect next Tuesday. Does this mean that further changes are >>possible? >> > Labeo : odd, yes. It just looks like a good old fashioned muddle - the >ACBL seems to have misunderstood the position reached by the WBF. With >any luck changes should they occur will be slight. > Labeo The ACBL had no misunderstanding about the dates for the effectiveness of the new laws. Each zonal organization was given the option of having the 1997 revision of the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" become effective anytime between March 1 and September 1 of 1997. In North America the new laws are effective on May 27, 1997. The EBL is a different zone, and can make whatever arrangements are appropriate for themselves. Kent Burghard ACBL Headquarters From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 27 17:29:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 1997 17:29:28 +1000 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA04691 for ; Tue, 27 May 1997 17:29:22 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA04777 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Tue, 27 May 1997 09:28:42 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:28:42 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 law In-Reply-To: <199705262302.TAA83452@mime4.prodigy.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 26 May 1997, MR KENT V BURGHARD wrote: > Labeo writes > > bob scruton writes > >>This seems odd as the A.C.B.L. has already published the new rules > that are > >>to come into effect next Tuesday. Does this mean that further > changes are > >>possible? > >> > > Labeo : odd, yes. It just looks like a good old fashioned muddle - > the > >ACBL seems to have misunderstood the position reached by the WBF. > With > >any luck changes should they occur will be slight. > > Labeo > > The ACBL had no misunderstanding about the dates for > the effectiveness of the new laws. > > Each zonal organization was given the option of having > the 1997 revision of the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" become > effective anytime between March 1 and September 1 of 1997. > > In North America the new laws are effective on May 27, 1997. > > The EBL is a different zone, and can make whatever arrangements > are appropriate for themselves. And they left it to the individual countries. The Netherlands has September 1st as the starting date, mainly since that is the traditionally the start of the new bridge season and the day that new regulations come into effect. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE-NCC WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Kruislaan 409 Phone: +31.20.5925022 NL 1098 SJ Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5925090 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 06:44:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 06:44:10 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA09973 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 06:44:03 +1000 Received: from default (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA21219 for ; Tue, 27 May 1997 22:43:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199705272043.WAA21219@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:43:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Summary of responses on L93B3 Reply-to: Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk About a month ago I asked your opinions on the interpretation of L93B3. Much learned discussion ensued here on BLML. I also received a handful of personal responses. I thank all of you. As promised, here is a summary of the responses: There is no trend. 1B-2A, 1A-2A, and 1B-2B are all represented in the responses. It does not make sense to try to settle a question like this with a vote. Consequently, we will try to phrase the Danish translation of L93B3 in such a way that it remains open to interpretation. Forget what it was all about? The original question is quoted below. I wrote: >L93B3 states that an AC may not overrule a TD in two cases: > > * on a point of law or regulations > * on exercise of his disciplinary powers > >In these cases, the AC can (only) recommend to the TD that he change >is ruling. In all other cases, the AC can overrule the TD. > >Overruling is thus authorized on many points, including: > > * the facts established by the TD > * the bridge judgement exercised when deciding whether a side is > damaged > * the bridge judgement exercised when determining what an adjusted > score should be > >It is generally agreed (by all responders to my first attempt) that >the AC may not overrule the TD when he has made a correct direct >application of the Laws. But the waters are muddy when the TD has >made a debatable interpretation and when he has made one that is just >plain wrong. Therefore, I present two scenarios, adapted, if not >stolen, from earlier postings on BLML. > >Scenario 1: >=========== > >Immediately after trick 4 has been turned over by all four players, >West shows his nine of hearts with the remark "I just revoked, I want >to play this card to the previous trick". Alas, he had actually >played the heart 5, and the last trick was indeed a heart trick. The >TD rules that the heart 9 is a minor penalty card, since although the >action was not clearly inadvertent, it was not deliberate play (see >L50C). NS appeal after the round on the grounds that they could have >won one more trick if the heart 9 was a major penalty card. The AC >agrees with the analysis and also agree (unanimously FWIW) that they >would have interpreted L50C to the effect that the heart 9 is a major >penalty card. > >Do you now believe > > 1A: The AC may overrule the TD in this case. > 1B: The AC may only recommend to the TD that he change his ruling. > >When answering, note that it is immaterial whether you yourself >believe that the original interpretation is correct; however, if you >do not agree that the matter is at least marginally open to >interpretation, your answer will not help me. > >Scenario 2: >=========== > >Immediately after trick 4 has been turned over by all four players, >West fumbles his cards and drops the heart 10 on the table. The TD >is called, and he rules that the card becomes a minor penalty card, >on the grounds that the card is not an honor, and it was not played >deliberately. After the session, but in time, NS appeal, saying that >they would have won an extra trick if the heart 10 was a major >penalty card, and they do believe that a 10 is an honor. The AC gets >out the definition in the Law book and ascertains that the 10 is >indeed an honor. > >Do you now believe > > 2A: The AC may overrule the TD in this case. > 2B: The AC may only recommend to the TD that he change his ruling. > >In the unlikely event that you do not agree with the AC that the TD's >ruling is just plain wrong, please read the law book again before >flaming me. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 06:44:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 06:44:07 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA09969 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 06:44:00 +1000 Received: from default (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA21223 for ; Tue, 27 May 1997 22:43:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199705272043.WAA21223@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 22:43:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Interpreting the new Law 83 Reply-to: Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In Denmark, the National Laws Committee (which also doubles as the ultimate appeals committee) is contemplating a specific directive to the Directors prompted by the new Law 83: If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power might be in order (as when he awards an adjusted score under Law 12), he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee. We believe that the purpose of the change (i.e. the last nine words) primarily is to make the Laws support reports by the TD to recorders, committees on laws and ethics, etc. We plan to encourage directors to take such actions. Also, if a director makes a ruling where he is worried about the correct interpretation of the laws or believes that he must rule in the face of an inconsistency in the regulations, we want to encourage the directors to refer the matter to a laws committee. However, if a director has made a bridge judgement where he has given the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt, we would like to encourage the director to notify the contestants that this is the case, but we would like to discourage the director from bringing the matter before an appeals committee if the "offenders" do not choose to appeal. Except when very inexperienced players are involved, our view is that it should still be the "offenders'" responsibility to protect themselves via an appeal. I would appreciate your opinion on whether you would find such a directive to be contrary to the spirit of the Laws. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 08:29:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 08:29:19 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10416 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 08:29:14 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-18.ts-10.la.idt.net [169.132.208.162]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14869; Tue, 27 May 1997 18:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <338B5FC7.59E5@mail.idt.net> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 15:27:19 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Committee last night Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I served on a committee after the South Bay Swiss last night. I wonder what the group thinks of the situation and our ruling. the hand: Qxx N E S W AKJx 1C* P 1D** P AJT 1N*** P 2H P QJx 2S**** P 2N P Jxxx KT9 3N all pass xx xx Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ AKx xxx ** negative Axx *** 16-19 Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer xx xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should have bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. The possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BUT the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pair, a five card spade suit is impossible. The committee supported the director's ruling, that there was no damage, and the result should stand. One member of the N/S team felt that the protest was frivolous and should be dealt with as such. The committee declined to get involved with that. I personally felt that it was impossible that south was NOT awakened by the alert, but that she did nothing egregious, in that a spade suit was impossible, and 2NT seems to describe both her hand and her values. I think the NO's wanted a ruling based on the least favorable of the Logical Alternatives, and that there were less favorable such alternatives existed. I am not certain his position is without merit, though it smacks of 'lawyering' to me. As a committe member, am I required to adhere to such standards, even if I think the application in a particular case is not called for? Thanks in Advance Irv Kostal From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 10:28:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 10:28:07 +1000 Received: from fgwmail2.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail2.fujitsu.co.jp [164.71.1.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10859 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 10:28:01 +1000 Received: from fdmmail.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail2.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.5+2.7Wbeta5/3.5Wpl3-MX970520-Fujitsu Mail Gateway) id JAA23885; Wed, 28 May 1997 09:27:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from mgroup.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp by fdmmail.fujitsu.co.jp (8.8.5+2.7Wbeta5/3.5Wpl3-970514-Fujitsu Domain Mail Master) id JAA11765; Wed, 28 May 1997 09:27:24 +0900 (JST) Received: (from peter@localhost) by mgroup.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp (8.6.9+2.4W/3.3W8) id JAA08764; Wed, 28 May 1997 09:29:05 +0900 Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:29:04 +0900 (JST) From: Peter Newman X-Sender: peter@mgroup To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpreting the new Law 83 In-Reply-To: <199705272043.WAA21223@isa.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 May 1997, Jens & Bodil wrote: > In Denmark, the National Laws Committee (which also doubles as the > ultimate appeals committee) is contemplating a specific directive to > the Directors prompted by the new Law 83: ----snip---- > > However, if a director has made a bridge judgement where he has > given the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt, we would like to > encourage the director to notify the contestants that this is the > case, but we would like to discourage the director from bringing the > matter before an appeals committee if the "offenders" do not choose > to appeal. Except when very inexperienced players are involved, our > view is that it should still be the "offenders'" responsibility to > protect themselves via an appeal. > Just a comment on this point. If it were only the "offenders" who would gain by the appeal this would be true. We had a situation in an Australian National championship a few years back where, in the last round of the swiss (top 4 to finals) the offending side had no chance to qualify. If they were to appeal there was a chance that the "non-offenders" would drop to 5th. Should the director be allowed to appeal in this case? [It seemed strange that the offending side in some sense could "choose" the potential finalists by appealing or not. They had quite a strong case but preferred to go to the bar for a consolatory drink instead! I am happy to report that in this particular case when all the results from other matches were known - considerably later in time - the appeal would not have changed the teams finishing order] > I would appreciate your opinion on whether you would find such a > directive to be contrary to the spirit of the Laws. > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying > ----------------------------------- Peter Newman +81-43-299-3807 Fujitsu Ltd. +81-43-299-3683(F) peter@tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 10:54:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 10:54:31 +1000 Received: from ridgecrest.ca.us (root@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us [199.120.150.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10981 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 10:54:25 +1000 Received: from 199.120.150.129 (annex119 [199.120.150.129]) by ridgecrest.ca.us (8.8.5/8.8-custom) with SMTP id RAA10801; Tue, 27 May 1997 17:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Posted-Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 17:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <338B1D9F.2864@ridgecrest.ca.us> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 17:45:03 +0000 From: Pam Stockwell Reply-To: notrump@ridgecrest.ca.us X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bigfoot@idt.net CC: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Committee last night References: <338B5FC7.59E5@mail.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [[This post is from John R. Mayne, writing from another computer]] Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > I served on a committee after the South Bay Swiss last night. I wonder > what the group thinks of the situation and our ruling. > > the hand: > > Qxx N E S W > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > QJx 2S**** P 2N P > Jxxx KT9 3N all pass > xx xx > Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ > AKx xxx ** negative > Axx *** 16-19 > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > xx > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > > The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the > announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should have > bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. The > possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BUT > the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pair, > a five card spade suit is impossible. > > The committee supported the director's ruling, that there was no damage, > and the result should stand. One member of the N/S team felt that the > protest was frivolous and should be dealt with as such. The committee > declined to get involved with that. > > I personally felt that it was impossible that south was NOT awakened by > the alert, but that she did nothing egregious, in that a spade suit was > impossible, and 2NT seems to describe both her hand and her values. I > think the NO's wanted a ruling based on the least favorable of the > Logical Alternatives, and that there were less favorable such > alternatives existed. I am not certain his position is without merit, > though it smacks of 'lawyering' to me. As a committe member, am I > required to adhere to such standards, even if I think the application in > a particular case is not called for? > As to this last question, I believe at a recent ACBL nationals, several appeals committee members were ordered to follow the rules, not their hearts, or cease being on appeals committees. I believe you are absolutely bound by the regulations, however foolish they appear to you. As for this case, I'd like to know what South thought 2S would mean without the alert. Since the committee found as fact that it could not mean spades, that leaves, to me, the "some sort of super-accept" claim. This seems rational to me. I don't think 2NT was egregious (which would merit a disciplinary penalty) but I think 4H is the call which springs to mind if partner has a super-accept. Since the 2NT bidder may not make a call suggested by the UI, if 4H is in play, it must be bid. I think it is more than in play; I think it right in the absence of the UI. Now, this is where it gets frightening: If 4H is choice of contracts, I rule 4H -2 for 100 E/W. But 4H may also be a splinter. (In fact, I suspect that it is.) Now we start to conjecture about what happens next with no UI; my guess is North 5D. Now, kindly me, I think it likely that this awakens south with AI, if not to the actual disaster, at least to a similar one. South bids 5S, undoubled, off 5, -250. (I would reject a claim for more, in that I see doubling 6H, even in an obviously muddled auction, as unlikely, and I don't see N-S stumbling all the way to 6S or higher). Does this seem harsh? I don't think it is. This is where N-S would have been without the alert procedure, or by following the laws scrupulously. Obviously, I don't think this is frivolous at all. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 11:54:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 11:54:50 +1000 Received: from shell3.ba.best.com (root@shell3.ba.best.com [206.184.139.134]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA11211 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 11:54:45 +1000 Received: from shell3.ba.best.com (thomaso@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell3.ba.best.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA22338; Tue, 27 May 1997 18:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705280154.SAA22338@shell3.ba.best.com> To: notrump@ridgecrest.ca.us cc: bigfoot@idt.net, Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Committee last night In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 May 1997 17:45:03 -0000." <338B1D9F.2864@ridgecrest.ca.us> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 18:54:37 -0700 From: Thomas Andrews Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > [[This post is from John R. Mayne, writing from another computer]] > > > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > > I served on a committee after the South Bay Swiss last night. I wonder > > what the group thinks of the situation and our ruling. > > > > the hand: > > > > Qxx N E S W > > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > > QJx 2S**** P 2N P > > Jxxx KT9 3N all pass > > xx xx > > Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ > > AKx xxx ** negative > > Axx *** 16-19 > > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > > xx > > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > > > > The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the > > announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should have > > bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. The > > possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BUT > > the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pair, > > a five card spade suit is impossible. > > > > The committee supported the director's ruling, that there was no damage, > > and the result should stand. One member of the N/S team felt that the > > protest was frivolous and should be dealt with as such. The committee > > declined to get involved with that. > > > > I personally felt that it was impossible that south was NOT awakened by > > the alert, but that she did nothing egregious, in that a spade suit was > > impossible, and 2NT seems to describe both her hand and her values. I > > think the NO's wanted a ruling based on the least favorable of the > > Logical Alternatives, and that there were less favorable such > > alternatives existed. I am not certain his position is without merit, > > though it smacks of 'lawyering' to me. As a committe member, am I > > required to adhere to such standards, even if I think the application in > > a particular case is not called for? > > > > As to this last question, I believe at a recent ACBL nationals, several > appeals committee members were ordered to follow the rules, not their > hearts, or cease being on appeals committees. I believe you are > absolutely bound by the regulations, however foolish they appear to you. > > As for this case, I'd like to know what South thought 2S would mean > without the alert. Since the committee found as fact that it could not > mean spades, that leaves, to me, the "some sort of super-accept" claim. > This seems rational to me. > > I don't think 2NT was egregious (which would merit a disciplinary > penalty) but I think 4H is the call which springs to mind if partner has > a super-accept. Since the 2NT bidder may not make a call suggested by > the UI, if 4H is in play, it must be bid. I think it is more than in > play; I think it right in the absence of the UI. > > Now, this is where it gets frightening: If 4H is choice of > contracts, How, exactly, will they play 4H if, after a 4H call, north corrects to 4S? This auction gets a little crazy: 1C 1D 1NT 2H 2S 4H ??? What does 4H mean in that auction? The hand is already limited, so it cannot be a slam try, so I suppose it suggests hearts to play. Or maybe it's some maximum splinter? Or showing 5-5? By trying to stear away from suit contracts, south has conveniently avoided some risk of playing in 4S. It's not clear what happens after a 4H call over 2S. Incidentally, the deal above has 12 clubs and 14 diamonds. = Thomas Andrews thomaso@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/ "Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 17:56:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA12439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 17:56:23 +1000 Received: from sun1.biologie.uni-freiburg.de (sun1.biologie.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.36.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA12434 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 17:56:17 +1000 Received: from 132.230.63.114 (colorlab.brain.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.63.114]) by sun1.biologie.uni-freiburg.de (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA19757 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 09:56:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <338BE56C.5FE4@sun1.biologie.uni-freiburg.de> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:57:41 +0200 From: Ralf Teichmann Reply-To: teichman@biologie.uni-freiburg.de Organization: Hirnforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee last night References: <338B5FC7.59E5@mail.idt.net> <338B1D9F.2864@ridgecrest.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pam Stockwell wrote: > > [[This post is from John R. Mayne, writing from another computer]] > > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > > I served on a committee after the South Bay Swiss last night. I wonder > > what the group thinks of the situation and our ruling. > > > > the hand: > > > > Qxx N E S W > > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > > QJx 2S**** P 2N P > > Jxxx KT9 3N all pass > > xx xx > > Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ > > AKx xxx ** negative > > Axx *** 16-19 > > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > > xx > > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > > > > The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the > > announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should have > > bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. The > > possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BUT > > the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pair, > > a five card spade suit is impossible. (snip) > As for this case, I'd like to know what South thought 2S would mean > without the alert. Since the committee found as fact that it could not > mean spades, that leaves, to me, the "some sort of super-accept" claim. > This seems rational to me. > > I don't think 2NT was egregious (which would merit a disciplinary > penalty) but I think 4H is the call which springs to mind if partner has > a super-accept. Since the 2NT bidder may not make a call suggested by > the UI, if 4H is in play, it must be bid. I think it is more than in > play; I think it right in the absence of the UI. It seems, that S bid a "natural" 2 H, showing her 5 card suit. Ignoring the UI she had to assume partners 2 S was natural too, showing exactly 4 cards in a balanced hand. I think, there is no logical alternative but a natural 2 NT. By the way, if 2 H was meant as a transfer bid, 2 S never should be interpreted as "some sort of super-accept". So a 4H call by S makes absolutely no sense. > Obviously, I don't think this is frivolous at all. > > --JRM -- Ralf Teichmann Institute of Biophysics and Radiation Biology, Brain Research Unit Hansastrasse 9, D-79104 Freiburg i. Brsg. , Germany e-mail: teichman@sun1.biologie.uni-freiburg.de Tel.: -49 (0)761 / 203-9583 Fax: -49 (0)761 / 203-9500 From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 19:21:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 19:21:43 +1000 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA12558 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 19:21:37 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA09509 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 28 May 1997 11:20:25 +0200 Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:20:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Ralf Teichmann Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee last night In-Reply-To: <338BE56C.5FE4@sun1.biologie.uni-freiburg.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 May 1997, Ralf Teichmann wrote: > Pam Stockwell wrote: > > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > Qxx N E S W > > > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > > > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > > > QJx 2S**** P 2N P > > > Jxxx KT9 3N all pass > > > xx xx > > > Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ > > > AKx xxx ** negative > > > Axx *** 16-19 > > > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > > > xx > > > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > It seems, that S bid a "natural" 2 H, showing her 5 card suit. Ignoring > the UI she had to assume partners 2 S was natural too, showing exactly 4 > cards in a balanced hand. I think, there is no logical alternative but a > natural 2 NT. But, in Bridge 101 you were taught that 1NT-2H was a sign-off and that opener should pass. This auction is equivalent (assuming that NS don't use transfers here). > By the way, if 2 H was meant as a transfer bid, 2 S never should be > interpreted as "some sort of super-accept". So a 4H call by S makes > absolutely no sense. If North's normal action is to pass here, then 1NT-2H-2S can (or should?) be interpreted as a heart fit, maximum hand plus, depending on NS agreements, either spade shortness (a small doubleton) or spade strength. Opposite this hand, a 4H bid is an option (though 2NT does a far better job in describing south's hand). Henk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE-NCC WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Kruislaan 409 Phone: +31.20.5925022 NL 1098 SJ Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5925090 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 21:35:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 21:35:16 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA13108 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 21:35:09 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-474.innet.be [194.7.14.174]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA02907 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 13:32:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <338C1754.3AEC@innet.be> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 12:30:28 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee last night References: <338B5FC7.59E5@mail.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > the hand: > > Qxx N E S W > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > QJx 2S**** P 2N P > Jxxx KT9 3N all pass > xx xx > Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ > AKx xxx ** negative > Axx *** 16-19 > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > xx > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > > The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the > announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should have > bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. The > possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BUT > the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pair, > a five card spade suit is impossible. > Doesn't anybody find that south is also awakened by the 2S bid itself, with or without the alert ? Have you never bid something, thinking that it means partner must pass, only to see him bid the next suit ? Don't you then start thinking, 'maybe he understood it as transfer - oh yeah, we do play transfers sometimes in these types of situations'. Isn't south allowed to bid his hand according to that information (I better not repeat my hearts in case he thinks I have a two-suiter). I don't believe any correction is in order. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 28 23:39:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 1997 23:39:51 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA13493 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 23:39:44 +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 JAA00466 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 09:39:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970528094025.006922a0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:40:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Committee last night In-Reply-To: <338B5FC7.59E5@mail.idt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:27 PM 5/27/97 -0700, bigfoot wrote: >I served on a committee after the South Bay Swiss last night. I wonder >what the group thinks of the situation and our ruling. > >the hand: > > Qxx N E S W > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > QJx 2S**** P 2N P >Jxxx KT9 3N all pass >xx xx >Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ >AKx xxx ** negative > Axx *** 16-19 > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > xx > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > >The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the >announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should have >bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. The >possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BUT >the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pair, >a five card spade suit is impossible. > >The committee supported the director's ruling, that there was no damage, >and the result should stand. One member of the N/S team felt that the >protest was frivolous and should be dealt with as such. The committee >declined to get involved with that. I think the correct ruling depends on what N-S's actual agreements were. As N has described and limited his hand, S presumably thought that 2H was to play. If that was indeed their agreement, then the AC should be able to determine what 2S should mean by agreement; "no agreement" would mean "presumably natural", but if a 5-card spade suit is impossible in their methods, then 2S in that case would presumably be some sort of heart raise with spade values. If that were the case (or, for that matter, if there was some conventional agreement such as 2S showing shortness, or showing exactly xx), then 2NT would be an infraction, and the score should be adjusted. S, then, would be presumed to have bid a constrained 4H (clearly an LA counter-indicated by the UI) over 2S without the benefit of the UI. Unless this was conventional by agreement (e.g. a splinter or some such), I'd allow N to assume it was natural (choice of games) and pass 4H. So I'd probably adjust to N-S -100 (in 4H; E-W get enough "benefit of the doubt" to assume they'd defend well enough to get 2 down, but not so much as to assume that they would find a double). On the other hand, if 2H was a transfer by agreement, then it seems reasonable to assume that N's 2S bid (perforce undefined over 2H to play) by itself, without the benefit of N's alert, would be enough to "wake up" S (who, when he bid 2H, expected N to pass) to his error on the previous round. Under those circumstances, he is allowed to "scramble" as best he can, and, assuming S did nothing to alert N to the fact that 2H was not intended as a transfer, N remains unconstrained. So score stands. (And E-W come out ahead by getting +50 due to S's error, since if N and S were on the same wavelength they'd have been -110 or -140.) And if the committee finds that 2H was ambiguous, i.e. that N-S did in fact have no agreement as to its meaning, then, while the 2S bid might have been enough to convince S that N might have taken 2H as a transfer, this isn't anywhere near as clear, and the alert is "too convenient" to allow S to take the possibility of a transfer into account. So in that case we should adjust, as in the first case. These determinations involve significant issues of both fact and bridge judgment. The notion that the appeal was frivolous is ludicrous. 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 May 29 00:27:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 1997 00:27:16 +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 AAA15894 for ; Thu, 29 May 1997 00:27:10 +1000 Received: from isdn59.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <24768-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Wed, 28 May 1997 16:26:42 +0000 Message-ID: <338C413C.39C@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 16:29:16 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Committee last night References: <338B5FC7.59E5@mail.idt.net> <338B1D9F.2864@ridgecrest.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, John R. Mayne wrote: > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > > I served on a committee after the South Bay Swiss last night. I wonde= r > > what the group thinks of the situation and our ruling. > > > > the hand: > > > > Qxx N E S W > > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > > QJx 2S**** P 2N P > > Jxxx KT9 3N all pass > > xx xx > > Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ > > AKx xxx ** negative > > Axx *** 16-19 > > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > > xx > > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > > > > The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the > > announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should ha= ve > > bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. T= he > > possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BU= T > > the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pai= r, > > a five card spade suit is impossible. > > > > The committee supported the director's ruling, that there was no dama= ge, > > and the result should stand. One member of the N/S team felt that th= e > > protest was frivolous and should be dealt with as such. The committe= e > > declined to get involved with that. > > > > I personally felt that it was impossible that south was NOT awakened = by > > the alert, but that she did nothing egregious, in that a spade suit w= as > > impossible, and 2NT seems to describe both her hand and her values. I= > > think the NO's wanted a ruling based on the least favorable of the > > Logical Alternatives, and that there were less favorable such > > alternatives existed. I am not certain his position is without merit,= > > though it smacks of 'lawyering' to me. As a committe member, am I > > required to adhere to such standards, even if I think the application= in > > a particular case is not called for? > > > = > As to this last question, I believe at a recent ACBL nationals, several= > appeals committee members were ordered to follow the rules, not their > hearts, or cease being on appeals committees. I believe you are > absolutely bound by the regulations, however foolish they appear to you= =2E > = > As for this case, I'd like to know what South thought 2S would mean > without the alert. Since the committee found as fact that it could not > mean spades, that leaves, to me, the "some sort of super-accept" claim.= > This seems rational to me. > = > I don't think 2NT was egregious (which would merit a disciplinary > penalty) but I think 4H is the call which springs to mind if partner ha= s > a super-accept. Since the 2NT bidder may not make a call suggested by > the UI, if 4H is in play, it must be bid. I think it is more than in > play; I think it right in the absence of the UI. > = > Now, this is where it gets frightening: If 4H is choice of contracts, I= > rule 4H -2 for 100 E/W. But 4H may also be a splinter. (In fact, I > suspect that it is.) Now we start to conjecture about what happens next= > with no UI; my guess is North 5D. Now, kindly me, I think it likely tha= t > this awakens south with AI, if not to the actual disaster, at least to = a > similar one. South bids 5S, undoubled, off 5, -250. (I would reject a > claim for more, in that I see doubling 6H, even in an obviously muddled= > auction, as unlikely, and I don't see N-S stumbling all the way to 6S o= r > higher). > = > Does this seem harsh? I don't think it is. This is where N-S would have= > been without the alert procedure, or by following the laws scrupulously= =2E > = > Obviously, I don't think this is frivolous at all. > = > --JRM I=B4m not so sure about it. If u are not able to determine the following action, according to the laws u have to give a 60/40 score. The problem with this is, that perhaps any possible score after the UI is for the offending side worse than 40%. Anyway I would agree with hermann, that 2S after a nonforcing 2H (after 1NT) is most probable a partner with sth different in mind (it doesnt matter what is agreed about). So there is IMHO no infraction of law. But it is a difficult point so that the appeal is not without merit (IMHO again:-)). But the question stands: If there is an ambiguity about the score and u have to give 40/60 according to the lawbook, should u do sth different if any possible score is worse than 40%, so that the offending side has a profit getting somewhere (if they wouldn=B4t infract the law, they woul= d have got a worse score than with infraction and their opps just the other way round) -- = Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 29 03:45:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 1997 03:45:30 +1000 Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA16956 for ; Thu, 29 May 1997 03:45:22 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA20561 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 May 1997 13:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 13:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970528134447_-464361799@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee last night Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-05-28 03:25:51 EDT, John Mayne writes: > Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > > I served on a committee after the South Bay Swiss last night. I wonder > > what the group thinks of the situation and our ruling. > > > > the hand: > > > > Qxx N E S W > > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > > QJx 2S**** P 2N P > > Jxxx KT9 3N all pass > > xx xx > > Qxxx Kxxxx * 16+ > > AKx xxx ** negative > > Axx *** 16-19 > > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > > xx > > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > > > > The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the > > announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should have > > bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. The > > possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BUT > > the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pair, > > a five card spade suit is impossible. > > > > The committee supported the director's ruling, that there was no damage, > > and the result should stand. One member of the N/S team felt that the > > protest was frivolous and should be dealt with as such. The committee > > declined to get involved with that. > > > > I personally felt that it was impossible that south was NOT awakened by > > the alert, but that she did nothing egregious, in that a spade suit was > > impossible, and 2NT seems to describe both her hand and her values. I > > think the NO's wanted a ruling based on the least favorable of the > > Logical Alternatives, and that there were less favorable such > > alternatives existed. I am not certain his position is without merit, > > though it smacks of 'lawyering' to me. As a committe member, am I > > required to adhere to such standards, even if I think the application in > > a particular case is not called for? > > > > As to this last question, I believe at a recent ACBL nationals, several > appeals committee members were ordered to follow the rules, not their > hearts, or cease being on appeals committees. I believe you are > absolutely bound by the regulations, however foolish they appear to you. I first want to clarify what John is alluding to. We had several top members who believed that if there was an infraction by a pair as they got to a very bad contract (2% was used in some examples) and this bad contract happened to make, the NOs should keep their bad result and we would only adjust the score of the offending side. The expressed reason was that since the NOs would get a great result 98% of the time, they already had excellent equity here and we should not be giving them this great result all the time (it was suggested that this was not fair to the field). It was suggested that this should be accepted as NPL (normal playing luck). [I really don't want to use this abbreviation in future discussions of ours.] I was totally amazed by the fact that a full 50% of our top members seemed to actually believe that this made sense and they believed it was the right thing to do. What we told them was that this point of view had no support in the Laws and went over the pertinent Laws dealing with score adjustments. We did tell them that if they disagreed with these adjustments, it might be better if they not serve on committees since we could not make rulings based on what we believed the Law should be. There was no effort made to tell AC members what they should be thinking, just that they must be willing to rule based on what the Laws are. > As for this case, I'd like to know what South thought 2S would mean > without the alert. Since the committee found as fact that it could not > mean spades, that leaves, to me, the "some sort of super-accept" claim. > This seems rational to me. I accept that fact finding by the AC and applaud them for making the determination. Without that fact, I think the ruling is a little tougher. > I don't think 2NT was egregious (which would merit a disciplinary > penalty) I agree. > but I think 4H is the call which springs to mind if partner has > a super-accept. Since the 2NT bidder may not make a call suggested by > the UI, if 4H is in play, it must be bid. I think it is more than in > play; I think it right in the absence of the UI. As long as we consider it a logical alternative (would anyone argue that point?) it would be very reasonable to impose the bid. The UI clearly makes 2NT an attractive choice and I would not allow it even though it is a rational bid. > Now, this is where it gets frightening: If 4H is choice of contracts, I > rule 4H -2 for 100 E/W. But 4H may also be a splinter. (In fact, I > suspect that it is.) Now we start to conjecture about what happens next > with no UI; my guess is North 5D. Now, kindly me, I think it likely that > this awakens south with AI, if not to the actual disaster, at least to a > similar one. South bids 5S, undoubled, off 5, -250. (I would reject a > claim for more, in that I see doubling 6H, even in an obviously muddled > auction, as unlikely, and I don't see N-S stumbling all the way to 6S or > higher). I would need to find out their agreements as to what 4H would mean in a strong NT auction. It may just be 5-5 majors with no slam interest. Without knowing what their agreements are, we can't make this decision. Even if it is a splinter, is it possible that N could work out that this is highly unlikely give that partner is a passed hand (I didn't say impossible)? N could pass having no UI. If no agreement on this bid, I would default to natural and rule that was the contract. This would appear to lead to down 2. Remember, before the defense started, E-W would know that S just has hearts. The spade shift should not be difficult. > Does this seem harsh? I don't think it is. This is where N-S would have > been without the alert procedure, or by following the laws scrupulously. > > Obviously, I don't think this is frivolous at all. We agree on both points. Then Herman DE WAEL wrote: > Doesn't anybody find that south is also awakened by the 2S bid itself, > with or without the alert ? Only if that bid is "impossible". It isn't in this auction. > Have you never bid something, thinking that it means partner must pass, > only to see him bid the next suit ? Don't you then start thinking, > 'maybe he understood it as transfer - oh yeah, we do play transfers > sometimes in these types of situations'. Isn't south allowed to bid his > hand according to that information (I better not repeat my hearts in > case he thinks I have a two-suiter). How could you ever be willing to assume that S woke up because of the bid? Isn't it just as possible that it was the alert that woke him up? Or in some cases the failure to alert? I have always understood that we must always assume that it was the alert procedure that clarified things. Since we never have any way to determine otherwise, mustn't this be our default setting? As I said , if the auction is "impossible", I'm quite comfortable with allowing the player to sort things out. That is certainly not the case here. > I don't believe any correction is in order. I obviously disagree. %%% O O ( > ) \ 0 / \ Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 30 10:10:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 1997 10:10:01 +1000 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA26073 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 10:09:55 +1000 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id U]U05270; Thu, 29 May 1997 20:08:03 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Demonstrably - revisited Message-ID: <19970529.201143.6838.0.paulhar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-14,22-27,32-33,36-39 From: paulhar@juno.com (Paul D. Harrington) Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 20:08:03 EDT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'd like to gather some opinions about a recent committee decision at a club game. The auction: N E S W 1C 1H P 2H P P 3D P (1) P (2) 3H P P P East held: Kxx, AKxxx, x, xxxx. (1) Hesitation (2) Call for the director, asking for protection N-S were gold life masters (2500+), E-W were novices (about 50-100 points?). East explained that his bridge teacher had taught him to bid 3 over 3 when you have a ninth trump or when you have a fit and a singleton in the opponent's suit. West claimed that his hesitation was because 'he couldn't imagine anyone bidding like that'; that he honestly couldn't fathom what South could have and wanted to think about it. East turned out to have four hearts. The committee ruled N/S making 3D (3D may or may not make.) Questions: (1) How do you feel about the committee decision? (2) Would the new 'demonstrably' change anything? (3) Since the novice pair played fairly sound overcalls (10+), isn't it about as likely that the hesitation was about doubling 3D (making a 3H call a disaster), especially as a novice player hasn't had the bitter experiences that experienced players have had about doubling (or thinking) with a tenuous trump stack and giving the show away? (4) Assuming you as the committee rule in favor of N/S, what would you suggest the director say to E/W who now don't feel a whole lot like playing duplicate bridge (at least here) anymore? Paul Harrington paulhar@juno.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 30 12:17:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 1997 12:17:34 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA26530 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 12:17:28 +1000 From: OAdamec@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA18872 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 May 1997 22:16:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:16:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970529221441_-1229692813@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably - revisited Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a working club director, I think this sounds like a typical situation. My understanding is that the new law changes the ruling on this hand. Under the old law, I would say that the decision below is correct. As I understand the new law, I would now change my decision to allowing the 3H bid, since the hesitation does not suggest a bid of 3H, but could as Paul indicates be based on wanting to double a new suit bid, or could be based (as the ew pair says) on confusion. Under the new law, the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest a 3H bid. And I am interested in the correct way to handle this new word. In a message dated 97-05-29 21:53:15 EDT, paulhar@juno.com (Paul D. Harrington) writes: << I'd like to gather some opinions about a recent committee decision at a club game. The auction: N E S W 1C 1H P 2H P P 3D P (1) P (2) 3H P P P East held: Kxx, AKxxx, x, xxxx. (1) Hesitation (2) Call for the director, asking for protection N-S were gold life masters (2500+), E-W were novices (about 50-100 points?). East explained that his bridge teacher had taught him to bid 3 over 3 when you have a ninth trump or when you have a fit and a singleton in the opponent's suit. West claimed that his hesitation was because 'he couldn't imagine anyone bidding like that'; that he honestly couldn't fathom what South could have and wanted to think about it. East turned out to have four hearts. The committee ruled N/S making 3D (3D may or may not make.) Questions: (1) How do you feel about the committee decision? (2) Would the new 'demonstrably' change anything? (3) Since the novice pair played fairly sound overcalls (10+), isn't it about as likely that the hesitation was about doubling 3D (making a 3H call a disaster), especially as a novice player hasn't had the bitter experiences that experienced players have had about doubling (or thinking) with a tenuous trump stack and giving the show away? (4) Assuming you as the committee rule in favor of N/S, what would you suggest the director say to E/W who now don't feel a whole lot like playing duplicate bridge (at least here) anymore? >> From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 30 23:14:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 1997 23:14:38 +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 XAA29235 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 23:14:31 +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 JAA18746 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 09:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970530091509.006a722c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:15:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Demonstrably - revisited In-Reply-To: <19970529.201143.6838.0.paulhar@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:08 PM 5/29/97 EDT, Paul wrote: >I'd like to gather some opinions about a recent committee decision at a >club game. > >The auction: >N E S W >1C 1H P 2H >P P 3D P (1) >P (2) 3H P P >P > >East held: Kxx, AKxxx, x, xxxx. > >(1) Hesitation >(2) Call for the director, asking for protection > >N-S were gold life masters (2500+), E-W were novices (about 50-100 >points?). East explained that his bridge teacher had taught him to bid 3 >over 3 when you have a ninth trump or when you have a fit and a singleton >in the opponent's suit. West claimed that his hesitation was because 'he >couldn't imagine anyone bidding like that'; that he honestly couldn't >fathom what South could have and wanted to think about it. East turned >out to have four hearts. The committee ruled N/S making 3D (3D may or >may not make.) > >Questions: (1) How do you feel about the committee decision? I'd expect the same ruling from an AC at any ACBL tournament event. >(2) Would the new 'demonstrably' change anything? It's unlikely that it should change the ruling, but possible. See comments on #3 below. As to "would", as opposed to "should", I don't think anyone knows yet. >(3) Since the novice pair played fairly sound overcalls (10+), isn't it >about as likely that the hesitation was about doubling 3D (making a 3H >call a disaster), especially as a novice player hasn't had the bitter >experiences that experienced players have had about doubling (or >thinking) with a tenuous trump stack and giving the show away? It's possible, but probably not "as likely". Still, it could be, for this particular pair. That's the AC's call. If the AC were to decide that for this player it was as likely, then "demonstrably" comes into play. In that situation, I would expect an ACBL AC (acting under the old laws -- it remains to be seen how ACs will react to the change in wording) to rule (erroneously IMO) in favor of an adjustment, on the grounds that W's hesitation suggests to E that some other action is better than passing, and therefore that E should be constrained to pass rather than take some other action. With the change to "demonstrably" (which, IMO, was intended merely to clarify, and thus restore to practice, the original intent of the prior wording), this should no longer be the case. If the hesitation is deemed to have suggested 3H over P over X or X over P over 3H with equal likelihood, then 3H was not "demonstrably" suggested over P despite the hesitation having suggested that P could not be the best call. I suppose I'd want to know what that bridge teacher who taught E-W to bid 3 over 3 on a hair-trigger had to say about doubling 3-level interference into game. But I'd be surprised if it turned out that W was really as likely to be thinking about doubling as to be thinking about bidding. >(4) Assuming you as the committee rule in favor of N/S, what would you >suggest the director say to E/W who now don't feel a whole lot like >playing duplicate bridge (at least here) anymore? Now that may be the toughest question that a club director has to face. He needs to convince them that there's a clear and well-understood distinction between technical violations that result in some kind of adjustment (such as, say, a revoke, or this 3H bid) and improper behaviors, which are treated as much more serious offenses. It often helps to use an analogy from some popular sport such as football or basketball, where there is a similar and well-understood distinction between routine, unintentional fouls, which are committed by everyone all the time and do not carry any onus of having done "something wrong", but are penalized nevertheless, and flagrant, intentional fouls, of the sort that get the players who commit them fines or reputations as "dirty" players. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 02:47:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 02:47:37 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA02676 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 02:47:12 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa25093; 30 May 97 9:46 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Demonstrably - revisited In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 May 1997 20:08:03 PDT." <19970529.201143.6838.0.paulhar@juno.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:46:27 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9705300946.aa25093@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I'd like to gather some opinions about a recent committee decision at a > club game. > > The auction: > N E S W > 1C 1H P 2H > P P 3D P (1) > P (2) 3H P P > P > > East held: Kxx, AKxxx, x, xxxx. > > (1) Hesitation > (2) Call for the director, asking for protection > > N-S were gold life masters (2500+), E-W were novices (about 50-100 > points?). East explained that his bridge teacher had taught him to bid 3 > over 3 when you have a ninth trump or when you have a fit and a singleton > in the opponent's suit. West claimed that his hesitation was because 'he > couldn't imagine anyone bidding like that'; that he honestly couldn't > fathom what South could have and wanted to think about it. East turned > out to have four hearts. I assume you mean West had four hearts, since we can see East had five. > The committee ruled N/S making 3D (3D may or > may not make.) > > Questions: (1) How do you feel about the committee decision? Although everyone else has said it's the ruling they'd expect, I don't think I would have ruled that way, in this particular situation. The reason is that if East is a novice, and that his bridge teacher taught him to bid on in these situations, passing can't be considered a logical alternative! In my understanding, the definitions of terms like "logical alternative" depend on the level of a particular player. So for an experienced player, pass, double, and 3H are all logical alternatives; but for a newer player who doesn't understand the finer points of judgement yet, what we more experienced players consider to be "logical alternatives" just may not apply. Naturally, if E-W were a good pair, I'd rule as the committee did. Also, if I thought E-W were a better pair than they were pretending to be, and that the stuff about "my teacher taught me" and "I couldn't imagine anyone bidding like that" was hogwash, I'd rule against them also (on legal grounds, without accusing them of lying, of course). > (4) Assuming you as the committee rule in favor of N/S, what would you > suggest the director say to E/W who now don't feel a whole lot like > playing duplicate bridge (at least here) anymore? Since I'm probably ruling in favor if E-W, I think it would be a good time to explain that in most circumstances I'd have ruled the other way, and explained why. E-W are probably more likely to be receptive to learning about this aspect of the rules than they would be if they had lost the appeal and had a reason to be mad. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 03:37:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 03:37:14 +1000 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA02867 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 03:37:08 +1000 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3.carleton.ca [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with SMTP id NAA06938 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 13:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by freenet3.carleton.ca (4.1/NCF-Sun-Client) id AA17534 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 May 97 13:36:52 EDT Date: Fri, 30 May 97 13:36:52 EDT Message-Id: <9705301736.AA17534@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Question on Law 36 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The auction: N E S W 1H P 1S 3D(1) (1) pre-emptive DBL(2) P DBL/P(3) P (2) penalty P (3) ALSO penalty :-), this is where I come in I'm called to the table to make my ruling. This one is easy, I thought. I read Law 36, apply the appropriate penalties, and tell them to continue. But, says West, a long time director, what about my right to cancel the double? What right, says I? Sure enough, in a copy of Duplicate Decisions ( a club director's guide for ruling at the table put out by the ACBL) under Law 36, it says: If the bid that was inadmissibly doubled or redoubled becomes the final contract, any non-offender may cancel the double--he does not have to be a member of the declaring side. South elects to pass, North is barred, and West ends up playing 3D--undoubled! My question--where is this right to cancel the double in the Laws? For the life of me, I can't find it. Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) ps. West ended up -4, -200, for a top. Considering he had Jxxxx in diamonds opposite a small stiff, and about 14 HCP between the 2 hands, he played it quite well... :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 04:23:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 04:23:40 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA03139 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 04:23:33 +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 OAA10239 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 14:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13568; Fri, 30 May 1997 14:23:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 14:23:19 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705301823.OAA13568@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Question on Law 36 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > My question--where is this right to cancel the double in the Laws? > For the life of me, I can't find it. I can't find it either, and the excerpt from Duplicate Decisions makes no sense to me. An inadmissable double is automatically cancelled (L36). What can DD mean by "any non-offender may cancel the double?" Is the text clearer in context, or is it the usual ACBL confusion? From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 04:26:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 04:26:40 +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 EAA03162 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 04:26:35 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23754 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 14:26:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 14:26:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Question on Law 36 In-Reply-To: <9705301736.AA17534@freenet3.carleton.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 May 1997, A. L. Edwards wrote: > The auction: N E S W > 1H P 1S 3D(1) (1) pre-emptive > DBL(2) P DBL/P(3) P (2) penalty > P (3) ALSO penalty :-), > this is where I come in > > I'm called to the table to make my ruling. This one is easy, I thought. > I read Law 36, apply the appropriate penalties, and tell them to continue. > But, says West, a long time director, what about my right to cancel the > double? What right, says I? > Sure enough, in a copy of Duplicate Decisions ( a club director's guide > for ruling at the table put out by the ACBL) under Law 36, it says: > > If the bid that was inadmissibly doubled or redoubled > becomes the final contract, any non-offender may cancel > the double--he does not have to be a member of the declaring side. I would assert that the Duplicate Decisions is at best misleading. An illegal double is automatically cancelled with extra penalties. The non-offender has no choice. However, the first double was not illegal. That double stands. The illegal double did not double a bid. At best it doubled a call. I agree. It's not in the laws. As an aside, in this mailing list we now need not merely to make it clear where we are mailing from, but what version of the laws we are using! Does anyone have a 1997 ruling problem yet? -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 04:47:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 04:47:05 +1000 Received: from wpg-01.escape.ca (root@wpg-01.escape.ca [198.163.232.254]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA03235 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 04:46:59 +1000 Received: from wpg-01.escape.ca (mx4dl188.escape.ca [207.161.63.188]) by wpg-01.escape.ca (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id NAA25313; Fri, 30 May 1997 13:53:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: by wpg-01.escape.ca with Microsoft Mail id <01BC6CFE.EF07F3A0@wpg-01.escape.ca>; Fri, 30 May 1997 13:39:44 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC6CFE.EF07F3A0@wpg-01.escape.ca> From: Cameron Fairbairn To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Demonstrably - revisited Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 13:39:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is precisely the situation that happened to me about six years ago, = when I was a novice in my first sectional. My partner hesitated, I bid on, and my explanation to the TD was that I = had NO idea what my partner was thinking of, but that I was always = planning to bid. He ruled in our favour, but an AC later on reversed = the decision, citing logical alternative. After I got over being = annoyed, I still to this day am very cognizant of my partner's = hesitations and like most people take that action which is least = favourable to our side. So now, . . . .. under the new "Demonstrably" law, only the hesitation = itself is UI, n'est pas? As for the novice pair to which this thread originally started, I agree = with the football (Canadian Football League of course!) analogy. = Unintentional pass interference is still a penalty and provides the = offender no reason to be more than momentarily upset, coupled with a = resolve to get even (via a good result) the next time. Cameron Fairbairn ---------- From: Adam Beneschan[SMTP:adam@flash.irvine.com] Sent: Friday, 30 May 1997 11:46 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Demonstrably - revisited=20 >=20 > I'd like to gather some opinions about a recent committee decision at = a > club game. >=20 > The auction: > N E S W > 1C 1H P 2H > P P 3D P (1) > P (2) 3H P P > P >=20 > East held: Kxx, AKxxx, x, xxxx. >=20 > (1) Hesitation > (2) Call for the director, asking for protection >=20 > N-S were gold life masters (2500+), E-W were novices (about 50-100 > points?). East explained that his bridge teacher had taught him to = bid 3 > over 3 when you have a ninth trump or when you have a fit and a = singleton > in the opponent's suit. West claimed that his hesitation was because = 'he > couldn't imagine anyone bidding like that'; that he honestly couldn't > fathom what South could have and wanted to think about it. East = turned > out to have four hearts. =20 I assume you mean West had four hearts, since we can see East had five. > The committee ruled N/S making 3D (3D may or > may not make.) >=20 > Questions: (1) How do you feel about the committee decision? Although everyone else has said it's the ruling they'd expect, I don't think I would have ruled that way, in this particular situation. The reason is that if East is a novice, and that his bridge teacher taught him to bid on in these situations, passing can't be considered a logical alternative! In my understanding, the definitions of terms like "logical alternative" depend on the level of a particular player. So for an experienced player, pass, double, and 3H are all logical alternatives; but for a newer player who doesn't understand the finer points of judgement yet, what we more experienced players consider to be "logical alternatives" just may not apply. Naturally, if E-W were a good pair, I'd rule as the committee did. Also, if I thought E-W were a better pair than they were pretending to be, and that the stuff about "my teacher taught me" and "I couldn't imagine anyone bidding like that" was hogwash, I'd rule against them also (on legal grounds, without accusing them of lying, of course). =20 =20 > (4) Assuming you as the committee rule in favor of N/S, what would you > suggest the director say to E/W who now don't feel a whole lot like > playing duplicate bridge (at least here) anymore? Since I'm probably ruling in favor if E-W, I think it would be a good time to explain that in most circumstances I'd have ruled the other way, and explained why. E-W are probably more likely to be receptive to learning about this aspect of the rules than they would be if they had lost the appeal and had a reason to be mad. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 04:48:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 04:48:04 +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 EAA03255 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 04:47:59 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA01413 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 14:47:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 14:47:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Laws change during a match Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In 1987, I mailed a request for a ruling to the ACBL. A match scheduled for the evening of March 31st in ACBLand started late because one member of each team was late (they were travelling together and were delayed through no fault of their own). Play was slow, and the last quarter did not get under way until after 11:30. Early in the quarter, East failed to follow suit. Partner said "Having no hearts, partner?" and East corrected his error. Boards were exchanged, and at about 12:05, coincidentally on the same board, East failed to follow suit, West asked, and the Director was called. The new laws were now in effect, (they had been for about five minutes) so West was not allowed to ask (the ACBL exemption about asking came into being later). The revoke penalty affected the result of the match, and was naturally appealed. I did kindly add in a P.S. that full notice be taken of the date of the letter (1 April 1987), but I understand some members of the ACBL staff took the letter seriously. The 1997 laws do not seem to offer such an obvious opportunity for plaguing a National Organization :-(, but I'm sure some contrived example could be manufactured around "Demonstrably" if nothing else. What _would_ be the ruling if the Laws changed in mid-match? -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 05:24:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 05:24:17 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA03407 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 05:24:11 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-4.ts-7.lax.idt.net [169.132.210.4]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA19043; Fri, 30 May 1997 15:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <338F2893.269F@mail.idt.net> Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 12:20:51 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Committee last night References: <338B5FC7.59E5@mail.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've read over the various replies, and wish to provide additional info, and corrections. first, the 14th diamond is actually a club, in the east hand. The actual hand: > > Qxx N E S W > AKJx 1C* P 1D** P > AJT 1N*** P 2H P > QJx 2S**** P 2N P > Jxxx KT9 3N all pass > xx xx > Qxxx Kxxx * 16+ > AKx xxxx ** negative > Axx *** 16-19 > Qxxxx **** Alerted 2H as a Transfer > xx > xxx result was -1, +50 for E/W > > The basis of the protest was that the 2H bidder was awakened by the > announcement and should not have bid 2NT, but most probably should have > bid 4H, taking the position that 2S was some sort of super-accept. The > possibility that opener had five spades was discounted by everyone BUT > the complainant. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the NS pair, > a five card spade suit is impossible. > > The committee supported the director's ruling, that there was no damage, > and the result should stand. One member of the N/S team felt that the > protest was frivolous and should be dealt with as such. The committee > declined to get involved with that. > > I personally felt that it was impossible that south was NOT awakened by > the alert, but that she did nothing egregious, in that a spade suit was > impossible, and 2NT seems to describe both her hand and her values. I > think the NO's wanted a ruling based on the least favorable of the > Logical Alternatives, and that there were less favorable such > alternatives existed. I am not certain his position is without merit, > though it smacks of 'lawyering' to me. As a committe member, am I > required to adhere to such standards, even if I think the application in > a particular case is not called for? > > Thanks in Advance > > Irv Kostal I now feel the committee did a poor job (mea culpa!) of fact-finding in this matter. For one thing, we never found out just when the MI was disclosed, and whether there might have been some UI during the auction, in the form of faces, hesitations, etc. I can't recall that we found out what the actual agreement was. This is not entirely the fault of the committee, in that the N/S pair was not present for the hearing, and another member of their team represented them. We also were afflicted with the sort of complainant who was not very willing to let other people talk, so we were, to a certain extent fighting him off. I have, in the past, tried to make up my mind about these kinds of things by imagining the state of mind of the players in a 'pre-alert' situation, thus, North hears 2H, thinks it is a transfer and bids his 2S. Now is partner bids 2N and he's 4333, so why not NT? It's 9 tricks, after all, and he knows partner has a max of 7 HCP, so 3NT would be attractive to him. South, meantime, makes his 2H bid, hears 2S (and knows it isn't a five card suit), so makes what seems the most descriptive bid of 2NT, hears 3N from partner and thinks along the same lines. So I think that without the alert procedure at all, 3NT would probably have been the final contract. I'm getting the sense, from what I'm hearing, that I am not allowed to view the matter in this (to me sensible) way, but instead must choose, from among the LA's, the most damaging to N/S. While I can see the logic in this, especially in cases where it appears the offenders were TRYING to take advantage of the alert procedure, it also seems it can lead to quite draconian conclusions, like the idea of one correspondent who felt the auction should end in 6H. I'm quite certain I'd reject that conclusion as precluded by the player's knowledge of each other's HCP strength, but a logical case can be made for arriving in 4H, just as I was able to make a logical case for arriving in 3NT. If it's true that we must take the least favorable LA, then I think the final contract should be judged to be 4S, on the theory that south will be required to push to 4H, and north will inevitably correct to 4S. This seems quite harsh to me, and I don't like it much. Am I stuck with it? Irv Kostal From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 06:33:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:33:46 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA03691 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:33:35 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA16972; Fri, 30 May 1997 12:33:22 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 12:33:21 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: "Paul D. Harrington" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably - revisited In-Reply-To: <19970529.201143.6838.0.paulhar@juno.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 May 1997, Paul D. Harrington wrote: > I'd like to gather some opinions about a recent committee decision at a > club game. [snip - we've all read the story a dozen times by now.] > Questions: (1) How do you feel about the committee decision? I'm mostly with Adam Beneschan on this one. If the 3H bidder is telling the truth ("I always bid on with a fit and a singleton") it would seem that, in his mind if not in mine, he had no logical alternative to the 3H bid. For what it's worth, at the club where I direct, we have several pairs -- not experts, but longtime players who have wound up with several hundred MPs -- who DO always bid 3H in this situation! [These same people give me the most awful grimaces when the LOTT gives us good results for immediately bidding 3H with a 9-card fit.) > > (2) Would the new 'demonstrably' change anything? > I tend to favor EW (if they are sincere) under the old or the new laws. Of course, as Adam noted, with more experienced players, committees are much more likely to rule for NS. I think that 'demonstrably' should make committees *somewhat* more willing to rule for NS in this sort of situation. > (3) Since the novice pair played fairly sound overcalls (10+), isn't it > about as likely that the hesitation was about doubling 3D (making a 3H > call a disaster), especially as a novice player hasn't had the bitter > experiences that experienced players have had about doubling (or > thinking) with a tenuous trump stack and giving the show away? > I think this a possibility, but that it's much more likely that east wanted to bid. > (4) Assuming you as the committee rule in favor of N/S, what would you > suggest the director say to E/W who now don't feel a whole lot like > playing duplicate bridge (at least here) anymore? > If EW were telling the truth, they are going to feel wounded no matter what I say, and for good reason -- they got punished for doing exactly what they would have done in the absence of an infraction, and, while punishing them may be appropriate, it will be damn hard to make them see it that way. By the way, I hope NS were polite about calling the director; the attitude of the experienced players at a club game has a LOT to do with whether EW will ever come back. If NS civilly asserted their rights, so be it; if they did so nastily, they too are in need of a chat with the director. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 06:37:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:37:19 +1000 Received: from macront3.macroent.com (macront3.macroent.com [199.89.196.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA03709 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:37:12 +1000 Received: by macront3.macroent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 30 May 1997 15:25:47 -0500 Message-ID: <01CBCC09DEB4D0119C440020AFA407AE5446@macront3.macroent.com> From: "Polunsky, Richard" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List , "'Richard Lighton'" Subject: RE: Laws change during a match Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 15:25:45 -0500 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) asked in a semi-jocular mood: > In 1987, I mailed a request for a ruling to the ACBL. > > A match scheduled for the evening of March 31st in ACBLand > started late because one member of each team was late (they were > travelling together and were delayed through no fault of their own). > Play was slow, and the last quarter did not get under way until > after 11:30. > > Boards were exchanged, and at about 12:05, coincidentally on the > same board... The new laws were now in effect, (they had been for > about > five minutes) so West was not allowed... > > What _would_ be the ruling if the Laws changed in mid-match? > ***** response ***** I don't recall seeing this mentioned anywhere, but there may be a clause somewhere in the usual ACBL Conditions of Contest about a match having to be run under the same rules throughout. That's pretty much the case in a lot of business and other domains as well. If the match started by 11:59:59 pm, the old laws would govern for the duration of the match. If it started at 12:00:00, the new laws would govern. I leave the question of multi-session games as an exercise for the obsessive-compulsive and the budding rabbinical student... From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 06:49:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:49:28 +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 GAA03747 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:49:21 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id QAA29346 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 16:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970530165000.006a9254@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:50:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Question on Law 36 In-Reply-To: <9705301736.AA17534@freenet3.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:36 PM 5/30/97 EDT, Tony wrote: >The auction: N E S W > 1H P 1S 3D(1) (1) pre-emptive > DBL(2) P DBL/P(3) P (2) penalty > P (3) ALSO penalty :-), > this is where I come in > >I'm called to the table to make my ruling. This one is easy, I thought. >I read Law 36, apply the appropriate penalties, and tell them to continue. >But, says West, a long time director, what about my right to cancel the >double? What right, says I? >Sure enough, in a copy of Duplicate Decisions ( a club director's guide >for ruling at the table put out by the ACBL) under Law 36, it says: > > If the bid that was inadmissibly doubled or redoubled > becomes the final contract, any non-offender may cancel > the double--he does not have to be a member of the declaring side. > >South elects to pass, North is barred, and West ends up playing >3D--undoubled! >My question--where is this right to cancel the double in the Laws? >For the life of me, I can't find it. To find it, you will need to look in an old Law book. This was dropped in the 1987 revision. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 06:58:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:58:53 +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 GAA03804 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 06:58:27 +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 QAA00696 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 16:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970530165906.006a88f8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:59:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Laws change during a match In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:47 PM 5/30/97 -0400, Richard wrote: >What _would_ be the ruling if the Laws changed in mid-match? I'm not sure this deserves a serious answer, but I would think it would be that the Laws do not change in mid-match, i.e. that "effective on or after..." would be interpreted to really mean "effective for sessions of play which start on or after..." Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 07:20:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 07:20:36 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03932 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 07:20:29 +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 RAA14359 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 17:20:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA13725; Fri, 30 May 1997 17:20:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:20:15 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705302120.RAA13725@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee last night X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Irwin J Kostal > I'm getting the sense, from what I'm hearing, that I am not allowed to > view the matter in this (to me sensible) way, This is correct. "The normal action without UI" may be sensible, but it's not what L16 requires. > but instead must choose, > from among the LA's, the most damaging to N/S. No, not the most damaging, but any one not suggested by the UI. In the hand in question, a 4H bid would have been legal and (as it turns out) not especially damaging. > it also seems it can > lead to quite draconian conclusions, like the idea of one correspondent > who felt the auction should end in 6H. If there's no infraction, there's not necessarily a draconian conclusion. Once there is an infraction requiring an adjusted score, though, L12 provides that the offenders generally get the worst of any questions that might be in doubt. It may be easier to rationalize possible draconian consequences if you realize that forgetting a transfer bid can easily cause a huge loss. (That's what happens when I do it.) It also may cause no loss at all. (That's what happens when my opponents do it!) Either result is normal, but players are not allowed to use UI to get out of their predicament. > If it's true that we must take the least favorable LA, then I think the > final contract should be judged to be 4S, on the theory that south will > be required to push to 4H, and north will inevitably correct to 4S. It might be required on a different hand. Here, though, where North's distribution is 3433, it seems absurd to correct to 4S if South ostensibly shows 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors. Your bridge judgment may differ, of course. If North had held equal length in the majors, any adjusted score would indeed be determined on the basis of North's correcting to spades. If South does not commit an infraction, though, there may be no adjusted score. For example: ...1NT-2H!-2S-4H- and North now wakes up and realizes that they don't play transfers. As long as the waking up is not based on UI, North is allowed to pass. OTOH, if South commits the infraction of bidding 2NT, the pair is headed for an adjusted score. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 08:11:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 08:11:34 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04116 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 08:11:28 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA15156 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 18:11:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA13757; Fri, 30 May 1997 18:11:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 18:11:17 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199705302211.SAA13757@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably - revisited X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: paulhar@juno.com (Paul D. Harrington) > N E S W > 1C 1H P 2H > P P 3D P (1) > P (2) 3H P P > P > > East held: Kxx, AKxxx, x, xxxx. > > (1) Hesitation > (2) Call for the director, asking for protection > The committee ruled N/S making 3D (3D may or > may not make.) > > Questions: (1) How do you feel about the committee decision? The question is whether 3H was an infraction. (The result seems automatic if it is as long as 3D has a reasonable chance of making.) There are two defenses. First is logical alternatives. In the US, for most pairs, those would be double, pass, and 3H. Under European standards, I could easily be persuaded that pass is not a LA. It may not be one for this particular player, depending on what his teacher taught him, but I'd want to hear pretty convincing testimony to rule that way. The second issue is "suggested over another." Certainly the hesitation makes double more attractive than it was and pass less attractive. It may well make 3H less attractive too. Why couldn't West have been considering a penalty double? What was the vulnerability? If NS were vulnerable, I would vote that 3H is not suggested, since it might well be right to pass and take the penalty. (Double is clearly illegal.) If NS were not vulnerable, 3H might well be suggested, since pass is almost certain to be a rotten score. An alternate view on this question is that a beginner's hesitation doesn't suggest anything at all. I might be persuaded by that argument in some other case, but here the hesitation suggests extra values of some sort. As Eric L. wrote, I would expect AC's in North America to ignore the second issue and routinely rule as this one did. > (2) Would the new 'demonstrably' change anything? Not for me. I hope it causes AC's to recognize that there are two parts to a UI ruling. > (3) Since the novice pair played fairly sound overcalls (10+), isn't it > about as likely that the hesitation was about doubling 3D (making a 3H > call a disaster), especially as a novice player hasn't had the bitter > experiences that experienced players have had about doubling (or > thinking) with a tenuous trump stack and giving the show away? The AC ought to have answered this question. > (4) Assuming you as the committee rule in favor of N/S, what would you > suggest the director say to E/W who now don't feel a whole lot like > playing duplicate bridge (at least here) anymore? There is a good answer in the Bridge World's "Appeals Committee" booklets. As I remember, you start by saying "We are sure that you would have bid 3H even without the hesitation," but you go on to explain that it is no longer legal. Give an analogy like an exposed card; it may give no useful information, but there are still lead restrictions. The booklet gives a better explanation than I can reproduce, but basically you give the best explanation of L16A you can manage. Be sure to emphasize that it's a technical infraction, not an accusation or finding of unethical conduct. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 10:42:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 10:42:47 +1000 Received: from ozemail.com.au (server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net [203.108.7.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04635 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 10:42:42 +1000 From: ardelm@ozemail.com.au Received: from oznet07.ozemail.com.au (oznet07.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.122]) by ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08354 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 10:42:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.63.221.50]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00246 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 10:42:37 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 10:42:37 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199705310042.KAA00246@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably - revisited Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:11 PM 30/05/97 -0400, you wrote: >> From: paulhar@juno.com (Paul D. Harrington) >> N E S W >> 1C 1H P 2H >> P P 3D P (1) >> P (2) 3H P P >> P >> >> East held: Kxx, AKxxx, x, xxxx. >> >> (1) Hesitation >> (2) Call for the director, asking for protection >> The committee ruled N/S making 3D (3D may or >> may not make.) >> > I frequently play in a club where I find myself in the S position, playing against novices. I advance my scruffy diamond suit to try to bump them up. I don't expect to get doubled, so there is not too much risk. Sure enough (and sometimes luckily enough) they take the push..mission accomplished. Unfortunately I also have a partner who is (IMO), rather too quick on playing the director card. I have asked him to wait until the end of the auction if he feels it necessary, because a minatory call immediately after the hesitation, unequivocally shows diamond support (IMO). Partner is going to be very forgiving of the opponents' bidding with AJxx of hearts and a singleton diamond. As a club director, I like to act as if these people were guests in my house. I will have few qualms about accepting the EW explanations and allowing the score to stand. I will issue a warning to the West player to be much more careful in future. He will have to ready for such pushy bidding in future and be ready to pass or double smoothly. The hesitation puts too much pressure on partner who now must have a hand which 75% (in Australia) of players would act upon in the same way, without the hesitation. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 31 23:15:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 23:15:34 +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 XAA05958 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 23:15:27 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wXo6B-0000D3-00; Sat, 31 May 1997 13:21:35 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-47-97.btinternet.com [195.99.47.97]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA21062; Sat, 31 May 1997 14:15:27 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199705311315.OAA21062@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Question on Law 36 Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 14:14:59 +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 Hi Tony Law 36 (1975 edition): Any double or redouble not permitted by Law 19 is cancelled, and the offender must substitute a legal call (Law 26 applies). *Further, if the bid that was inadmissibly doubled (or redoubled) becomes the final contract, either member of the non-offending side may specify that the contract be played undoubled.* In the 1987 edition, however, the final sentence does not appear (and it does not appear in the 1997 Laws either). I don't know whether "Duplicate Decisions" is a live document, but I suggest that it be updated as a matter of some urgency - until then, I would recommend the FLB as your sole guide! Best wishes David