From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 2 13:53:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:53:23 +1000 Received: from brickbat9.mindspring.com (brickbat9.mindspring.com [207.69.200.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA16228 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:53:17 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbac4.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.132]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA18546; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706020348.XAA18546@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: , "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: Committee last night Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:50:35 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Irwin J Kostal > To: Bridge Laws List > Subject: Committee last night > Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 6:27 PM > > 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 The argument that South is under any enforceable obligation to bid 4H (never mind 6H) lacks any foundation in the laws. This is NOT a UI case. The only information South has received is a statement of his partnership understandings, which he is allowed to know about. Certainly the spirit of Law 16A has been extended to include the generic situation of players being alerted to their own (forgotten) system agreements, but I agree with your reluctance to apply that principle to the present case. South was very likely wakened to his own misbid by the alert, (although he may well have remembered the instant the bid passed his lips), but it is a virtual certainty that he would have tumbled after his partner's 2 spade bid, with or without the alert. ("2 spades? What the heck???") Those who argue that South should be forced to bid some unmanageable number of hearts are arguing that South is obliged to say to himself "If we played 2 hearts as natural, then what would 2 spades mean?", and then bid accordingly. In lieu of South's willingness to fall on his own sword, they are willing to impose upon him an absurd method played by absolutely nobody (i.e., over 1nt, 2H natural, 2S fit-showing, or something) in order to ensure the worst possible result. The main problem with this lawyerly reasoning is that it seems guaranteed to assure a bad result for NS no matter what, since any action at all by South can be seen as inconsistent with some hypothetical system, and hence tainted by the alert. The laws do not mandate a bad result for NS when they forget their methods. It is true that they cannot be allowed to use the alert system to bail themselves out,but notice that NS have probably already paid a stiff price for the mis-bid. They are very likely to wind up too high and in the wrong strain to boot. In the unlikely event that they scramble to a good result, EW can legitimately cry in their beer that they was fixed... Michael S. Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 2 14:18:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:18:02 +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 OAA16310 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:17:57 +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 XAA02187 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:17:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0WOSA02L Sun, 01 Jun 97 23:16:07 Message-ID: <9706012316.0WOSA02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 01 Jun 97 23:16:07 Subject: Tales of Law 25 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In Houston, Texas the following two hands were played at my table yesterday. Please offer your comments opinions and comments, in a couple of weeks I'll include the rulings. The auction proceeds Vul-Both S W N E P 1S 2H 2S 3H 3S 4H P P 5S[1] [1] After a huddle of 1 minute and looking at the bid as it was pulled from the box. After approximately 12 seconds of looking intently at LHO he looks at his bid and exclaims something to the effect that it was too late to change his call. RHO called the director for a ruling. The west hand AKJ8xx x Kx Kxx In the following session Vul-Both W N E S 1S[1] P 2S[2] [1] 1N was placed on the table but never seen because it fell off the table leaving the 1S visible. [2] W looks at the table and exclaims that they intended to bid 1N and retrieves the 1N card from the floor. E called the director. R Pewick Houston r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.2 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 3 00:58:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:58:29 +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 AAA21406 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 00:58:22 +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 JAA13532; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 09:58:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DXTP00B Mon, 02 Jun 97 09:55:21 Message-ID: <9706020955.0DXTP00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 97 09:55:21 Subject: TALES OF LAW 25 To: to:@news.hal-pc.org, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To clarify matters, do to problems with my email, an incorrect version of this message was sent AFTER the correct version. This is the correct version repeated. The offending editing mistake is the 5S bid made by west. My apologies. In Houston, Texas the following two hands were played at my table yesterday. Please offer your opinions and comments, in a couple of weeks I'll include the rulings. The auction proceeds Vul-Both S W N E P 1S 2H 2S 3H 3S 4H P P 5S[1] [1] After a huddle of 1 minute and looking at the bid as it was pulled from the box. After approximately 12 seconds of looking intently at LHO he looks at his bid and exclaims something to the effect that it was too late to change his call. RHO called the director for a ruling. The west hand AKJ8xx x Kx Kxx In the following session Vul-Both W N E S 1S[1] P 2S[2] [1] 1N was placed on the table but never seen because it fell off the table leaving the 1S visible. [2] W looks at the table and exclaims that they intended to bid 1N and retrieves the 1N card from the floor. E called the director. R Pewick Houston r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.2 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 3 02:07:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 02:07:39 +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 CAA21826 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 02:07:32 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-434.innet.be [194.7.14.134]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA21383 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 18:04:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3392BA1C.39C3@innet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:18:37 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Board 24 in Hoogstraten Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A directors' joke : board 24 (none/W) AJ85 8 AK5 QJ752 KQ74 T9 AQ9652 4 8 T97432 KT 9643 632 KJT73 QJ6 A8 Act 1 : W N E S 1H 1Sp pass 2H some other bids.. director ! Shouldn't that 2Heart bid be alerted ? The poor South had never heard of cue-bids, and no, not even in Belgium do we alert a natural bid. Act 2 : W N E S 1H 1Sp pass Dbl explained and changed to : 1NT Dbl all pass +4 !! Act 3 : W N E S 1H Dbl(1) pass 1H (1) don't ask me why By now, I know the hands. But I don't want to let this be known to west, who is an EBL-director (A) himself. So I take south off the table, hoping he will tell me he bid hearts because he had them. But rather, he tells me he wanted to bid 1NT, showing a heart stopper. But he was confused and bid 1H instead. Now in my opinion, this is not a case for 25A (no mechanical mistake). Is 1H natural or conventional ? I decided to RTFLB and came up with the wording : incontrovertibly not conventional. I don't think this is the case, so I chose not to allow a free raise to 2H. South elects to call 1NT. West of course now knows (he alone at the table) that I consider 1H to be conventional, and he bids 2H. Luckily south calls once again : 2NT. Does the director have the obligation to tell the table the basis for his decision upon the conventional side or not ? I don't think so, as it could IMHO not fall under L83, (review might be in order on his decision on a point of fact). I did tell them anyway, but only at the end of the board. Please don't answer this, or we start another long thread : Would the AC be able to change my decision or only to ask me to review ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 3 03:26:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 03:26:23 +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 DAA22035 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 03:26:12 +1000 Received: from cph43.ppp.dknet.dk (cph43.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.43]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA02384 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 19:26:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tales of Law 25 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 19:26:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3394efae.31632915@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9706012316.0WOSA02@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9706012316.0WOSA02@bbs.hal-pc.org> 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 Sun, 01 Jun 97 23:16:07 , r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >In Houston, Texas the following two hands were played at my table = yesterday. =20 "Texas, yesterday" - I'll assume you were using the new laws. The new L25 is quoted at the end of this message. >The auction proceeds=20 >Vul-Both >S W N E > >P 1S 2H 2S >3H 3S 4H P >P 5S[1]=09 > >[1] After a huddle of 1 minute and looking at the bid as it was pulled = from the=20 >box. After approximately 12 seconds of looking intently at LHO he looks= at his=20 >bid and exclaims something to the effect that it was too late to change = his=20 >call. RHO called the director for a ruling. If the 5S bid was inadvertent and W has just discovered that it was 5S and not (for instance) 4S he had bid, the change is allowed under L25A. If W can convince me that though he looked at the bid, he really did believe that he was bidding only 4S, I'll allow it. 5S is a rather unusual bid in this situation, and that makes his chances of convincing me quite good. No penalty, no problem - except for the "looking intently at LHO" part, which I'll get back to in a little while. To get a more interesting discussion, let us assume that the call was not inadvertent. Let us assume that the TD gets the clear impression that W for some mysterious reason felt that it was a good idea to preempt (or go for a slam) by bidding 5S and is now getting cold feet. In that case there is no question of allowing a change under L25A. However, the new L25B allows you to change your call as long as LHO has not yet called, provided you are willing to accept a penalty. Let's try to follow the new L25B literally: The TD will tell W that he may change his call. If he does change his call, however, the following happens: N may accept the change, in which case there is no penalty. If N does not accept the change, the change is cancelled and W may now: (1) let the original call (5S) stand, in which case his partner must pass the next time, or (2) make any other legal call (i.e., change it again(!), probably in practice the same change as before), in which case the auction and play continues normally, except that EW cannot get a higher score than average minus on the board. I.e., if EW scores 75%, they get only 40%, while their opponents keep their 25%. Withdrawn calls are UI for S (this is mentioned explicitly in L25 in (2), but for some reason not in (1), where it must also be the case because of the new L16C). In addition, there may be lead penalties in both cases (this is not relevant in this auction where W has already bid spades - unless he should do something strange such as first changing the call to some other denomination, then back to spades). There is also in (1) above an interesting reference to L23 in case "the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side". This is the first time I've ever actually tried to go completely through the mechanics of the new L25B in an example, and I now find L25B even more absurd that I did before: It seems to me that it is rather hard on W to call him an "offender" and to call his action an "irregularity" (in the form of a reference to L23), since he is changing his call in a perfectly legal manner having first asked the TD for permission - but that is what L25B does. It seems absurd that W is allowed to change his call, then N is allowed to require that the change be cancelled (it is hard to imagine that N would accept in this situation), then W is allowed to change the call again. The 40% rule is very unreasonable, particularly to the non-offenders who are now playing against a pair who has only 40% to lose and who has had the benefit of a change of call. It seems absurd that W is allowed to see N's reaction to his call and then change it. But as I read L25B, it is the law (in ACBL; in Denmark, we expect it to become the law in October). And I have very little hope that it will be changed to something less absurd before becoming the offical WBF laws. Until now I've ignored the "looking intently at LHO" part. L74C5 tells us that "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card" is a violation of procedure. So you can certainly fine W for doing so (and should at least give him a formal warning). But I do not believe that you can remove his right to change his call because he "stared intently". >The west hand >AKJ8xx >x >Kx >Kxx W should have called the TD much earlier and asked for a thirteenth card. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Vul-Both >W N E S > >1S[1] P 2S[2] > >[1] 1N was placed on the table but never seen because it fell off the = table=20 >leaving the 1S visible. >[2] W looks at the table and exclaims that they intended to bid 1N and=20 >retrieves the 1N card from the floor. E called the director. This sounds as an inadvertent call. However, the new L25A clearly says that an inadvertent call may be changed only until partner makes a call. So W is not allowed to change his call, and the fact that he wanted do to so is UI for E. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Law 25 (1997) is as follows (unless there are very new changes that I haven't heard about): 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. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 3 07:25:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:25:54 +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 HAA22974 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:25:47 +1000 Received: from cph55.ppp.dknet.dk (cph55.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.55]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA08337 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:25:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Board 24 in Hoogstraten Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 23:25:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <339639a3.2154367@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3392BA1C.39C3@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <3392BA1C.39C3@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 Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:18:37 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >Now in my opinion, this is not a case for 25A (no mechanical mistake). Agreed. >Is 1H natural or conventional ? >I decided to RTFLB and came up with the wording : incontrovertibly not >conventional. I don't think this is the case, so I chose not to allow a >free raise to 2H. South elects to call 1NT. >West of course now knows (he alone at the table) that I consider 1H to >be conventional, and he bids 2H. Luckily south calls once again : 2NT. > >Does the director have the obligation to tell the table the basis for >his decision upon the conventional side or not ? >I don't think so, as it could IMHO not fall under L83, (review might be >in order on his decision on a point of fact). The players have a right to any knowledge of the law that may be relevant here. When the TD has been called, it is IMO his duty to ensure that players who happen to know the law do not have an advantage over players who do not know the law. He must therefore carefully explain all relevant parts of the law. Why should W be allowed to know more about S's hand and intentions than the other players? IMO, you should therefore have told the players that having consulted with S you have ruled that his 1H call was not "incontrovertibly not conventional". This is the information that is available anyway to anybody who knows the law and hears your ruling. >I did tell them anyway, but only at the end of the board. Good - so they had a chance to appeal, which leads to the next question: >Please don't answer this, or we start another long thread : Would the AC >be able to change my decision or only to ask me to review ? What's wrong with long threads, Herman? I can't resist the temptation: Determining whether or not 1H is "incontrovertibly not conventional" is IMO fact-finding, and you can be overruled on that point. Determining whether or not the players have a right to know the details of the law that allow them to determine that 1H was not "incontrovertibly not conventional" is IMO law interpretation, and you can therefore not be overruled on that point, only asked to consider changing your ruling. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 3 19:28:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:28:50 +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 TAA25423 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:28:38 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:27:16 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 97 10:27:16 BST Message-Id: <22890.9706030927@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jd@pip.dknet.dk Subject: Re: Tales of Law 25 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper writes >On Sun, 01 Jun 97 23:16:07 , r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > >In Houston, Texas the following two hands were played at my table yesterday. > [snip] > > >Vul-Both > >W N E S > > > >1S[1] P 2S[2] > > > >[1] 1N was placed on the table but never seen because it fell off the table > >leaving the 1S visible. > >[2] W looks at the table and exclaims that they intended to bid 1N and > >retrieves the 1N card from the floor. E called the director. > > This sounds as an inadvertent call. However, the new L25A > clearly says that an inadvertent call may be changed only until > partner makes a call. So W is not allowed to change his call, > and the fact that he wanted do to so is UI for E. > > ======== But what is West's original call? As I read it, W placed a 1NT card on the table and released it: so the 1NT call is made. (This is based on my memory of EBU bidding box regulations). Then the 1NT card fell on the floor: inadvertently deceiving the rest of the table as to what call was made. I assume that W knocked the 1NT card on the floor and therefore he is to blame for the situation which has arisen. I would rule that East must bid as if West had called 1NT and West has UI that 2S was a response to 1S. I am not sure how we cope with damage to NS from seeing 1S not 1NT as West's first call, perhaps there was none. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 3 20:06:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 20:06:35 +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 UAA25491 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 20:06:28 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-464.innet.be [194.7.14.164]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08797 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:03:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3393FA68.4E4C@innet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 12:05:12 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Montecatini Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My dear fellow blml'ers, I'm leaving for Montecatini at the end of next week and I would like to address the Law-makers of the EBL (and perhaps the WBF) who will most probably put the final touches to the new Laws there. I would like to ask them to clarify some things in the new Laws. I shall do this as a representative of blml, if you agree, and hand them the following text, which I propose we draft all together. Your remarks then on : To the Laws Committee of the WBF, To the European Bridge League, >From Bridge-Laws Mailing List. Bridge Laws Mailing List is a forum on the Internet where (at the last count over 170) Tournament Directors, many of the highest level, discuss the Laws. Over the last few months, we have discussed many facets of the new Laws and have reached a consensus as to their interpretation on many articles. Some points remain unsolved though, and we would like to have an official opinion from the Laws Committee on these points. A main point of concern is Law 50D1 to which is added a part about Unauthorized information : (could somebody provide me with the correct english text) We at blml have expressed concern about the difficulty of applying this new piece of Law, but moreover we are not at all certain as to what information must be considered authorized and what is unauthorized. We have made a list of possible inferences that partner might draw fro the major penalty card : a- partner has the card b- declarer does not have the card c- partner must soon play the card d- declarer will probably play such that partner must throw the card e- if i take the lead, i will be subjected to lead penalties f- declarer might play for me to take the lead g- partner has a certain number of HCP, and therefor cannot have some other card h- declarer lacks a certain number of HCP, and therefor must have some other card i- partner has the card and can therefor not trump the suit yet j- declarer does not have the card and might trump the suit k- partner wanted to play the suit, so he's interested in it l- partner wanted to discard the card and gave me a signal with it (suit preference, distribution or whatever) m- partner led the king so he denies the ace and may have the queen (or some other combination) n- declarer therefor has the ace o- deductions from HCP knowing that declarer has the ace (please add other deductions) One possible interpretation that we have come up with is that every aspect of partner haveing the card (a- to j-) should be authorized, whereas all deductions from the deliberate 'facing' of the card (k- to o-) should be unautorized. Could you please confirm or correct ? BLML I apologize to have posted this so late, but I do suspect we can improve on this text in a short period. Feel free to comment, suggest changes, add possible deductions, and suggest other topics we could be putting forward. Also tell me if you too will be in Montecatini, so we can present the final text together. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 3 23:28:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:28:24 +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 XAA25961 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:28:18 +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 JAA02673 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970603092857.007c01e0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 09:28:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Montecatini In-Reply-To: <3393FA68.4E4C@innet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 6/3/97 +0000, Herman wrote: >My dear fellow blml'ers, > >I'm leaving for Montecatini at the end of next week and I would like to >address the Law-makers of the EBL (and perhaps the WBF) who will most >probably put the final touches to the new Laws there. > >I would like to ask them to clarify some things in the new Laws. >I shall do this as a representative of blml, if you agree, and hand them >the following text, which I propose we draft all together. >Your remarks then on : [snip...] I think it's an excellent idea for Herman to bring these questions to the EBL as a representative of BLML, and agree without reservation that he should do so. >A main point of concern is Law 50D1 to which is added a part about >Unauthorized information : I think Herman's summary of our view on L50D1 is accurate, and have no suggestions for changing it. Other issues we have discussed at length that might be worth raising in Montecatini would include the changes to L25, and the one-word change to L16. 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 Jun 3 23:34:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:34:52 +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 XAA26015 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:34:47 +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 IAA03367 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 08:34:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0BZM300B Tue, 03 Jun 97 08:32:03 Message-ID: <9706030832.0BZM300@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 97 08:32:03 Subject: Law 25 definitions To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At a tournament last weekend an ACBL director explained the official interpretation of part of Law 25 as follows: 1] if the director rules that a call was inadvertent, then there is no penalty to change it and it may be changed until partner has made a call. The operative language is that once the director rules that the offender had intended to make a different call he only must indicate that he would like to change it for L25A to apply. It makes no difference how long after the desire was expressed and the expression of the actual change- as long as partner has not called. In other words, even if he changes his call 3 minutes after he expresses the desire to change, this is defined as no pause for thought. 2] An example of a pause for thought is: When responding to Blackwood you say 5D and within 0.05 seconds you say 5H. Since it is impossible to realize without thinking that 5D was incorrect and that 5H was correct, you had to have paused for thought so any change must therefore be a deliberate change. To me, these definitions are the opposite of what L25 plainly states. Further, IMO the law must be changed immediately to reflect these definitions without ambiguity or these definitions must be abandoned. Otherwise, bridge players will read these laws and get bamboozled when it comes time for a ruling. R Pewick Houston r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.2 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 4 01:23:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:23:44 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28742 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:23:33 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:22:16 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 97 16:22:15 BST Message-Id: <22994.9706031522@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: Montecatini Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric writes: > I think it's an excellent idea for Herman to bring these questions to the > EBL as a representative of BLML, and agree without reservation that he > should do so. > > >A main point of concern is Law 50D1 to which is added a part about > >Unauthorized information : > > I think Herman's summary of our view on L50D1 is accurate, and have no > suggestions for changing it. > > Other issues we have discussed at length that might be worth raising in > Montecatini would include the changes to L25, and the one-word change to L16. > I agree. In particular, as Jesper points out, L25B should make it clear that "the player who substitutes a call when Section A does not apply" is treated as an "offender" and the substitution will be treated as an "irregularity" (even though the action of substituting a call is legal !?). For L16, it is probably asking too much for a case where the change ("reasonably" v "demonstrably") makes a difference; this list had great difficulty in agreeing on any given case under either set of laws. 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 Jun 4 03:28:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:28:28 +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 DAA29467 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:28:15 +1000 Received: from cph23.ppp.dknet.dk (cph23.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.23]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA15939 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:28:09 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Tales of Law 25 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:28:09 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33a05405.37394750@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <22890.9706030927@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <22890.9706030927@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> 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, 3 Jun 97 10:27:16 BST, Robin Barker wrote: >But what is West's original call? > >As I read it, W placed a 1NT card on the table and released it: so=20 >the 1NT call is made. (This is based on my memory of EBU bidding box >regulations). >Then the 1NT card fell on the floor: inadvertently deceiving the rest >of the table as to what call was made. >I assume that W knocked the 1NT card on the floor and therefore he is >to blame for the situation which has arisen. I obviously didn't read the original message very carefully. Let us assume that W bid 1NT, then somehow it turned into 1S before anybody saw the 1NT bid, and W is to blame for this. You could rule this in various ways: (a) W has changed his 1NT bid to 1S (inadvertently, but that probably doesn't matter). So we rule this change by the book: W has made a L25B change of call, and is penalized according to L25B (N may accept 1S, otherwise W may make any call he likes and we get into either the "E passses once" or the "at most 40% to EW" part). Lots of UI for E and W. (b) W has changed his 1NT to 1S as part of the operation of bidding, in such a way that for all practical purposes he has bid 1S. Too late for L25A, E has UI, play on. (c) W has bid 1NT, and the other players were given a wrong impression because of some error of W's, and this error had nothing to do with bidding. Let W's 1NT stand, allow N to change his call, allow E to change his call if N changes his (but probably not otherwise - it is EW's fault that E has not realized that W really bid 1NT). Lots of UI for E and W. I prefer (b), for two reasons: (1) Simplicity. (2) The problem we have is completely analogous to one where W has really bid 1S inadvertently. This irregularity has exactly the same disturbing effect on the auction as an inadvertent 1S. If L25A's opinion of the time limit (until partner calls) is reasonable in a normal L25A situation, then it is also reasonable here. >I would rule that East must bid as if West had called 1NT and West has >UI that 2S was a response to 1S. Allowing E to change his call even though it was EW's fault that he did not know that W's call was really 1NT? But not allowing N, who is the non-offender, to change his call? >I am not sure how we cope with damage to NS from seeing 1S not 1NT as >West's first call, perhaps there was none. A ruling that solves the offenders' self-inflicted problems but does not solve the non-offenders' corresponding problems is not a good ruling. The first duty of a TD is to cope with damage to non-offenders; damage to offenders have second priority. I suspect that you're influenced by the fact that this is an auction on which N will often pass over 1NT just as he passed over 1S. But it is not the TD's job to decide that N "probably" was not damaged - _if_ you are going to "change" W's original call to 1NT, then you _must_ allow N to change his call. (He just might have a good hand with a 6-card spade suit that he'd like to bid over 1NT.) And, as I said above, I don't think E should be allowed to change his call unless N changes his. (Let me point out once again that one of the advantages of solution (b) is simplicity.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 4 03:28:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:28:29 +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 DAA29466 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 03:28:14 +1000 Received: from cph23.ppp.dknet.dk (cph23.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.23]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA15936 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 19:28:07 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25 definitions Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 19:28:07 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <339c4079.32390595@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9706030832.0BZM300@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9706030832.0BZM300@bbs.hal-pc.org> 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, 03 Jun 97 08:32:03 , r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >In other words, even if he changes his call 3 minutes after he=20 >expresses the desire to change, this is defined as no pause for thought. The player must indicate that he wants to change his call as soon as he realizes that he has actually made a call different from the intended one ("without pause for thought"). This indication may be in the form "Oops, I got the wrong card!" or something like that. Following that first indication, he is allowed lots of time to: - be confused, - wonder what the rules say, - discuss the matter with the other three players, - call the TD, but he is _not_ allowed to spend time selecting the call with which he will replace the inadvertent one. He is only allowed to replace it with the call that he originally intended to make. It is up to the TD to determine why it took three minutes and how they were spent. >2] An example of a pause for thought is: > >When responding to Blackwood you say 5D and within 0.05 seconds you say = 5H. =20 >Since it is impossible to realize without thinking that 5D was incorrect= and=20 >that 5H was correct, you had to have paused for thought so any change = must=20 >therefore be a deliberate change. The primary point is whether 5D was inadvertent or not. If he reached for the 5H card, but got the 5D card, then 5D was inadvertent and he is allowed to change the call. If the TD determines that the player initially intended 5D and then changed his mind, then 5D was not inadvertent and may not be changed, no matter how fast he can do it. The 0.05 second-period is irrelevant. The "pause for thought" part of L25A is not very important. It means that if a player puts the 5D card on the table, then thinks intently for a half a minute while staring alternately at the 5D card and his hand, and then says "oops, I thought I bid 5H", then we do not believe him - we believe that he has actually changed his mind, and that the 5D call was not inadvertent. So the "pause for thought" part of L25A is really unnecessary, since the "inadvertent" part is enough. I believe the "pause for thought" part is primarily there in order to spare the TD the painful job of telling players that he does not believe them when they say the call was inadvertent; now he can just say "you paused for thought". If your example above was presented as an example of the "pause for thought" part of L25A, then it is an extremely bad example. It has nothing at all to do with a pause for thought, but it has everything to do with the question "inadvertent or not?". By the way, I don't understand the "impossible to realize without thinking that 5D was incorrect" part. Even with spoken bidding, it could certainly happen to me that I accidentally said "diamonds" while thinking "hearts", and a second later asked "Did I say diamonds? I meant hearts". That would be an inadvertent call that could be changed under L25A. And if it really is "impossible to realize without thinking that 5D was incorrect", then it must be because 5D is considered obviously not inadvertent, and in that case it is quite irrelevant whether there was a pause for thought or not. On the other hand, if I said "diamonds" while thinking "2 aces =3D diamonds", then the call was not inadvertent. >To me, these definitions are the opposite of what L25 plainly states. = Further,=20 >IMO the law must be changed immediately to reflect these definitions = without=20 >ambiguity or these definitions must be abandoned. Otherwise, bridge = players=20 >will read these laws and get bamboozled when it comes time for a ruling. I find L25A quite sensible and understandable. L25B, on the other hand... --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 4 05:32:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 05:32:05 +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 FAA00224 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 05:31:58 +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 OAA20234 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:31:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA13487; Tue, 3 Jun 97 14:31:46 CDT Message-Id: <9706031931.AA13487@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 97 14:31 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Question on Law 36 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 30 May 97, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca(A. L. Edwards) wrote >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. On 31 May 1997, "David Burn" wrote: >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! What version of "Duplicate Decisions" are you using? My copy says "Revised 1991" on the outer front page, and says "revised 5/15/95" on the first inner page, which is titled "Errata Sheet." And its discussion of law 36 does not include the right to cancel the double. It seems that your copy is still based on the 1975 Laws. I suggest you get a more recent version from the ACBL. However, you should probably wait for a while, until after the 1997 changes in the Laws have been included. -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 4 07:06:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:06:56 +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 HAA00517 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:06:50 +1000 Received: from default (cph37.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.37]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA21254 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:06:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199706032106.XAA21254@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:06:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Tales of Law 25 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 97 10:27:16 BST Robin Barker wrote > Jesper writes > >On Sun, 01 Jun 97 23:16:07 , r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > >In Houston, Texas the following two hands were played at my table yesterday. > > [snip] > > > > >Vul-Both > > >W N E S > > > > > >1S[1] P 2S[2] > > > > > >[1] 1N was placed on the table but never seen because it fell off the table > > >leaving the 1S visible. In Denmark, in WBF tournaments, and in EBL tournaments, the 1NT bid has been made. I don't think any bid of 1S has been made. Of course, the bidding cards visible on the table are misleading. > > >[2] W looks at the table and exclaims that they intended to bid 1N and > > >retrieves the 1N card from the floor. E called the director. There is an irregularity, namely that the 1N card was on the floor. The director should replace it, and on we go ... (see below) > > This sounds as an inadvertent call. I don't agree. It is an inadvertent fumble of the bidding cards on the table, but only the 1NT bid has been made. > > ======== > > But what is West's original call? > > As I read it, W placed a 1NT card on the table and released it: so > the 1NT call is made. (This is based on my memory of EBU bidding box > regulations). Mine too. > Then the 1NT card fell on the floor: inadvertently deceiving the rest > of the table as to what call was made. > I assume that W knocked the 1NT card on the floor and therefore he is > to blame for the situation which has arisen. I think L21 applies. The deft removal of the bidding card is misinformation. ("Hold on, that has to do with partnership understandings," I hear you cry. "Says who? Certainly not the literal text of Law 21. Certainly not Endicott and Hansen. Surely there is no definition of misinformation in the glossary," I reply.) For NS, 21B applies, just as if there had been a missing alert. For E, W does not rate as an opponent according to the definition in the laws, although the CHO acronym seems appropriate. Thus I would find L21A right here. It is his own misunderstanding, and he has no recourse. He should really have been paying attention to West's maladroitness. With screens in use, however, I would rule differently, because the 1S bid would be the one made, at least once the tray passes the screen. If West now discovers the loose 1NT bidding card before East bids, I suppose L25A would apply here after all. > I would rule that East must bid as if West had called 1NT and West has > UI that 2S was a response to 1S. My ruling differs: For East, the situation is exactly analogous to when he has misheard his partner's oral bid. When the 1NT card is retrieved he will learn what transpired. In no way can he take his bids until then back, in no way is he allowed to divulge that his bid was based on a misunderstanding, and in no way is any information to that effect authorized to his partner. > I am not sure how we cope with damage to NS from seeing 1S not 1NT as > West's first call, perhaps there was none. As I said, I suggest L21B. If L21B is not it, I would prefer wheeling in L12A. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 4 23:04:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:04:15 +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 XAA03451 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:04:07 +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 JAB15642 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:04:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970604090444.007c3960@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 09:04:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Montecatini In-Reply-To: <33955256.5945@innet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19970603092857.007c01e0@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:32 PM 6/4/97 +0000, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> Other issues we have discussed at length that might be worth raising in >> Montecatini would include the changes to L25, and the one-word change to L16. > >I think we have reached consensus on L16 and on L25B (nobody likes it), >but perhaps we could write down our final opinion and present it. I'll take a stab at summarizing our consensus on the meaning of the change to L16A: When a player is in possession of UI which does not directly suggest the choice of one LA over another, that player's subsequent action may not be deemed to give rise to a presumption of such a suggestion. For example, assume that after the auction 1S-P-2S-P-, opener hesitates at length before bidding 3S, and that responder's hand is such that pass and 4S are LAs. If responder passes and opener's hand is such that he might have passed rather than bid 3S, or if responder bids 4S and opener's hand is such that he might have bid 4S rather than 3S, the TD should not rule, in the absence of additional evidence, that responder's action could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI. Since I have not been an active participant in our discussion of L25B, I'll leave it to someone else to summarize our consensus regarding that change. 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 Jun 5 01:56:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 01:56:57 +1000 Received: from freenet1.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06365 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 01:56:49 +1000 Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet6 [134.117.136.26]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with SMTP id LAA09004 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by freenet6.carleton.ca (4.1/NCF-Sun-Client) id AA27573 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Jun 97 11:11:34 EDT Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 11:11:34 EDT Message-Id: <9706041511.AA27573@freenet6.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Question on Law 36 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >On 31 May 1997, "David Burn" wrote: > >>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! > >What version of "Duplicate Decisions" are you using? My copy says "Revised >1991" on the outer front page, and says "revised 5/15/95" on the first >inner page, which is titled "Errata Sheet." And its discussion of law 36 >does not include the right to cancel the double. >-- >Barry Wolk >Dept of Mathematics >University of Manitoba >Winnipeg Manitoba Canada > > Thanks to all the people who contributed. Yes, it appears the Duplicate Decisions book is out of date--it was published in 1983. I will try to get an updated copy as soon as it is available. The moral of the story seems to be--don't let other directors push you around, instead, RTFLB! :-) Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 6 15:21:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA16923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:21:05 +1000 Received: from relay01.iafrica.com (relay01.iafrica.com [196.7.0.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA16918 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:20:43 +1000 Received: from 196-7-195-100.iafrica.com [196.7.195.100] by relay01.iafrica.com with smtp (Exim 1.59 #1) id 0wZrRL-0004y0-00; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 07:19:56 +0200 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rusty Court" Organization: Internet Africa To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 07:16:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: re : CTD's dilemma. Reply-to: ruscourt@iafrica.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I recently had the privilege and pleasure of directing at the Zone 4 Championships with Bill Schoder and his wife, Bud, as co-director. During the event a situation arose which Bill felt constituted a problem for a TD and about which the Laws do not appear to provide definite guidancce. Although the result of the hand was not disputed, Bill felt that he should place the matter before the AC for discussion. The AC could also not come to a conclusion and this matter will be sent to the WBF Laws Commission for their opinion. I asked Bill, if I could put this matter on BLML for your opinions and I would let him know what these are, to which he agreed. Unfortunately, I did not get a copy of the hand, but as there was no dispute, it is not of particular consquence to the actual problem The hand was a grand slam in a suit, played with screens. About halfway through the hand, declarer played a high trump in order to draw the last outstanding trump. Neither defender followed. so declarer knew that there had been a revoke. Before any further action was taken, declarer called Bill and asked him, away from the table, what his rights were because he could not get a count of the hand, not knowing which defender had revoked. Bill informed him that his rights would be protected if the revoke was established and allowed play to continue. The revoke did become established and the contract went one down, but because of the revoke the result was adjusted. No dispute arose because the hand could have been made anyway if there had not been a revoke. Bill's problem is that he is not sure whether he should have said anything to the defenders in that L9B2 requires a TD to explain "..all matters in regard to rectification.." and L82A requires a TD to "..rectify errors of procedure.." The revoking opponent appears to have remained unaware of the revoke, despite declarer's talk with Bill, so saying anything to the offender could mean that the TD might affect the result of the hand, which is obviously not the province of a TD, especially as declarer did not exercise his option to enquire about a possible revoke. Thus, anything that the TD did to bring the offender's attention to the revoke could be construed as going against the declarer's wishes. IMO, the requirement to try and get a valid result from the table is of major importance. The fact that a revoke had happened does not invalidate a table result. I also feel that Bill had, in fact, explained matters to the declarer, who was thhe one who had asked, and thus satisfied L9B2, but I'm not sure how to get around L82A. Please can I have opinions. Rusty Court From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 6 23:01:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:01:06 +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 XAA17964 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 23:00:59 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ad1010247; 6 Jun 97 13:20 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC727A.965D1330@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:07:29 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: re : CTD's dilemma. Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:07:26 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 12 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that you are correct and that the director should do nothing at the time. Suppose, for example, that Declarer has simply miscounted the trump suit and no revoke has occurred (rather unlikely in this case perhaps, but nevertheless possible) then the TD would in effect be helping declarer by checking for a non-existant revoke and alerting him to his miscounting of the hand. In other words, it is not clear at this time that a breach of correct procedure *has* occurred, it is merely alleged by declarer and so the TD should wait until the end of the hand as, in this case, the facts can just as easily be established >then. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 7 00:28:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:28:51 +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 AAA20499 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:28:43 +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 KAA20729 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16298; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:28:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:28:10 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706061428.KAA16298@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: re : CTD's dilemma. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Rusty Court" > I also feel that Bill had, in fact, > explained matters to the declarer, who was thhe one who had asked, > and thus satisfied L9B2, but I'm not sure how to get around L82A. This is a very interesting case, and the proper procedure is not at all clear. The best I can offer is L9B1c, "Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he would otherwise be entitled." Please advise BLML what the Laws Commission decides. Thanks for sending it to us. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 02:59:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:59:42 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26847 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:59:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ah1322740; 7 Jun 97 17:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 16:48:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How Would You Rule? In-Reply-To: <20237.9705201526@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes >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. No, I do not think so. I believe that our tendency is that we do not split the scores inthis way unless we consider it obvious to do so, ie that rulings involving "wild and gambling action" are very rare. >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. As always, we have a tendency to rule on the basis that there is likely to be no appeal, so we had better get it right. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 03:08:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:08:23 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA26896 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:08:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ah0609402; 7 Jun 97 17:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 16:45:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Double shot; Re: How Would You Rule? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970521140051.006aedb8@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >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... So if I play conventions that I forget it will be to my advantage *not* to write them on my CC? I much prefer our method: if the CC is silent we will assume misinformation. I think you will find the Law book agrees. Hi all!! 28 days with no Internet access!! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 03:08:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:08:26 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA26897 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:08:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ah1220653; 7 Jun 97 17:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:19:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Committee last night In-Reply-To: <338C413C.39C@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley writes >John R. Mayne wrote: >> 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. In the same way as that you are not allowed to go out and kill someone=20 because you believe that a court has wrongly freed him. However foolish=20 regulations are, it takes a very extreme situation to ignore them. >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%. The problem with this is that the Law book does *not* say it. When a=20 score was obtained at the table, L12C2 requires a score to be assigned. =20 I know that SOs around the world do not follow this, but they are not=20 following the Laws. Nowhere in the Laws does it say "If it is too=20 difficult to assign a score then you may give an artificial one=20 instead", apart from L12C2 [footnote] [1987] or L12C3 [1997], which only=20 apply to some ACs, not NAmerican. >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 would >have got a worse score than with infraction and their opps just the >other way round) The difficulty quoted here is one reason why I believe it is wrong to=20 adjust because assigning is difficult. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =3D( + )=3D Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 03:13:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:13:49 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA26943 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:13:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1222664; 7 Jun 97 18:06 BST Message-ID: <7VaNh0C8SZmzEwS4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 18:05:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TALES OF LAW 25 In-Reply-To: <9706020955.0DXTP00@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9706020955.0DXTP00@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > >To clarify matters, do to problems with my email, an incorrect version >of this message was sent AFTER the correct version. This is the correct >version repeated. The offending editing mistake is the 5S bid made by >west. My apologies. > >In Houston, Texas the following two hands were played at my table yesterday. >Please offer your opinions and comments, in a couple of weeks I'll >include the rulings. > >The auction proceeds >Vul-Both >S W N E > >P 1S 2H 2S >3H 3S 4H P >P 5S[1] > >[1] After a huddle of 1 minute and looking at the bid as it was pulled from >the box. After approximately 12 seconds of looking intently at LHO he looks at >his bid and exclaims something to the effect that it was too late to change his >call. RHO called the director for a ruling. Was the Stop card displayed? Anyway, it was in time and probably could be changed under L25A: it is a judgement matter for the TD. > >The west hand >AKJ8xx >x >Kx >Kxx I do not look at the hand when ruling. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 03:19:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:19:46 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA26980 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:19:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac0609400; 7 Jun 97 17:59 BST Message-ID: <70Xd5bCKZYmzEwgX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:03:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: how 2 decide In-Reply-To: <199705211352.RAA26123@pent.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak writes >On Tue, 20 May 1997 17:39:46 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >>> 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... When you write the TD "should" be called, Steve, it is interesting what you mean by the word "should". Of course he "should" be called in the ACBL, because your regulations require it. In England/Wales it is correct to call at the time of the double because our regulations say so, and apparently it is the same in Russia. However, the Laws of the game generally suggest that the TD "should" be called when an irregularity has occurred. Now the pause is not the irregularity: it is UI. The double is the potential irregularity, since it may be based on UI. Thus it would appear at first sight that the European approach is closer to the Laws of the game than the ACBL approach, so it is not unreasonable to sy that the TD "should" be called after the double. In practical terms, both methods have advantages: if the TD is called after the pause he can warn the offending side [I dislike that term intensely] and they know that they should not use UI: if the TD is called after the UI is potentially used then he will be called less often, since he will not be called when the UI is clearly not used. I think the ACBL approach is fairer, and the European approach leads to a friendlier game. Note: while my computer is generally working again [after a mere 28 days] I have not got my Spellchekka active yet so apologies for any misspellings. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 03:30:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:30:06 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA27037 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 03:30:00 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id af0501340; 7 Jun 97 17:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 17:31:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Demonstrably - revisited In-Reply-To: <19970529.201143.6838.0.paulhar@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <19970529.201143.6838.0.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? They got the chance to talk to the players, so they may have got it right. On the evidence given I would have said they were wrong. Given the East explanation, I do not believe Pass was an LA for him: I do not believe that players of his level and system and style are passing. Mind you, under NAmerican definitions of an LA, perhaps I would adjust. > >(2) Would the new 'demonstrably' change anything? I do not really see there is much difference in demonstrably. Noone has yet shown me a case where I believe demonstrably makes a difference. > >(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? Yes, another reeason why the adjustment was dubious. > >(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? That is a different matter. Players have to realise that these decisions are the same as decisions by Referees in football, Umpires in cricket, and so on. It is easiest if players are taught these things in clubs: it is much more difficult when they are not. Do you know what this hand feels like to me? "If it hesitates, shoot it!" If my novice opponents bid 3H on this auction against me, I cannot imagine calling the TD: is that really Bridge? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 05:56:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 05:56:01 +1000 Received: from punt-2.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 FAA27432 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 05:55:55 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1329497; 7 Jun 97 20:53 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 19:40:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <199705132326.AAA01332@snow.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >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. This all seems very strange to me. Of course, we are talking about things that are unlikely in normal situations. But they are worth discussing because of the abnormal. David Stevenson, and other TDs, make mistakes. if it involves a matter of Law or regulation, no doubt an AC will explain to the TD he has erred, and he will change it. And if he doesn't? Could it be the AC who has erred? What happens when we have a crappy AC? Why should they have the final say? Because they are disinterested? Who says? I have seen some ACs that would make your hair curl! I have served on some, and not too long ago, where one of the members has been as disinterested as a politician being offered cash for questions. There is really no point in talking about sensible and knowledgeable people. If David tells me that I have made a mistake I shall listen to him, of course. When the famous North-West Committee told me that they had overruled me twelve years ago, because otherwise declarer would have lied, what do you think I thought? That they were disinterested and fair? They were asked whether they were not calling the defence liars, to which they replied "But we know declarer: the defenders are from out of town." We have two sets of people, TDs and ACs. Most try very hard: some are competent: most are well-meaning: no-one is perfect. I cannot see that we should necessarily assume that one side or the other is disinterested: in the vast majority of cases they are. If we get a case where the AC and the TD disagree, after talking the matter over or not, then I can see no reason whatever not to follow the Laws: if judgement is involved, the AC is the final arbiter: if it is merely a matter of Law or regulation, then the TD is. Why ever not? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 05:58:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 05:58:12 +1000 Received: from punt-2.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 FAA27451 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 05:58:05 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac0625281; 7 Jun 97 20:53 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 19:50:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: David Stevenson In-Reply-To: <199705151021.DAA25809@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote >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 Thanks, Steve, for posting this. 28 days later .......... -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 06:01:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:01:12 +1000 Received: from punt-2.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 GAA27473 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:01:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1329498; 7 Jun 97 20:53 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 19:49:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule In-Reply-To: <33818EE5.14C4@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >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 ? > No. I am sure you know what I consider the number one recommendation! :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 06:21:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:21:21 +1000 Received: from punt-2.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 GAA27526 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:21:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac1204789; 7 Jun 97 20:54 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 19:55:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: misinformation?? In-Reply-To: <199705192304.MAA14939@buttons.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk patrick carter wrote >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' Why not? it is evidence, and it is to the contrary. While matters such as these are worth discussing here, it should not be forgotten that this type of ruling is a matter of judgement, and the TD will come to conclusions based on the totality of the evidence before him. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 8 06:26:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:26:42 +1000 Received: from punt-2.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 GAA27553 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:26:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac0526291; 7 Jun 97 20:53 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 19:48:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule In-Reply-To: <199705152000.QAA06255@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote >> 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? There is no mention of *adjusting* the score in any way. The new Law says "the offending side may receive no score greater than average- minus." I cannot believe that this suggests multiplying by 0.4 for the simple reason that that is not what it says. I am sure that Steve's ceiling approach is correct. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 9 00:35:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 00:35:36 +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 AAA01521 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 00:35:30 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-141.innet.be [194.7.10.141]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA04671 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 16:31:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <339A8BEB.7E02@innet.be> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 11:39:39 +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: Law25B: 40% rule References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > >new Law, and I don't think that this was the Lawmakers' intent. > > > >Shall we consider this recommendation no 1. for the 2007 Laws ? > > > No. I am sure you know what I consider the number one recommendation! > > :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) > We all do, bnut that was the number one recommendation for the 1997 Laws, and look where it brought us ! Wellcome back, David. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 9 04:30:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 04:30:27 +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 EAA02278 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 04:30:17 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id WAA23318; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:30:11 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199706081830.WAA23318@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "BLML" Date: Sun, 08 Jun 97 22:30:52 +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: L66C Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk During the play Declarer in 3NT contarct turned back one of the defender's card played in the previous trick when the next one is in progress. Afterwards he takes 11 tricks. TD called to the table adjusts 9 tricks. Please, your comments. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 9 07:47:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 07:47:29 +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 HAA02779 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 07:47:22 +1000 Received: from default (cph22.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.22]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02183 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:47:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199706082147.XAA02183@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:47:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: L66C Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Sergei Litvak" > During the play Declarer in 3NT contarct turned back one of the defender's card > played in the previous trick when the next one is in progress. Afterwards he takes > 11 tricks. > TD called to the table adjusts 9 tricks. > Please, your comments. Ah! A declarer did this to me in a tournament yesterday. However, she was a beginner, and I have not drawn anyone's attention to the irregularity until now. Well, enough small talk: This looks like a procedural penalty to declarer for touching another player's card (L7B2) as well as for violation of L66C. Whether the penalty is a friendly lecture on the rules of the game or a 10%-ish fine depends on the level of play. The laws do not specifically empower the TD to adjust the score for irregularities like these, so the TD is probably adjusting based on L12A1. This implies that he finds the opponents damaged by the infraction (which is possible, but highly unlikely), in toher words that declarer has obtained information by inspecting the quitted trick which allows him to take more tricks than he would have done otherwise. 9 tricks is presumably the worst result for declarer likely without the infraction. I could be convinced (by seeing the hand or talking to the TD) that this was indeed the basis for the ruling. But unless such evidence is produced, it does look as if the TD got it wrong. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 9 08:21:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 08:21:46 +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 IAA02838 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 08:21:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1005148; 8 Jun 97 23:19 BST Message-ID: <+ON8XRAj+ymzEwjr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:18:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L66C In-Reply-To: <199706082147.XAA02183@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote >> From: "Sergei Litvak" > >> During the play Declarer in 3NT contarct turned back one of the defender's >card >> played in the previous trick when the next one is in progress. Afterwards he >takes >> 11 tricks. >> TD called to the table adjusts 9 tricks. >> Please, your comments. > >Ah! A declarer did this to me in a tournament yesterday. However, >she was a beginner, and I have not drawn anyone's attention to the >irregularity until now. Well, enough small talk: > >This looks like a procedural penalty to declarer for touching >another player's card (L7B2) as well as for violation of L66C. >Whether the penalty is a friendly lecture on the rules of the game or >a 10%-ish fine depends on the level of play. > >The laws do not specifically empower the TD to adjust the score for >irregularities like these, so the TD is probably adjusting based on >L12A1. This implies that he finds the opponents damaged by the >infraction (which is possible, but highly unlikely), in toher words >that declarer has obtained information by inspecting the quitted >trick which allows him to take more tricks than he would have done >otherwise. 9 tricks is presumably the worst result for declarer >likely without the infraction. I could be convinced (by seeing the >hand or talking to the TD) that this was indeed the basis for the >ruling. > >But unless such evidence is produced, it does look as if the TD got >it wrong. Assume that declarer is experienced. Suppose that it is possible, but barely, that it made a two trick difference. How about a fine large enough to make sure that he does not do it again? How large? Well, in the unlikely event that it did make a two trick difference, and that would be 70% of a top [yes, i am going to check the traveller on this one] how about fining him 70% of a top? "But I didn't gain two tricks from it!" yells declarer. "Of course you didn't," you reply soothingly, "it's just a tiny little fine under L90 to discourage you from doing it again." I bet he doesn't do it again! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 9 13:22:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 13:22:32 +1000 Received: from emout02.mail.aol.com (emout02.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03574 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 13:22:24 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout02.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA14236 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970608232150_742510364@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: U.S. ITT reports on ACBL web page Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is off topic, but I want to let folks know about it. For the duration of the ITT (U.S. International Team Trials) I've been reporting hands at the rate of about 45 per day. They're now making their way to the ACBL webpage www.acbl.org and if folks are interested in that sort of reporting, you might enjoy having a look. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 9 18:00:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:00:18 +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 SAA04276 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:00:11 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wazTA-0001qc-00; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 08:06:29 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-45-232.btinternet.com [195.99.45.232]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA02310 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:00:09 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199706090800.JAA02310@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: how 2 decide Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 08:59:31 +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 David Stevenson (after 28 days of silence) writes: [large snip] > > When you write the TD "should" be called, Steve, it is interesting > what you mean by the word "should". Of course he "should" be called in > the ACBL, because your regulations require it. In England/Wales it is > correct to call at the time of the double because our regulations say > so, and apparently it is the same in Russia. > > However, the Laws of the game generally suggest that the TD "should" > be called when an irregularity has occurred. Now the pause is not the > irregularity: it is UI. The double is the potential irregularity, since > it may be based on UI Law 73A2: Calls and Plays should be made without...undue hesitation... Preface to the 1987 Laws: When a player "should" do something...his failure to do so is an infraction of law... Thinking is a crime, David, however much you may like to think it is not! From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 9 20:50:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:50:06 +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 UAA04732 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 20:49:58 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-434.innet.be [194.7.14.134]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04344 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 12:46:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <339BEDC4.7ABC@innet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 12:49:24 +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 2 decide References: <199706090800.JAA02310@snow.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Law 73A2: > > Calls and Plays should be made without...undue hesitation... > ^^^^^ > Preface to the 1987 Laws: > > When a player "should" do something...his failure to do so is an infraction > of law... > > Thinking is a crime, David, however much you may like to think it is not! Only the 'undue' part of it makes it a crime. Thinking is not a crime ! IMHO -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 9 22:46:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:46:31 +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 WAA05182 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:46:25 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA23199 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 08:46:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970609084713.006a70b0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 08:47:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Double shot; Re: How Would You Rule? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970521140051.006aedb8@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:45 PM 6/7/97 +0100, David wrote: > So if I play conventions that I forget it will be to my advantage >*not* to write them on my CC? I much prefer our method: if the CC is >silent we will assume misinformation. I think you will find the Law >book agrees. While it would certainly give one an advantage not to write conventions that one is likely to forget on one's CC, it would be at least equally advantageous not to write conventions that one is sure to remember on one's CC. Either, of course, is blatantly illegal, and, as we keep reminding ourselves, the Laws are not designed to directly redress outright cheating. Although TFLB is quite clear on the application of L75 to partnership agreements, it seems to me to be silent on how (if at all) L75 applies in bona fide "no agreement" situations. 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 Jun 9 23:24:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:24:29 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA05298 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:24:22 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA27070 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970609092510.0068c7d4@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 09:25:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: References: <199705132326.AAA01332@snow.btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:40 PM 6/7/97 +0100, David S. wrote: > If we get a case where the AC and the TD disagree, after talking the >matter over or not, then I can see no reason whatever not to follow the >Laws: if judgement is involved, the AC is the final arbiter: if it is >merely a matter of Law or regulation, then the TD is. Why ever not? The AC is also the final arbiter on matters of fact. And David's argument, while entirely sensible and correct, doesn't address the point on which we (as a group) seem to disagree. Personally, I agree with David B's view that "anything that is defined in the Definitions section of the Laws is a fact, not a 'point of Law or Regulation'". The answer as to who has the final say on the H10 clearly rests on whether or not one agrees with this. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 10 03:40:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 03:40:34 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA08739 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 03:40:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1300914; 9 Jun 97 14:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 12:37:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: how 2 decide In-Reply-To: <199706090800.JAA02310@snow.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >David Stevenson (after 28 days of silence) writes: > >[large snip] > >> >> When you write the TD "should" be called, Steve, it is interesting >> what you mean by the word "should". Of course he "should" be called in >> the ACBL, because your regulations require it. In England/Wales it is >> correct to call at the time of the double because our regulations say >> so, and apparently it is the same in Russia. >> >> However, the Laws of the game generally suggest that the TD "should" >> be called when an irregularity has occurred. Now the pause is not the >> irregularity: it is UI. The double is the potential irregularity, since >> it may be based on UI > >Law 73A2: > >Calls and Plays should be made without...undue hesitation... > >Preface to the 1987 Laws: > >When a player "should" do something...his failure to do so is an infraction >of law... > >Thinking is a crime, David, however much you may like to think it is not! > L73D1 [1997]: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. Thinking is not apparently "undue". Fifteen all. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 10 19:18:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:18:46 +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 TAA11980 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:18:39 +1000 Received: from isdn05.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <07929-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:18:10 +0000 Message-ID: <339D1C87.594F@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:21:11 +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: what =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=B4m?= doing here??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, last weekend was the last session of the german bundesliga (in bridge of course...). I had the pleasure to the TD and had only one board with a difficult decision... Well it was two decisions in fact at the same match in the same board...: (WITH Screens) (Bd. 31) North S,NS S Q10xxxx H K9x D AK C xx West East S AJx S Kx H 10xxxx H Qx D Qxxxxx D xx C - C KJ9xxxx S xx H AJx D Jxxx C AQ108 OPEN ROOM: West North East South 1D (1) p 1H (2) 3C (3) X (4) XX (5) 3S p 3NT p p p Lead: SJ 3NT +2 +660 (1) - 9-14 P. no 4 card major (2) - 12+ P. at least INV any distr. (3) - meant as weak jump; W actually thought that this was Ghestem (C+S) (4) - penalty dbl. everyone knew that (5) - W thought this to be an SOS-XX; E explained it to N as at least 1C-honour! How would u decide? U are thinking of this... and the other room calls u: repeated for convenience: (WITH Screens) (Bd. 31) North S,NS S Q10xxxx H K9x D AK C xx West East S AJx S Kx H 10xxxx H Qx D Qxxxxx D xx C - C KJ9xxxx S xx H AJx D Jxxx C AQ108 CLOSED ROOM: West North East South 1C (1) 2H (2) dbl (3) pass 3C (4) pass pass pass 3C-1 -50 to NS (1) - polish club - no good 6card C-suit with 14-17 (2) - meant as Hearts and Diamonds (explained from E to N as H+S) (3) - neg. dbl 2S would have been a cue or by correct expl. nonforc. (4) - according to the players system bid - 1C didnt promise any clubs (1D would have been 5C suit) What do u think about this one? -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 10 19:42:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:42:22 +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 TAA12067 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:42:17 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-138.innet.be [194.7.10.138]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA17222 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:38:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <339D2ED7.3153@innet.be> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:39:19 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Montecatini - final draft ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's what I have, taking into account all remarks so far : To the Laws Committee of the WBF, To the European Bridge League, >From Bridge-Laws Mailing List. Bridge Laws Mailing List is a forum on the Internet where (at the last count) over 170 Tournament Directors, many of the highest level, discuss the Laws. Over the last few months, we have discussed many facets of the new Laws and have reached a consensus as to their interpretation on many articles. Some points remain unresolved though, and we would like to have an official opinion from the Laws Committee on these points. Law 50D1 A main point of concern is Law 50D1 to which is added a part about Unauthorized information : Law 50 - Disposition of Penalty Card (...) D. Disposition of Major Penalty Card (...) 1. Offender to Play (...) (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner). We at blml have expressed concern about the difficulty of applying this new piece of Law, but moreover we are not at all certain as to what information must be considered authorized and what is unauthorized. We have made a list of possible inferences that partner might draw fro the major penalty card : a- partner has the card b- declarer does not have the card c- partner must soon play the card d- declarer will probably play such that partner must throw the card e- if i take the lead, i will be subjected to lead penalties f- declarer might play for me to take the lead g- partner has a certain number of HCP, and therefor cannot have some other card h- declarer lacks a certain number of HCP, and therefor must have some other card i- partner has the card and can therefor not trump the suit yet j- declarer does not have the card and might trump the suit k- partner wanted to play the suit, so he's interested in it l- partner wanted to discard the card and gave me a signal with it (suit preference, distribution or whatever) m- partner led the king so he denies the ace and may have the queen (or some other combination) n- declarer therefor has the ace o- deductions from HCP knowing that declarer has the ace (please add other deductions) One possible interpretation that we have come up with is that every aspect of partner having the card (a- to j-) should be authorized, whereas all deductions from the deliberate 'facing' of the card (k- to o-) should be unautorized. Law 16 The word 'reasonably' (have been suggested) has been changed to 'demonstrably'. It is the feeling of the mailing list that this is not a substantial change. We have tried to summarize : When a player is in possession of UI which does not directly suggest the choice of one LA over another, that player's subsequent action may not be deemed to give rise to a presumption of such a suggestion. For example, assume that after the auction 1S-P-2S-P-, opener hesitates at length before bidding 3S, and that responder's hand is such that pass and 4S are LAs. If responder passes and opener's hand is such that he might have passed rather than bid 3S, or if responder bids 4S and opener's hand is such that he might have bid 4S rather than 3S, the TD should not rule, in the absence of additional evidence, that responder's action could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI. Could you please confirm and/or correct ? BLML -- corrections and additions are still wellcome. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 10 22:02:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 22:02:57 +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 WAA12577 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 22:02:39 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 13:01:49 +0100 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 97 13:01:47 BST Message-Id: <24203.9706101201@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: hermandw@innet.be Subject: Re: Montecatini - final draft ? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman A few corrections. > Bridge Laws Mailing List is a forum on the Internet where (at the last > count) over 170 Tournament Directors, many of the highest level, discuss > the Laws. Over the last few months, we have discussed many facets of > the new Laws and have reached a consensus as to their interpretation on in > many articles. [snip] > 1. Offender to Play > (...) > (the requirement that offender must play the card is > authorized information for his partner; however, other > information > arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for > partner). > formatting problem > > We at blml have expressed concern about the difficulty of applying this BLML > new piece of Law, but moreover we are not at all certain as to what > information must be considered authorized and what is unauthorized. [snip] > d- declarer will probably play such that partner must throw the card > e- if i take the lead, i will be subjected to lead penalties I I > f- declarer might play for me to take the lead [snip] > m- partner led the king so he denies the ace and may have the queen (or > some other combination) > n- declarer therefor has the ace n- ..., declarer therefore has the ace > o- deductions from HCP knowing that declarer has the ace o- ..., further deductions from HCP, knowing that declarer has the ace > > (please add other deductions) [snip] 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 Jun 11 02:49:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 02:49:21 +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 CAA16131 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 02:48:40 +1000 Received: from isdn89.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <20843-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:47:44 +0000 Message-ID: <339D85E0.47EF@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:50:40 +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: what =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=B4m?= doing here??? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, following message I got from Henk: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > = > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Richard Bley wrote: > = > I think that we are missing some information here: > = > > (1) - 9-14 P. no 4 card major > > (2) - 12+ P. at least INV any distr. > > (3) - meant as weak jump; W actually thought that this was Ghestem (C= +S) > = > Did he just think that 3C showed C+S or did he explain it as such to > his screenmate? Well, of course they had no agreement at all (that=B4s one of the problems with such systems as TD and as opp); just one thought this is a Ghestem situation and the other not; so possible wrong inf on both sides of the table... > = > Besides that, did you find out what the EW agreement actually was? see above > = > > (4) - penalty dbl. everyone knew that > > (5) - W thought this to be an SOS-XX; E explained it to N as at least= > > 1C-honour! > = > Curious SOS-XX. With AJx and a void in my partner's suits, I'd > bid some number of spades, not a SOS-XX with the risk that partner > passes 3C XX. I agree (and the player as well after the bd...) > = > > (2) - meant as Hearts and Diamonds (explained from E to N as H+S) > = > Did you find out what the EW agreement was? actually here they had an agreement: H+D is correct; H+S only vs strong club-opening = > = > Henk > = > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe..net/home/hen= k > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > = > %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. -- = 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 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 02:48:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 02:48:43 +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 CAA16124 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 02:48:22 +1000 Received: from isdn89.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <20815-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:47:37 +0000 Message-ID: <339D85DA.52A4@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 18:50:34 +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: what =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=B4m?= doing here??? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Following message I got from: J.P. Pals wrote: > = > > Date sent: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:21:11 +0200 > > From: Richard Bley > > Send reply to: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de > > Organization: Heinrich Heine =3D?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=3DE4t=3D20D= =3DFCsseldorf?=3D > > To: Bridge Laws List > > Subject: what =3D?iso-8859-1?Q?I=3DB4m?=3D doing here??? > = > > Hi, > > last weekend was the last session of the german bundesliga (in bridge= of > > course...). I had the pleasure to the TD and had only one board with = a > > difficult decision... Well it was two decisions in fact at the same > > match in the same board...: > > > > (WITH Screens) > > (Bd. 31) North S,NS > > S Q10xxxx > > H K9x > > D AK > > C xx > > West East > > S AJx S Kx > > H 10xxxx H Qx > > D Qxxxxx D xx > > C - C KJ9xxxx > > S xx > > H AJx > > D Jxxx > > C AQ108 > > OPEN ROOM: > > West North East South > > 1D (1) > > p 1H (2) 3C (3) X (4) > > XX (5) 3S p 3NT > > p p p > > Lead: SJ 3NT +2 +660 > > > > (1) - 9-14 P. no 4 card major > > (2) - 12+ P. at least INV any distr. > > (3) - meant as weak jump; W actually thought that this was Ghestem (C= +S) > > (4) - penalty dbl. everyone knew that > > (5) - W thought this to be an SOS-XX; E explained it to N as at least= > > 1C-honour! > > > > How would u decide? > = > 3C xx down four, +/- 1600 (without MI, North and East would have > passed West's redouble) Do u think this is so easy? Well what do u think of the 3S bid even if the player actually thought XX is really a club-honour??? > = > > U are thinking of this... and the other room calls u: > > > > > > repeated for convenience: > > (WITH Screens) > > (Bd. 31) North S,NS > > S Q10xxxx > > H K9x > > D AK > > C xx > > West East > > S AJx S Kx > > H 10xxxx H Qx > > D Qxxxxx D xx > > C - C KJ9xxxx > > S xx > > H AJx > > D Jxxx > > C AQ108 > > > > CLOSED ROOM: > > West North East South > > 1C (1) > > 2H (2) dbl (3) pass 3C (4) > > pass pass pass > > > > 3C-1 -50 to NS > > > > (1) - polish club - no good 6card C-suit with 14-17 > > (2) - meant as Hearts and Diamonds (explained from E to N as H+S) > > (3) - neg. dbl 2S would have been a cue or by correct expl. nonforc. > > (4) - according to the players system bid - 1C didnt promise any club= s > > (1D would have been 5C suit) > > > > What do u think about this one? > > > = > This one is tougher. > It is tempting to say: A.S. for 2h doubled down four, +/- 800, but I > would like to know a bit more about NS's methods and style. > Furthermore: North received MI, but what about South? South was actually corrctly informed about the system; so no 2HX -xyz... > Maybe I review my opinion on this one if I know all the facts. Here=B4s ur chance to review :-) > = > Cheers > = > JP > = > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > * Jan Peter Pals * > * e-mail: j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl * > * Faculty of Environmental Sciences, dept. European Archaeology * > * University of Amsterdam * > * Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam * > * Tel: (31)-20-525 5811/5172/5830, Fax: (31)-20-525-5822 * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- = Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 02:52:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 02:52:55 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA16164 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 02:52:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0601520; 10 Jun 97 17:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:20:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Montecatini - final draft ? In-Reply-To: <339D2ED7.3153@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >Here's what I have, taking into account all remarks so far : > >To the Laws Committee of the WBF, >To the European Bridge League, > >>From Bridge-Laws Mailing List. > >Bridge Laws Mailing List is a forum on the Internet where (at the last >count) over 170 Tournament Directors, many of the highest level, discuss >the Laws. There are over 170 subscribers, but nowhere near all are TDs. Actually, I would be interested to know who are TDs and who are not. In the case of the British subscribers, about one in three are TDs. There are people with general interest in the Laws and people who are involved primarily in Appeals apart from TDs. [s] >We at blml have expressed concern about the difficulty of applying this I think it is generally referred to as BLML. [s] -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 08:16:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:16:12 +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 IAA17300 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:16:03 +1000 Received: from default (cph8.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.8]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA29492 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:15:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199706102215.AAA29492@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:16:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_what_I=B4m_doing_here????= Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Bley > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Richard Bley wrote: (snip) > > > (5) - W thought this to be an SOS-XX; E explained it to N as at least > > > 1C-honour! > > > > Curious SOS-XX. With AJx and a void in my partner's suits, I'd > > bid some number of spades, not a SOS-XX with the risk that partner > > passes 3C XX. > > I agree (and the player as well after the bd...) Curious, yes. But surely you are not suggesting that West is saying one thing to South and another to himself? Isn't this just a bad mistake by West? I don't see an irregularity here. (snip) -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 08:16:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:16:11 +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 IAA17299 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:16:03 +1000 Received: from default (cph8.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.8]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA29487 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:15:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199706102215.AAA29487@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:16:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_what_I=B4m_doing_here????= Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Bley > Following message I got from: > > J.P. Pals wrote: > > > From: Richard Bley (snip) > > > (WITH Screens) > > > (Bd. 31) North S,NS > > > S Q10xxxx > > > H K9x > > > D AK > > > C xx > > > West East > > > S AJx S Kx > > > H 10xxxx H Qx > > > D Qxxxxx D xx > > > C - C KJ9xxxx > > > S xx > > > H AJx > > > D Jxxx > > > C AQ108 > > > OPEN ROOM: > > > West North East South > > > 1D (1) > > > p 1H (2) 3C (3) X (4) > > > XX (5) 3S p 3NT > > > p p p > > > Lead: SJ 3NT +2 +660 > > > > > > (1) - 9-14 P. no 4 card major > > > (2) - 12+ P. at least INV any distr. > > > (3) - meant as weak jump; W actually thought that this was Ghestem (C+S) > > > (4) - penalty dbl. everyone knew that > > > (5) - W thought this to be an SOS-XX; E explained it to N as at least > > > 1C-honour! > > > > > > How would u decide? > > > > 3C xx down four, +/- 1600 (without MI, North and East would have > > passed West's redouble) I think I agree with JP. If East can give a correct explanation to North: "This particular sequence not discussed, but my bid is either clubs or Ghestem for the black suits, and partners redouble is either business (he thinks I have clubs) or SOS (if he thinks I have Ghestem), then leaving 3Cxx is certainly reasonable for North, and East has a difficult choice between running to 4C(x) and leaving 3Cxx. > > Do u think this is so easy? Well what do u think of the 3S bid even if > the player actually thought XX is really a club-honour??? I don't understand "actually thought" and "really". Are you implying that North somehow knew that the explanation was wrong and was trying some elaborate double shot? Why should he not believe the explanation given? It can certainly fit his holding. Exchange the club Ace with the spade Ace, and one of South's low diamonds with one of East's low clubs. So I believe that he is left with a difficult choice. Partner may have an undisclosed three-card spade suit and be counting on defensive tricks there, when a spade singleton is likely in an opponent hand. He probably can contribute two diamond tricks in defense. The cost of being wrong if he stands the redouble needs to be considered. This, in my mind, means that although 3S may be inferior, it is not wild or gambling, and I see no reason not to consider N damaged. (snip) -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 09:35:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:35:17 +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 JAA17564 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:35:11 +1000 Received: from cph20.ppp.dknet.dk (cph20.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.20]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA01691 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:35:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Montecatini - final draft ? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:35:05 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <339fd219.16820656@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <339D2ED7.3153@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <339D2ED7.3153@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, 10 Jun 1997 11:39:19 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >One possible interpretation that we have come up with is that every >aspect of partner having the card (a- to j-) should be authorized, >whereas all deductions from the deliberate 'facing' of the card (k- to >o-) should be unautorized. I suggest adding something like: >If the answer to any of a, b, g, h, and i is "unauthorized", we'd >also like to know whether the following is authorized >information: >p- if I lead the penalty card suit, then from the following trick >I will have a, b, g, h, and i as authorized information and can >then base the rest of the defense on that knowledge. > >I.e., is it legal to choose to play the penalty card suit (provided >declarer does not ban it, of course) for the single purpose of >making currently unauthorized information authorized for the rest >of the hand? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 09:35:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:35:19 +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 JAA17565 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:35:13 +1000 Received: from cph20.ppp.dknet.dk (cph20.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.20]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA01698 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:35:07 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Montecatini - final draft ? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 01:35:08 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33a1d7d7.18291211@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <339D2ED7.3153@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <339D2ED7.3153@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, 10 Jun 1997 11:39:19 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >corrections and additions are still wellcome. There was a suggestion at some time that perhaps we should also mention L25B. I'm not sure that it is a good idea to do so. Our problem with L25B is not that we don't know how to interpret it, but that it is a terrible law. Opinions, anybody? Is there any point in telling the WBF Laws Commission that we don't like L25B? or does it just reduce the chance of getting a useful answer to the other question? _If_ we are going to write about L25B, it might be something like the following: --------------------------------------- We are worried that the new L25B seems to break some important principles of the laws. We find the following aspects of the new L25B unfortunate: (a) It explicitly makes an action (deliberately changing a call before LHO has called) legal, but then goes on to describe this action, its consequences, and the person changing the call with phrases such as "may be accepted (treated as legal)", "infraction", "offender", "penalty", and (in L23, which is referenced) "irregularity". Using such terms about a perfectly legal action makes the distinction between legal play and irregularities unclear and undermines the very important principle that "a player must not infringe a law intentionally" (L72B2 in the new laws). (b) It can result in one side playing for at most average minus, possibly changing the tactical considerations of the play to the disadvantage of the opponents. It is less dangerous to take risks when you only have an average minus to lose. (c) It allows a player to make a call, then note his LHO's mannerisms (before LHO calls) and, based on LHO's mannerisms, legally change his call. This may cause a LHO contemplating a double of a wild overbid to get a bad score instead of a top because the overbid is regretted and changed before LHO actually does double. --------------------------------------- I have deliberately not mentioned the comic aspect: that we must allow a player to change his call, then allow his LHO to accept it or not, and (in the "not" case) finally allow the player to change his call again. I consider this quite unimportant compared to the points mentioned above. In October 1995, I sent a suggested new wording of L25B to the EBL. It obviously had no effect, but for the entertainment of BLML, here is my idea of what L25B ought to be: >B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction > If a call is substituted when section A does not > apply: > 1. Substitute Call Condoned > The substituted call may be accepted (treated as > legal) at the option of the 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 substituted call, that > call is accepted and stands without penalty. > 2. Not Condoned > If the substituted call is not accepted, it is > cancelled; and: > (a) First Call Illegal and LHO has Not Called > If the first call was illegal and the of- > fender's LHO has not called following that > illegal call but before attention is drawn > to the infraction, the offender is subject > to the applicable law (and the lead penal- > ties of Law 26 may apply to the second > call). > (b) First Call Legal or LHO has Called Over the > First Call > If the first call was legal, or if the of- > fender's LHO has called before attention is > drawn to the infraction and the Director de- > termines that LHO intended his call to apply > over the offender's original call at that > turn, the first call stands. Any informa- > tion from the attempted change of call is > unauthorized information for the offender's > partner (see Law 16). The offender's part- > ner may be subject to a lead penalty (see > Law 26) if he becomes a defender. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 17:42:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA19121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:42:17 +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 RAA19116 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:42:10 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA23325 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:41:20 +0200 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:41:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_what_I=B4m_doing_here????= In-Reply-To: <199706102215.AAA29492@isa.dknet.dk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Jens & Bodil wrote: > > From: Richard Bley > > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Richard Bley wrote: > > (snip) > > > > > (5) - W thought this to be an SOS-XX; E explained it to N as at least > > > > 1C-honour! > > > > > > Curious SOS-XX. With AJx and a void in my partner's suits, I'd > > > bid some number of spades, not a SOS-XX with the risk that partner > > > passes 3C XX. > > > > I agree (and the player as well after the bd...) > > Curious, yes. But surely you are not suggesting that West is saying > one thing to South and another to himself? Isn't this just a bad > mistake by West? I don't see an irregularity here. No, I'm not suggesting anything and no, it is not an irregularity. It just that I wouldn't have expected a bid like that at this level. Henk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 18:02:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:02:46 +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 SAA19164 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:02:40 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA24107 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:01:55 +0200 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:01:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Cc: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: what =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=B4m?= doing here??? In-Reply-To: <339D1C87.594F@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Richard Bley wrote: > repeated for convenience: > (WITH Screens) > (Bd. 31) North S,NS > S Q10xxxx > H K9x > D AK > C xx > West East > S AJx S Kx > H 10xxxx H Qx > D Qxxxxx D xx > C - C KJ9xxxx > S xx > H AJx > D Jxxx > C AQ108 > > CLOSED ROOM: > West North East South > 1C (1) > 2H (2) dbl (3) pass 3C (4) > pass pass pass > > 3C-1 -50 to NS > > (1) - polish club - no good 6card C-suit with 14-17 > (2) - meant as Hearts and Diamonds (explained from E to N as H+S) > (3) - neg. dbl 2S would have been a cue or by correct expl. nonforc. > (4) - according to the players system bid - 1C didnt promise any clubs > (1D would have been 5C suit) If I remember/understand the NS system correctly, this auction typically shows a 1 suited club hand with less than 13 hcp. A pass is then definitely an option, if you consider the garbage that NS tend to open. In any case, I don't think that it is a clear error. North has MI which made it impossible for him to bid spades (either 2S over 2H or X, then some number of spades) as a natural bid. This make it impossible for NS to reach their (spade) game. Left to their to their own devices, I'm reasonably sure that NS would have bid and made game, so I adjust to +620 (or something like that). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 18:10:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:10:12 +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 SAA19186 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:10:05 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA24497 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:09:32 +0200 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:09:31 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_what_I=B4m_doing_here????= In-Reply-To: <199706102215.AAA29487@isa.dknet.dk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > > How would u decide? > > > > > > 3C xx down four, +/- 1600 (without MI, North and East would have > > > passed West's redouble) > > I think I agree with JP. If East can give a correct explanation to North: > "This particular sequence not discussed, but my bid is either clubs or Ghestem > for the black suits, and partners redouble is either business (he > thinks I have clubs) or SOS (if he thinks I have Ghestem), then > leaving 3Cxx is certainly reasonable for North, and East has a > difficult choice between running to 4C(x) and leaving 3Cxx. I'm not quite sure if I could come up with this if I found myself in this position. East thought that he bid clubs to show clubs, do you really expect him to mention to his screenmate that his partner might have thought that a convention that has nothing to do with this situation, applies here? BTW. I agree with -1600. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 20:26:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:26:52 +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 UAA19516 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:26:46 +1000 Received: from rechner16.jura.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <25615-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:26:20 +0000 Message-ID: <339EFB69.31BE@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:24:25 -0700 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf - Faculty of Law X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: what I´m doing here??? References: <199706102215.AAA29492@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > From: Richard Bley > > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Richard Bley wrote: > > (snip) > > > > > (5) - W thought this to be an SOS-XX; E explained it to N as at least > > > > 1C-honour! > > > > > > Curious SOS-XX. With AJx and a void in my partner's suits, I'd > > > bid some number of spades, not a SOS-XX with the risk that partner > > > passes 3C XX. > > > > I agree (and the player as well after the bd...) > > Curious, yes. But surely you are not suggesting that West is saying > one thing to South and another to himself? Isn't this just a bad > mistake by West? I don't see an irregularity here. > The irregularity is not by W, who thought a bit in a funny way (at least I think) but in the wrong expl. of the bid by E. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 20:34:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:34:56 +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 UAA19573 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:34:51 +1000 Received: from rechner16.jura.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <27208-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:34:42 +0000 Message-ID: <339EFD5F.66E@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:32:47 -0700 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf - Faculty of Law X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: what I´m doing here??? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk J.P. Pals wrote: > > > > J.P. Pals wrote: > > > > > > 3C xx down four, +/- 1600 (without MI, North and East would have > > > passed West's redouble) > > > Richard Bley replied: > > > Do u think this is so easy? Well what do u think of the 3S bid even if > > the player actually thought XX is really a club-honour??? > > JP's reply: > You have to do something really stupid to fail to get redress. N's 3S > bid isn't, and was possibly suggested by the MI. So North is damaged. > Anyway, this is the decision I would make at the table. I could live > with a less harsh decision by an AC. > > > > > > > > U are thinking of this... and the other room calls u: > > > > > > > > > > > > repeated for convenience: > > > > (WITH Screens) > > > > (Bd. 31) North S,NS > > > > S Q10xxxx > > > > H K9x > > > > D AK > > > > C xx > > > > West East > > > > S AJx S Kx > > > > H 10xxxx H Qx > > > > D Qxxxxx D xx > > > > C - C KJ9xxxx > > > > S xx > > > > H AJx > > > > D Jxxx > > > > C AQ108 > > > > > > > > CLOSED ROOM: > > > > West North East South > > > > 1C (1) > > > > 2H (2) dbl (3) pass 3C (4) > > > > pass pass pass > > > > > > > > 3C-1 -50 to NS > > > > > > > > (1) - polish club - no good 6card C-suit with 14-17 > > > > (2) - meant as Hearts and Diamonds (explained from E to N as H+S) > > > > (3) - neg. dbl 2S would have been a cue or by correct expl. nonforc. > > > > (4) - according to the players system bid - 1C didnt promise any clubs > > > > (1D would have been 5C suit) > > > > > > > > What do u think about this one? > > > > > > JP wrote: > > > This one is tougher. > > > It is tempting to say: A.S. for 2h doubled down four, +/- 800, but I > > > would like to know a bit more about NS's methods and style. > > > Furthermore: North received MI, but what about South? > > Richard Bley: > > South was actually correctly informed about the system; so no 2HX - > > xyz... > > Here s ur chance to review :-) > > > > JP: > OK, so apparently West misbid -> no infraction -> result stands. > OK another try for me to make myself understandable: W and S are at the same side of the screen. So S was correctly informed by >>>>>W<<<<<< about the system; sorry my fault to describer this thing so misunderstandable > In the Netherlands, however, cases like this one are dealt with in a > different (and very controversial, much disputed) way: According to > the famous arrest number 95-15 by the national AC, an error in an > artificial bid (convention disruption) in the first round is > considered an *infraction*. So in this case, the decision would be: > West's misbid has effectively bamboozled NS out of their spade game, > so correction to +/- 620 would be in order. Up to now I thought this was only a curios idea from Bobby Wolf. Didnt know that they handle this one in NL this way. Dont like it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 20:43:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:43:44 +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 UAA19601 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:43:38 +1000 Received: from rechner16.jura.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <28801-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:43:35 +0000 Message-ID: <339EFF68.6D54@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:41:40 -0700 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf - Faculty of Law X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: what I´m doing here??? References: <199706102215.AAA29487@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: (snip) > > > > (WITH Screens) > > > > (Bd. 31) North S,NS > > > > S Q10xxxx > > > > H K9x > > > > D AK > > > > C xx > > > > West East > > > > S AJx S Kx > > > > H 10xxxx H Qx > > > > D Qxxxxx D xx > > > > C - C KJ9xxxx > > > > S xx > > > > H AJx > > > > D Jxxx > > > > C AQ108 > > > > OPEN ROOM: > > > > West North East South > > > > 1D (1) > > > > p 1H (2) 3C (3) X (4) > > > > XX (5) 3S p 3NT > > > > p p p > > > > Lead: SJ 3NT +2 +660 > > > > > > > > (1) - 9-14 P. no 4 card major > > > > (2) - 12+ P. at least INV any distr. > > > > (3) - meant as weak jump; W actually thought that this was Ghestem (C+S) > > > > (4) - penalty dbl. everyone knew that > > > > (5) - W thought this to be an SOS-XX; E explained it to N as at least > > > > 1C-honour! > > > > > > > > How would u decide? > > > > > > 3C xx down four, +/- 1600 (without MI, North and East would have > > > passed West's redouble) > > I think I agree with JP. If East can give a correct explanation to North: > "This particular sequence not discussed, but my bid is either clubs or Ghestem > for the black suits, and partners redouble is either business (he > thinks I have clubs) or SOS (if he thinks I have Ghestem), then > leaving 3Cxx is certainly reasonable for North, and East has a > difficult choice between running to 4C(x) and leaving 3Cxx. > > > > Do u think this is so easy? Well what do u think of the 3S bid even if > > the player actually thought XX is really a club-honour??? > > I don't understand "actually thought" and "really". Are you > implying that North somehow knew that the explanation was wrong and > was trying some elaborate double shot? Why should he not believe > the explanation given? It can certainly fit his holding. Exchange > the club Ace with the spade Ace, and one of South's low diamonds > with one of East's low clubs. Hmmmm. Well, I don´t believe that this hand which u described is possible. S doubled for penalty against an nvuln. opp by being vuln. himself. He quite sure has a real buster for his double in clubs. Even if the expl. is correct: N has 2 clubs in his own hand, his partner should have 4 for his double and the opp has say about 6. So if W really has an C-honour, he should have only 1 card in club at all. What do u think of this?? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 11 21:00:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:00:18 +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 VAA19667 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:00:08 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:58:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 11:58:46 BST Message-Id: <24364.9706111058@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jd@pip.dknet.dk Subject: Re: Montecatini - final draft ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would support adding Jesper's first point re L25B to the Montecatini letter. I would proprose to add the following. (copied form Jesper Dybdal Wed Jun 11 01:03:42 1997) We find the following aspects of the new L25B unfortunate: It explicitly makes an action (deliberately changing a call efore LHO has called) legal, but then goes on to describe this action, its consequences, and the person changing the call with phrases such as "may be accepted (treated as legal)", "infraction", "offender", "penalty", and (in L23, which is referenced) "irregularity". Using such terms about a perfectly legal action makes the distinction between legal play and irregularities unclear and undermines the very important principle that "a player must not infringe a law intentionally" (L72B2 in the new laws). (slightly reformatted) 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 Jun 11 23:11:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:11:24 +1000 Received: from punt-1.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 XAA20182 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:11:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1103913; 11 Jun 97 13:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:06:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: what Im doing here??? In-Reply-To: <339EFD5F.66E@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote >J.P. Pals wrote: >> In the Netherlands, however, cases like this one are dealt with in a >> different (and very controversial, much disputed) way: According to >> the famous arrest number 95-15 by the national AC, an error in an >> artificial bid (convention disruption) in the first round is >> considered an *infraction*. So in this case, the decision would be: >> West's misbid has effectively bamboozled NS out of their spade game, >> so correction to +/- 620 would be in order. >Up to now I thought this was only a curios idea from Bobby Wolf. Didnt >know that they handle this one in NL this way. Dont like it. It is probably legal under L40D, but it is against the general ideas on how Bridge is played, and should not be legal. If you forget the meaning of a natural bid, then convention disruption is illegal. The trouble with regulations of this sort is that they are designed for the very top level of the game. I suppose I would not dislike it so much so long as I could be assured that it *only* applied to top competition. If it is a general regulation then it would totally mess up club bridge, or more likely be ignored at that level. I prefer my opponents to make mistakes: it improves my chances. I do not see why I should get another artifical improvement after they have already made a mistake to better my chances. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 02:28:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:28:24 +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 CAA23526 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:28:16 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:27:41 +0100 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 17:27:40 BST Message-Id: <24515.9706111627@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: support redouble after penalty double? was Re: what [snip] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm only interested in one small point of this hand. > West North East South > 1D (1) > p 1H (2) 3C (3) X (4) > XX (5) 3S p 3NT > p p p > Lead: SJ 3NT +2 +660 > [snip] > (3) - meant as weak jump; W actually thought ... [snip] > (4) - penalty dbl. everyone knew that > (5) - W thought ... [snip]; E explained it to N as at least 1C-honour! Regardless of what NS bids meant, or what West thought, does anyone really play support redoubles over penalty doubles? Is there any logic to this? If the double was not penalties, I would expect a redouble which shows at least one club honour to be equivalent to a raise to 4C, not necessarily expecting 4C or 3C to make. In this case, I would expect East to always pull 3C XX to 4C; and rule on the basis of EW playing 4C X for -1100 (or so). Even when the double is penalties, I would still allow East to pull to 4C X. I would also expect East is see the wisdom of not playing support redoubles over penalty doubles in the future. 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 Jun 12 02:51:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:51:08 +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 CAA23674 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:50:57 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA14562 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:49:59 +0200 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:49:59 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: what Im doing here??? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Richard Bley wrote > >J.P. Pals wrote: > >> In the Netherlands, however, cases like this one are dealt with in a > >> different (and very controversial, much disputed) way: According to > >> the famous arrest number 95-15 by the national AC, an error in an > >> artificial bid (convention disruption) in the first round is > >> considered an *infraction*. So in this case, the decision would be: > >> West's misbid has effectively bamboozled NS out of their spade game, > >> so correction to +/- 620 would be in order. > > >Up to now I thought this was only a curios idea from Bobby Wolf. Didnt > >know that they handle this one in NL this way. Dont like it. > > It is probably legal under L40D, but it is against the general ideas > on how Bridge is played, and should not be legal. If you forget the > meaning of a natural bid, then convention disruption is illegal. It applies to conventional bids only. > The trouble with regulations of this sort is that they are designed > for the very top level of the game. I suppose I would not dislike it so > much so long as I could be assured that it *only* applied to top > competition. If it is a general regulation then it would totally mess > up club bridge, or more likely be ignored at that level. And it applies at every level. Before you critize the rule, you should know the background. The basic problem was that lots of pairs started to play conventional bids to show 2 suited hands. Unfortunately not everybody bothered to discuss when these bids applied or study the convention well enough to remember which suits are being shown. This frequently damaged the opponents. Now, the laws clearly deal with misbids and misexplanations. However, with all the variations around, it became more or less impossible for the directors to establish if the bid was a misbid or misexplanation. (And, of course, players tried to do everything to convince the TD that it was a misbid or a psyche). This decision tried to stop this problem. And, judging from the number of appeals, it did. People either started to discuss and remember their conventions or scrapped them. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 05:22:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:22:10 +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 FAA24464 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:22:02 +1000 Received: from isdn15.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <02928-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:21:41 +0000 Message-ID: <339EFB79.7F0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:24:41 +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: Re: support redouble after penalty double? was Re: what [snip] References: <24515.9706111627@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: > > I'm only interested in one small point of this hand. > > > West North East South > > 1D (1) > > p 1H (2) 3C (3) X (4) > > XX (5) 3S p 3NT > > p p p > > Lead: SJ 3NT +2 +660 > > > [snip] > > (3) - meant as weak jump; W actually thought ... [snip] > > (4) - penalty dbl. everyone knew that > > (5) - W thought ... [snip]; E explained it to N as at least 1C-honour! > > Regardless of what NS bids meant, or what West thought, does anyone really > play support redoubles over penalty doubles? Is there any logic to this? In fact this is my problem with this 3S bid here; If the double was not penalties, I would expect a redouble which shows > at least one club honour to be equivalent to a raise to 4C, not necessarily > expecting 4C or 3C to make. In this case, I would expect East to always > pull 3C XX to 4C; and rule on the basis of EW playing 4C X for -1100 (or so). Another problem here is, why should E be allowed to remove to 4CX -1100 when N is actually allowed to bid 3S without being in a bad position? If N can bid 3S and make a doubl shot (he didnt try to make one, but that is another theme) so that pass is his LA after the correct explanation, than E shouldnt be allowed to bid 4C (4C is only correct if 3CXX goes down; so if N is allowed to bid 3S here (and thinking that 3C XX is makeable or t most 1 off) it is difficult to understand why E is allowed to bid 4C... I hope U understand this one; would be easier in my own language ;-) > > Even when the double is penalties, I would still allow East to pull to 4C X. > I would also expect East is see the wisdom of not playing support redoubles > over penalty doubles in the future. I dont think so... -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 05:24:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:24:53 +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 FAA24493 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:24:49 +1000 Received: from isdn15.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <03400-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:24:25 +0000 Message-ID: <339EFC1F.24A3@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:27:27 +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: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Montecatini - final draft ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David wrote: > There are over 170 subscribers, but nowhere near all are TDs. > Actually, I would be interested to know who are TDs and who are not. In > the case of the British subscribers, about one in three are TDs. There > are people with general interest in the Laws and people who are involved > primarily in Appeals apart from TDs. is it possible to get a list of all subscribers? I would be interested to know as well who is a TD and who is not -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 05:25:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:25:15 +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 FAA24504 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:25:09 +1000 Received: from isdn15.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <03462-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:24:48 +0000 Message-ID: <339EFC35.1484@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:27:49 +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: what I|m doing here???] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk J.P. Pals wrote: > > > > > > > repeated for convenience: > > > > > > (WITH Screens) > > > > > > (Bd. 31) North S,NS > > > > > > S Q10xxxx > > > > > > H K9x > > > > > > D AK > > > > > > C xx > > > > > > West East > > > > > > S AJx S Kx > > > > > > H 10xxxx H Qx > > > > > > D Qxxxxx D xx > > > > > > C - C KJ9xxxx > > > > > > S xx > > > > > > H AJx > > > > > > D Jxxx > > > > > > C AQ108 > > > > > > > > > > > > CLOSED ROOM: > > > > > > West North East South > > > > > > 1C (1) > > > > > > 2H (2) dbl (3) pass 3C (4) > > > > > > pass pass pass > > > > > > > > > > > > 3C-1 -50 to NS > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) - polish club - no good 6card C-suit with 14-17 > > > > > > (2) - meant as Hearts and Diamonds (explained from E to N as H+S) > > > > > > (3) - neg. dbl 2S would have been a cue or by correct expl. nonforc. > > > > > > (4) - according to the players system bid - 1C didnt promise any clubs > > > > > > (1D would have been 5C suit) > > > > > > > > > > > > What do u think about this one? > > > > > > > > > > > > JP wrote: > > > > > This one is tougher. > > > > > It is tempting to say: A.S. for 2h doubled down four, +/- 800, but I > > > > > would like to know a bit more about NS's methods and style. > > > > > Furthermore: North received MI, but what about South? > > > > > > Richard Bley: > > > > South was actually correctly informed about the system; so no 2HX - > > > > xyz... > > > > Here s ur chance to review :-) > > > > > > > > > > JP: > > > OK, so apparently West misbid -> no infraction -> result stands. > > > > > OK another try for me to make myself understandable: W and S are at the > > same side of the screen. > > So S was correctly informed by >>>>>W<<<<<< about the system; sorry my > > fault to describer this thing so misunderstandable > > > > JP: > No, my fault, I should have looked more carefully.... > Let's try again: > North gets wrong explanation, causing NS to be robbed of their spade > game. So correction to +/- 620. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 07:43:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:43:46 +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 HAA25106 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:43:41 +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 RAA19842 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18976; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:42:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:42:54 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706112142.RAA18976@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: subscriber list X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Bley > is it possible to get a list of all subscribers? It's possible to get a list of the email addresses, at least. This is one of the administrative commands to the mail server, so it goes to majordomo@octavia.anu.edu.au. The server processes all commands in the body of each message, one command per line. (The message subject line is ignored.) Useful commands are: help <- lists server commands info bridge-laws <- returns Markus' list introduction who bridge-laws <- lists recipients end Be sure to use the 'end' command if your mailer inserts a signature or other trailing matter. Otherwise it's optional. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 07:57:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:57:17 +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 HAA25163 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:57:11 +1000 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14773 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:57:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: 1997 Laws: Preface? Scope of the Laws? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:57:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33a21111.2043087@pipmail.dknet.dk> 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 In the 1987 Laws, there is a preface and a "Scope of the Laws" section. These sections are quite important parts of the Laws: the preface tells us, for instance, that the headlines are not part of the Laws, and the "Scope" tells us what the overall purpose of the Laws is. In the 1997 Laws draft that we have received from the EBL, these two sections are missing. I expect that this is just a problem with the copy that has been sent out, and that these sections will actually be part of the final Laws in almost unchanged form. But does anyone know that it is so? Does the ACBL version contain these sections? (The draft also lacks the two appendixes that I believe will become part of the Laws; however, I don't worry about that, since the appendixes are not important at all.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 16:12:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:12:12 +1000 Received: from freenet1.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA26982 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:12:06 +1000 Received: from freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet2.carleton.ca [134.117.136.22]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA21864 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id CAA20784; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706120611.CAA20784@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Montecatini - final draft ? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Hi > >David wrote: >> There are over 170 subscribers, but nowhere near all are TDs. >> Actually, I would be interested to know who are TDs and who are not. In >> the case of the British subscribers, about one in three are TDs. There >> are people with general interest in the Laws and people who are involved >> primarily in Appeals apart from TDs. > >is it possible to get a list of all subscribers? >I would be interested to know as well who is a TD and who is not I feel like I'm at a meeting of D.A.--Directors Anonymous. :-) (moderator) I would like you to meet a fellow member. (tony) HI. My name is Tony Edwards, and I am a director. (chorus) Hi, Tony! (tony) I am also a club manager. (chorus) That's ok, Tony, we forgive you! (tony) I am 39 and the director of two of the largest and oldest clubs in Ottawa, the National Capital of Canada, the best city in the best country in the world and ... (a fellow Ummmm, don't lay it on too thick, we ARE canuck) Canadian, and modest to a fault, eh? (tony) Ya, right, sorry. I think it's the ACBL influence; too much Yank, not enough canuck. Oh for the days of an independent CBF... Anyways, I also [try to, not that they listen to ME!!] disseminate interesting BLML points to other directors in the Ottawa area. I've only been directing a couple of years. I'm still pretty much on the bottom of the food chain, director-wise. (moderator) You aren't alone in feeling like a bottom feeder. Feel better about yourself now? (tony) Thank you so much for helping me let it all hang out. Yes, I feel SO much better; full disclosure has made me feel, well, lighter, than my 22 stones! (chorus) We love you, Tony! (moderator) Time for a Group Hug, everyone! Geez, what a waste of skin... where do we get these guys, anyway? *finis* From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 20:05:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:05:22 +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 UAA27707 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:05:13 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-470.innet.be [194.7.14.170]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA11707 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:01:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <339ECA63.2472@innet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:55:15 +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: Montecatini - final draft ? References: <339D2ED7.3153@innet.be> <33a1d7d7.18291211@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > There was a suggestion at some time that perhaps we should also > mention L25B. > > I'm not sure that it is a good idea to do so. Our problem with > L25B is not that we don't know how to interpret it, but that it > is a terrible law. > > Opinions, anybody? Is there any point in telling the WBF Laws > Commission that we don't like L25B? or does it just reduce the > chance of getting a useful answer to the other question? > I have interpreted Robin's comments as seconding the motion to include L25 anyway and have therefore (*) included Jesper's text (in full) in the text. This is now two pages long, but I don't think that is too much. (*) apparantly both spellings (with or without e) exist, but I have changed to Robin's spelling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 20:05:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:05:17 +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 UAA27706 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:05:11 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-470.innet.be [194.7.14.170]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA11722 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:01:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <339FCCE0.39F9@innet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:18:08 +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: Montecatini - final draft ? References: <339D2ED7.3153@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One more thing I thought of regarding law 50 : And finally, if declarer chooses to exercise his options and requires or forbids the lead in the suit, and the penalty card gets taken into the hand again, is the knowledge that partner has the card, and all inferences thereof, authorized information or not ? I've added this to the text. You have 24 hours to still edit anything. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 12 20:50:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:50:59 +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 UAA27848 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:50:52 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:50:19 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 11:50:18 BST Message-Id: <24627.9706121050@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: new L25B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Thinking about L25B and one side playing for at most average minus, I have a not althogether sensible suggestion. Once the "offender" has been taken through the options in L25B and has selected his final call in full knowledge of "penalties", from that point those penalties become UI to the "offending" side. They must not take actions suggested by the fact that they can score at most A-. This way, the play is the same for both OS and NOS and the results at this table is properly comparable with results at other tables. Part of the rationale is that the OS will be protecting the scores of the other pairs sat the same way as the NOS. [DavidS does not like the notion of protecting the field so he should pretent I didn't say that. :-)] 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 Jun 12 22:19:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:19:13 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA28127 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:19:07 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA24886 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970612082020.0068c0f8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:20:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: Preface? Scope of the Laws? In-Reply-To: <33a21111.2043087@pipmail.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:57 PM 6/11/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >In the 1987 Laws, there is a preface and a "Scope of the Laws" >section. ... > >In the 1997 Laws draft that we have received from the EBL, these >two sections are missing. ... >Does the ACBL version contain these sections? Yes. 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 Jun 13 02:18:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 02:18:04 +1000 Received: from relay01.iafrica.com (relay01.iafrica.com [196.7.0.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01651 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 02:17:57 +1000 Received: from 196-7-195-86.iafrica.com [196.7.195.86] by relay01.iafrica.com with smtp (Exim 1.59 #1) id 0wcCYo-00024X-00; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:17:18 +0200 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rusty Court" Organization: Internet Africa To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:13:32 +0200 Subject: re 1997 Laws: Preface? Scope of the Laws Reply-to: ruscourt@iafrica.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper asked whether the Preface and the Scope of the Laws is included in the ACBL Edition of the 1997 Laws. Yes, both are included. The Scope of the Laws is identical to the 1987 Edition. The Preface differs in wording but is essentially the same and the same reference to the headings not being considered part of the Laws in included. During the time I spent with Bill Shoder, I asked about the controversy concerning AI and UI caused by the wording of L50D1. He says that the only AI for the partner of a player with a penalty card is that the card must be played at the first opportunity, whilst it remains a penalty card. Any other information or inferences arising from the penalty card are UI, including the knowledge that partner holds that card if it returned to the hand because declarer has opted to require the lead of the suit or has forbidden the lead of the suit. At some time during the event a discussion arose about the changes to L6B, the deal. Part of the discussion was about whether players could deal left to right and then right to left. Santu Ghose happened to be close by and he said that dealing cards into four hands from, say, left to right and then right to left, starting with the right-hand pile into which the last previous card had been dealt would not be considered right as it would be contrary to the 'one card at a time' stipulation. This would not affect the practice of dealing into five piles and then combining the two outer piles into one hand as no two consecutive cards would be dealt into any one pile. Rusty From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 13 06:59:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 06:59:51 +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 GAA03085 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 06:59:45 +1000 Received: from cph30.ppp.dknet.dk (cph30.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.30]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA00408 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:59:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: new L25B Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:59:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33a46309.4924310@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <24627.9706121050@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <24627.9706121050@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> 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 Thu, 12 Jun 97 11:50:18 BST, Robin Barker wrote: >Thinking about L25B and one side playing for at most average minus, >I have a not althogether sensible suggestion. > >Once the "offender" has been taken through the options in L25B and >has selected his final call in full knowledge of "penalties", from >that point those penalties become UI to the "offending" side. They >must not take actions suggested by the fact that they can score at >most A-. This way, the play is the same for both OS and NOS and >the results at this table is properly comparable with results at >other tables.=20 What a great idea! It is a perfectly logical consequence of the absurd type of penalty that L25B introduces. _If_ we really have to live with this ridiculous "at most A-" penalty, then Robin's suggestion would make it much less unreasonable for the non-offending side (an interesting term which, in the case of L25B, of course means "the opponents of the pair that made a perfectly legal L25B change of call"). >Part of the rationale is that the OS will be protecting the scores >of the other pairs sat the same way as the NOS. =20 > [DavidS does not like the notion of protecting the=20 > field so he should pretent I didn't say that. :-)] I'm very much on David S's side here (I just want to protect the innocent opponents at the same table), so I'll pretend you didn't say that. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 13 06:59:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 06:59:52 +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 GAA03086 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 06:59:46 +1000 Received: from cph30.ppp.dknet.dk (cph30.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.30]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA00412 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:59:40 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: re 1997 Laws: Preface? Scope of the Laws Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:59:39 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33a25804.2104075@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: 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 Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:13:32 +0200, "Rusty Court" wrote: >During the time I spent with Bill Shoder, I asked about the >controversy concerning AI and UI caused by the wording of=20 >L50D1. He says that the only AI for the partner of a >player with a penalty card is that the card must be played >at the first opportunity, whilst it remains a penalty card. >Any other information or inferences arising from the=20 >penalty card are UI, including the knowledge that partner >holds that card if it returned to the hand because >declarer has opted to require the lead of the suit or has >forbidden the lead of the suit.=20 This would be terrible - not only will the laws then introduce the (meaningless) concept of knowledge from which some deductions can be made in an authorized way while other deductions cannot, it would also be totally against the principle of the "Scope of the Laws" (which I understand still exists): that "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage". If the knowledge that partner has the card is UI, then there can be no need for any further penalty, and the whole concept of a "penalty card" becomes one of "punishment for irregularities" rather than "redress for damage", directly against the "Scope of the Laws". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 13 08:54:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:54:16 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03675 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:54:12 +1000 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:54:12 +1000 From: Markus Buchhorn Message-Id: <199706122254.IAA03675@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: subscriber list Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > It's possible to get a list of the email addresses, at least. This is > one of the administrative commands to the mail server, so it goes to > majordomo@octavia.anu.edu.au. Please keep in mind that the technically-correct (dare I say the "demonstrably" correct :-) ) address is majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au octavia is doing a fine job as the host at the moment, but octavia's future is cloudy, so please use the 'rgb' address. That way when octavia does go away one day I can move 'rgb' to another machine. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 6 2798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,| Fax: +61 6 2798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |*Mobile: 0417 281429* From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 13 14:24:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:24:42 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA04893 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:24:28 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1213182; 12 Jun 97 21:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 21:57:37 +0100 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Montecatini - final draft ? In-Reply-To: <199706120611.CAA20784@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199706120611.CAA20784@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca>, "A. L. Edwards" writes >> >>Hi >> >> snip > I've only been directing a couple of years. I'm still pretty > much on the bottom of the food chain, director-wise. >(moderator) You aren't alone in feeling like a > bottom feeder. Better a bottom feeder than a bottom talker TONY :)))) > Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 13 23:14:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:14:55 +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 XAA06574 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:14:48 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA22887 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:14:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970613091607.006ac900@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:16:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: re 1997 Laws: Preface? Scope of the Laws In-Reply-To: <33a25804.2104075@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:59 PM 6/12/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:13:32 +0200, "Rusty Court" > wrote: > >>During the time I spent with Bill Shoder, I asked about the >>controversy concerning AI and UI caused by the wording of >>L50D1. He says that the only AI for the partner of a >>player with a penalty card is that the card must be played >>at the first opportunity, whilst it remains a penalty card. >>Any other information or inferences arising from the >>penalty card are UI, including the knowledge that partner >>holds that card if it returned to the hand because >>declarer has opted to require the lead of the suit or has >>forbidden the lead of the suit. > >This would be terrible - not only will the laws then introduce >the (meaningless) concept of knowledge from which some deductions >can be made in an authorized way while other deductions cannot, >it would also be totally against the principle of the "Scope of >the Laws" (which I understand still exists): that "The Laws are >primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but >rather as redress for damage". > >If the knowledge that partner has the card is UI, then there can >be no need for any further penalty, and the whole concept of a >"penalty card" becomes one of "punishment for irregularities" >rather than "redress for damage", directly against the "Scope of >the Laws". I agree entirely, but don't think we even have to look that deeply. IMO the whole notion that a player may "know" that his partner holds a particular card early in the hand but must then "forget" this during the later play of the hand is logically absurd, and would lead, perforce, to an enforcement nightmare. It would suggest that a player who takes a sensible line of defense with the penalty card on the table could later be required to "change horses" by switching to an inconsistent line of defense after having "forgotten" what he was earlier playing his partner to hold. I maintain that it if (a) A is AI, and (b) A implies B with 100% certainty, then it is logical nonsense to say that B is UI. A TD or AC cannot require a player to act in a manner inconsistent with logical necessity. Thus: - If it is AI that partner must play a particular card at his first legal opportunity, it cannot be UI that he holds that card. - If it is AI that partner holds a particular card at trick 4, it cannot be UI that, having not yet played it, he still holds it a trick 10. If a player in a UI situation cannot be required to act in a manner which is totally irrational *from a bridge perspective*, surely he can't be required to act in manner which is obviously totally irrational even to somebody who knows nothing of bridge. 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 Jun 13 23:55:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:55:13 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA06720 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:55:02 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA26119 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970613095614.006ab834@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:56:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: new L25B In-Reply-To: <33a46309.4924310@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <24627.9706121050@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> <24627.9706121050@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:59 PM 6/12/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >On Thu, 12 Jun 97 11:50:18 BST, Robin Barker > wrote: >>Thinking about L25B and one side playing for at most average minus, >>I have a not althogether sensible suggestion. >> >>Once the "offender" has been taken through the options in L25B and >>has selected his final call in full knowledge of "penalties", from >>that point those penalties become UI to the "offending" side. They >>must not take actions suggested by the fact that they can score at >>most A-. This way, the play is the same for both OS and NOS and >>the results at this table is properly comparable with results at >>other tables. > >What a great idea! It is a perfectly logical consequence of the >absurd type of penalty that L25B introduces. _If_ we really have >to live with this ridiculous "at most A-" penalty, then Robin's >suggestion would make it much less unreasonable for the >non-offending side (an interesting term which, in the case of >L25B, of course means "the opponents of the pair that made a >perfectly legal L25B change of call"). Sounds good at first glance, but just what does "actions suggested by the fact that they can score at most A-" mean? What this would seem to boil down to is that a player who, absent the penalty, would be faced with a choice of taking either a conservative play that protects his probably below-average score or a "swingy" play that will get him either a top or a bottom MUST swing, as a consequence of actually having little or nothing to gain by doing so. Alternatively, if we require him to swing only when it would make sense to do so absent the penalty, then we are allowing him to take the suggested action (by playing conservatively) when he has a good score (for the session or event) to protect, while requiring him to deliberately try to "dump" to his opponents (by taking a possibly anti-percentage swinging action) when he's out of contention, even though someone who did this under more normal circumstances would be brought before a C&E committee. 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 Jun 14 00:09:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:09:37 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06783 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:09:32 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA26502 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 10:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970613101049.006ad9a0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 10:10:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: subscriber list In-Reply-To: <199706122254.IAA03675@octavia.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:54 AM 6/13/97 +1000, Markus wrote: >Please keep in mind that the technically-correct (dare I say the "demonstrably" >correct :-) ) address is majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > >octavia is doing a fine job as the host at the moment, but octavia's >future is cloudy, so please use the 'rgb' address. That way when octavia does >go away one day I can move 'rgb' to another machine. Does this apply to messages to the list as well as to majordomo? Should we be sending to bridge-laws@rgb... in instead of to bridge-laws@octavia... as well? 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 Jun 16 19:06:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:06:18 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk ([139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA23958 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:06:10 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:05:25 +0100 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 10:05:22 BST Message-Id: <25375.9706160905@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Its all gone quiet Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David No messages on BLML since Friday. Is everyone busy directing or has the list fallen over? Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 00:10:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:10:08 +1000 Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24898 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:09:59 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id QAA28753; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:09:50 +0200 Received: from smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via smap (V1.3+ESMTP) with ESMTP id sma027746; Mon Jun 16 16:06:41 1997 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.2.1m-970402) with ESMTP id QAA11487; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:06:38 +0200 Received: from brisbane (brisbane [130.144.63.109]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id QAA07173; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:06:35 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by brisbane (1.37.109.15/) id AA130599997; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:06:37 +0200 Message-Id: <199706161406.AA130599997@brisbane> Subject: Re: Its all gone quiet To: rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk, david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 16:06:37 METDST Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > No messages on BLML since Friday. > Is everyone busy directing or has the list fallen over? Robin, I have submitted a posting on Friday, and have still not seen it, so I'm afraid the second possibility you mentioned has come true. Regards, Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 03:43:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:43:56 +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 DAA28350 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:43:50 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA23819 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:43:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:43:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970616134144_91188649@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe I've missed some discussions about the revised definition of "convention," but I'm surprised at the lack of comments about it. The new wording: "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." The parenthetical phrase means that (former) conventions such as Jacoby 2NT raises and Bergen raises (jump in a minor showing support for a major) are no longer conventions! Surely that was not the intent of whoever wrote the new definition. Or was it? It is difficult to think of a justification for the insertion. My guess as to what happened is this: The former definition excluded some singleton or void-showing bids that were clearly conventions (e.g., the short suit response to a takeout double). Trying to patch that up without labeling splinter bids (and perhaps others I can't think of at the moment) as a convention, the parenthetical part was inserted. It is interesting that the former definition excluded opening bids that showed a singleton, but the new one permits such an opening if it shows an Ace! The second sentence of the definition clarifies a policy that was always in force: "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." That recalls the days when the ACBL illegally controlled the range of weak two bids. I remember Johnny Crawford's being penalized for opening a fourth-seat weak two bid with 13 HCP, at a time when the ACBL was limiting the bid to 12 HCP. Today the ACBL (and whoever sponsored the recent Cavendish) is doing something else illegal: restricting the opening of three-card majors by canape bidders. This practice is clearly not a convention, and Law 40D is pretty clear in specifying that the only other partnership understandings a sponsoring organization can regulate are those concerning the strength requirements for initial actions at the one level. (The ACBL has elected to do this for opening bids, but not for other calls.) The ACBL should adhere to Law 80F, which allows a sponsoring organization "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." Did you know that the ACBL does not require an Alert for, or label as a convention, the practice of rebidding 2C after opening one of a major with a 5=4=2=2 or 4=5=2=2 hand? Hey, Board members, that's a convention! Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 05:27:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:27:52 +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 FAA28631 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:27:40 +1000 Received: from default (cph18.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.18]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA17479 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:27:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199706161927.VAA17479@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:27:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Mlfrench@aol.com > Maybe I've missed some discussions about the revised definition of > "convention," but I'm surprised at the lack of comments about it. The new > wording: > > "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than > willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination > named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, > an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." > > The parenthetical phrase means that (former) conventions such as Jacoby 2NT > raises and Bergen raises (jump in a minor showing support for a major) are no > longer conventions! I can see how this definition can be interpreted in this way. But I have always read it as "(or, when the call is pass, double, or redouble, in the last denomination named)". It doesn't say that in so many words, but surely this was the intention ... By the way, would you rule that a pass by dealer showing any distribution and 8-12 balanced high card points is a convention? It shows willingness to pass the hand out (if partner is weak), it shows exactly the same distribution as a standard 1NT opening, and the agreement as to overall strength does not seem to make it a convention ... > Did you know that the ACBL does not require an Alert for, or label as a > convention, the practice of rebidding 2C after opening one of a major with a > 5=4=2=2 or 4=5=2=2 hand? Hey, Board members, that's a convention! It is a convention. So what? No one forces the ACBL to require that all conventions be alerted. In Denmark this convention should be alerted, but so should a negative (or Sputnik) double as in 1H - (1S) - X. I would be surprised if any SO requires an alert for the take-out double as in 1H - (X), which is also a convention. --- Hint for trick question about pass showing 8-12: Why is there no reference to L30C in the definition of "convention"? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 05:29:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:29:33 +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 FAA28639 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:29:27 +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 OAA27921 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:29:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA15635; Mon, 16 Jun 97 14:29:16 CDT Message-Id: <9706161929.AA15635@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 14:29 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: Its all gone quiet Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote: > Robin Barker wrote: > > > No messages on BLML since Friday. > > > Is everyone busy directing or has the list fallen over? > > Robin, I have submitted a posting on Friday, and have > still not seen it, so I'm afraid the second possibility > you mentioned has come true. > > Regards, > > Con Holzscherer Well, I was directing a small tournament this past weekend. However, I don't contribute to BLML that often. And I also didn't see Con's article. This was my first tournament under the 1997 Laws, and I was surprised at how many of the routine rulings were affected by the changes in the Laws. The first one was the auction 1S double pass 1S, where the standard meaning of a correction to 2S is obviously not natural. -- Barry Wolk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 05:50:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:50:24 +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 FAA28756 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:50:19 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id PAA11150 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:50:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970616155135.006aefd8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:51:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <970616134144_91188649@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:43 PM 6/16/97 -0400, Marv wrote: >Maybe I've missed some discussions about the revised definition of >"convention," but I'm surprised at the lack of comments about it. The new >wording: > >"A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than >willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination >named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, >an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." > >The parenthetical phrase means that (former) conventions such as Jacoby 2NT >raises and Bergen raises (jump in a minor showing support for a major) are no >longer conventions! Surely that was not the intent of whoever wrote the new >definition. Or was it? It is difficult to think of a justification for the >insertion. My guess as to what happened is this: The former definition >excluded some singleton or void-showing bids that were clearly conventions >(e.g., the short suit response to a takeout double). Trying to patch that up >without labeling splinter bids (and perhaps others I can't think of at the >moment) as a convention, the parenthetical part was inserted. >It is interesting that the former definition excluded opening bids that >showed a singleton, but the new one permits such an opening if it shows an >Ace! I think this is a misreading; the correct interpretation is "or (, if no denomination is named, then) the last denomination (previously) named". In other words, the phrase has no effect on the definition of a conventional bid. What it does is incorporate into the definition of "convention" a natural and intuitive definition of conventional passes, doubles and redoubles (they're conventional if they don't convey a willingness to play in the last-named denomination), which were problematic under the old definition. By this reading, all bids that show shortness in the bid suit are conventions, as we would expect. >The second sentence of the definition clarifies a policy that was always in >force: "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a >convention." That recalls the days when the ACBL illegally controlled the >range of weak two bids. I remember Johnny Crawford's being penalized for >opening a fourth-seat weak two bid with 13 HCP, at a time when the ACBL was >limiting the bid to 12 HCP. I, like Marv, suspect that that second sentence was specifically "aimed" by its authors at the ACBL, who, back in the bad old days, interpreted "conventional" as effectively synonymous with "non-standard". In fact, they still slip up repeatedly; recent ACBL Bulletin articles referred to inverted minor raises and preemptive jump shift responses as "conventions". The new definition makes it clear that this is not correct. >Today the ACBL (and whoever sponsored the recent Cavendish) is doing >something else illegal: restricting the opening of three-card majors by >canape bidders. This practice is clearly not a convention, and Law 40D is >pretty clear in specifying that the only other partnership understandings a >sponsoring organization can regulate are those concerning the strength >requirements for initial actions at the one level. (The ACBL has elected to >do this for opening bids, but not for other calls.) The ACBL should adhere to >Law 80F, which allows a sponsoring organization "to publish or announce >regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." The new definition makes it clear that opening bids on three-card suits per se are non-conventional and may not be restricted. This does not, however, preclude the ACBL's (admittedly arguable) position that canape is a conventional treatment, which would permit restrictions on three-card major openings by canape bidders. It does mean that three-card suit openings in non-canape methods must be permitted, such as the three-card minor opening in Standard American, or the three-card major opening in Modernized Scientific EHAA. >Did you know that the ACBL does not require an Alert for, or label as a >convention, the practice of rebidding 2C after opening one of a major with a >5=4=2=2 or 4=5=2=2 hand? Hey, Board members, that's a convention! I've seen nothing to suggest that this rebid is no longer considered conventional by the ACBL. Their recent action made it non-alertable, but that doesn't imply that it isn't conventional. 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 Jun 17 05:53:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:53:12 +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 FAA28777 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:53:04 +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 PAA28723 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20516; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:52:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:52:54 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706161952.PAA20516@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > By the way, would you rule that a pass by dealer showing any > distribution and 8-12 balanced high card points is a convention? I love it! About a year ago (or more??), BLML had a long discussion on the definition of a convention. It turned out not to be easy to write words that meant what most people thought the definition ought to be. Flaws could easily be found with all short definitions suggested, and our final attempt was rather long. I'm afraid the Laws Commission has done no better than we did. Anyone who wants a copy of the BLML definition, please let me know. If there are lots of requests, I'll send it to the list. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 06:10:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:10:11 +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 GAA28861 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:10:05 +1000 Received: from cph40.ppp.dknet.dk (cph40.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.40]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA18782 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:09:59 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:09:59 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33b398cd.11882886@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <970616134144_91188649@emout10.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <970616134144_91188649@emout10.mail.aol.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 Mon, 16 Jun 1997 13:43:15 -0400 (EDT), Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >Maybe I've missed some discussions about the revised definition of >"convention," but I'm surprised at the lack of comments about it. The = new >wording:=20 > >"A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than >willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last = denomination >named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. = However, >an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." > >The parenthetical phrase means that (former) conventions such as Jacoby = 2NT >raises and Bergen raises (jump in a minor showing support for a major) = are no >longer conventions! Surely that was not the intent of whoever wrote the = new >definition. No, I'm sure it wasn't. It hadn't occurred to me that the definition could be read in the way you read it. I've always read it the way I'm sure it is intended, as if the parenthesis said: "(or, for calls that do not specify a denomination, in the last denomination named)". I.e., the parenthesis simply means that a pass, double, or redouble is not a convention if it shows willingness to play in the denomination being passed, doubled, or redoubled. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 06:56:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:56:32 +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 GAA28985 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 06:56:26 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA11303; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 12:56:04 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 12:56:04 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <970616134144_91188649@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than > willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination > named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, > an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." 1. Like most other respondents, I feel the "last denomination named" bit is intended to cover passes (after the first bid), doubles, and redoubles. 2. Another issue that comes up frequently is whether a meaning in ADDITION to willingness to play blah blah blah counts as a meaning OTHER THAN blah blah blah. As I recall, the usual interpretation is that it does: For instance, a weak jump shift is not a convention but a fit-showing jump, despite being "natural" in that it shows values and length in the bid suit, is a convention since it also shows a fit. There seems to be a very fine line between "convention that also conveys information about the bid suit" and "natural bid that by inference conveys information about another suit." For instance, before everyone played splinters a lot of people played 'fragment bids' -- singleton-showing bids for all practical purposes, but purely natural, too; naturally showing length in three suits was the same as artifically showing shortness in the fourth. Have those who devote a lot of time to thinking about these issues found a way to handle this fine line? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 07:05:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:05:52 +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 HAA29033 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:05:46 +1000 Received: from cph30.ppp.dknet.dk (cph30.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.30]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA20368 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:05:40 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:05:40 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33b5aa6b.16393262@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199706161927.VAA17479@isa.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199706161927.VAA17479@isa.dknet.dk> 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 Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:27:50 +0200, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >Hint for trick question about pass showing 8-12: > >Why is there no reference to L30C in the definition of "convention"? Probably because the authors were not aware of both definitions of a conventional pass at the same time; if they had been aware that there were two definitions, those definitions would have been consistent. Considering that the two definitions are inconsistent, it could be argued that we should consider the L30C definition valid only for passes out of rotation, using the other one in all other situations. On the other hand (being one of the Danish makers of systems regulations) I can certainly see the advantage of considering all value-showing initial passes conventional... --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 09:07:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:07:38 +1000 Received: from emout20.mail.aol.com (emout20.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29301 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:07:31 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout20.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id TAA17073 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 19:06:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970616190514_-1396044862@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL Alert Procedures MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.18872.emout20.mail.aol.com.866502314" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --PART.BOUNDARY.0.18872.emout20.mail.aol.com.866502314 Content-ID: <0_18872_866502314@emout20.mail.aol.com.10177> Content-type: text/plain The ACBL Alert Procedures are certainly complicated. Even top-level TDs are disagreeing about what has to be alerted. In an attempt to boil the regulations down to a form that would fit on one 8-1/2 by 11 page, single-spaced, for our Unit members, I came up with the attached file (which does barely fit on one page after using WordPerfect's "make it fit" feature). Note the complexity of "bypass" regulations: 1H-1NT bypassing four spades is not alertable (what about 1H-2NT?) Other NT responses "frequently" bypassing a major are alertable ("frequently" undefined) 1NT rebid by opener bypassing a major is alertable 2NT (and, presumably, 3NT) rebid by opener bypassing a major is not alertable 1H/1S response to 1C bypassing diamonds is not alertable. 1D response denying bypass capability (i.e., implying no major) is alertable How can players be expected to remember all that? (TDs are supposed to know these nuances, but my questioning shows that few do) Note the catering to the Flannery practices of bypassing four spades to bid 1NT in response to 1H, and the 1S response to 1H promising five spades, neither of which is alertable. Looks like some influential BOD member(s) is (are) Flannery enthusiasts. Apparently overlooked by the BOD is my practice of bypassing hearts to bid 1S with 4-4 majors and weak hearts, which I am sure they would have made alertable if they had thought of it. Another oversight: Reese's recommended practice of bypassing a weak major to raise opener's minor with a minimum responding hand. I would appreciate it if anyone can find inaccuracies or omissions in the attached and let me know about them. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) --PART.BOUNDARY.0.18872.emout20.mail.aol.com.866502314 Content-ID: <0_18872_866502314@emout20.mail.aol.com.10178> Content-type: application/octet-stream; name="ALERTS.DOC" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAAEAAAAgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAD///////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////9/////v////7///8EAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAA CAAAAAkAAAAKAAAAFAAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAAAwAAABUA AAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAD+/////v////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1IA bwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA//////////8BAAAAAAkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMCa QKcldbwBGQAAAIAAAAAAAAAAVwBvAHIAZABEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABoAAgECAAAA//////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALAAAAAisAAAAAAAABAEMAbwBtAHAATwBiAGoA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEgACAP// /////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABeAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAP7///////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////9jdGl2 ZQ2XIE5hdHVyYWwgbm9uLWp1bXAgc2lnbm9mZiByZXNwb25zZXMgdG8gYSAxTlQgb3Blbmlu ZyBvciAxTlQgb3ZlcmNhbGwNlyAyTlQgcmVzcG9uc2UgdG8gd2VhayB0d28gYmlkIGFza2lu ZyBmb3IgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIG9yIGEgbm9uLWludml0YXRpb25hbCByYWlzZQ2XIENvbW1v biBTdGF5bWFuIHVzYWdlcywgZXhjZXB0IE5UIGNvbnRpbnVhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBkbyBub3Qg cHJvbWlzZSBhIG1ham9yDZcgQXJ0aWZpY2lhbCBzdHJvbmcgMiAgb3BlbmluZywgb3IgY29t bW9uIHdhaXRpbmcvbmVnYXRpdmUgcmVzcG9uc2VzIHRvIHN0cm9uZyBmb3JjaW5nIG9wZW5p bmdzDZcgVHdvLW92ZXItb25lIGdhbWUtZm9yY2luZyByZXNwb25zZQ2XIFBvc3NpYmxlIDMt Y2FyZCBtaW5vciBzdWl0IHJlYmlkIGFmdGVyIGZvcmNpbmcgMU5UIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIGEg bWFqb3IgKG9yIDEgLTFOVC0gMiAgd2l0aCA0PTU9Mj0yKQ2XIEN1ZSBiaWRzIHRoYXQgZG9u knQgaGF2ZSBhbiB1bnVzdWFsIG1lYW5pbmcNlyBOYXR1cmFsIGJpZCBpbiBhIHN1aXQgYmlk IGFydGlmaWNpYWxseSBieSBhbiBvcHBvbmVudA2XIDEgIG9yIDEgIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIDEg IHRoYXQgbWF5IGJ5cGFzcyBmb3VyIG9yIG1vcmUgZGlhbW9uZHMNlyAxTlQgcmVzcG9uc2Ug dG8gMSAgdGhhdCBtYXkgYnlwYXNzIGZvdXIgc3BhZGVzDZcgQWNlLWFza2luZyBiaWRzIGFi b3ZlIDNOVCwgYnV0IGRvIGFsZXJ0IHRoZW0gKGFuZCBleHBsYWluIHJlc3BvbnNlcykgd2hl biB0aGUgYXVjdGlvbiBpcyBvdmVyLiBBIGRlZmVuZGVyIGFsZXJ0cyBhbmQgZXhwbGFpbnMg aGlzIHBhcnRuZXKScyBjYWxscywgbm90IGhpcyBvd24sIGFmdGVyIHRoZSBvcGVuaW5nIGxl YWQuIFN0YW5kYXJkIEdlcmJlciBqdW1wIHRvIDQgIG92ZXIgYSBOVCBiaWQgYW5kIHN0YW5k YXJkIEJsYWNrd29vZCA0TlQgZG8gbm90IHJlcXVpcmUgdGhpcyCTZGVsYXllZCBhbGVydC6U DQ0oQ29tcGlsZWQgYnkgTWFydmluIEwuIEZyZW5jaCwgKDYxOSkgMjc4LTIyNTYsIG1sZnJl bmNoQHdyaXRlbWUuY29tKQ0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD5AgAAOQMAADoDAAA7AwAAgQMAAIIDAACDAwAAswQAALQE AAC1BAAAugQAAMAEAADBBAAAxgQAAMcEAAAEBQAABQUAAAYFAAB1BQAAdgUAAHcFAAC+BQAA vwUAAMAFAAAnBgAAKAYAACkGAACEBgAAhQYAAIYGAADoBgAA6QYAAOoGAABLBwAATAcAAE0H AAAXCAAAGAgAABkIAAD79/Pv6+fj39vW0s7KxsK+urayrqqmop6alpKOioaCfnp2cm5qZgAA AAAAAAAAAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMW AAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIA YxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZd AgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAA Bl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAhdAgBeAWMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIA YxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAAJhkIAAB4CAAA eQgAAHoIAACyCAAAswgAALQIAADzCAAA9AgAAPUIAABRCQAAUgkAAFMJAACUCQAAlQkAAJYJ AADBCQAAwgkAAMMJAAAkCgAAJQoAACYKAACDCgAAhAoAAIUKAACnCgAAqAoAAKkKAADsCgAA 7QoAAPkKAAD6CgAA+woAAPwKAAD9CgAANwsAADgLAAA5CwAAiAsAAPv38+/r5+Pf29fTz8vH w7+7t7Ovq6ejn5uXk4+Lh4N/e3dzb2tnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZd AgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAA Bl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMW AAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIA YxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZd AgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAA Bl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAAmiAsAAIkLAACKCwAAyQsAAMoLAADLCwAA7wsAAPALAAD8CwAA /QsAAP4LAAD/CwAATAwAAE0MAABODAAAdAwAAHUMAAB2DAAAugwAALsMAAC8DAAAHg0AAB8N AAAgDQAAbQ0AAG4NAABvDQAA0g0AANMNAADUDQAAOA4AADkOAAA6DgAAmg4AAJsOAACcDgAA pA4AALUOAAC2DgAA+/fz7+vn49/b19PPy8fDv7u3s6+rp6Ofm5eTj4uHg397d3NuamYAAAAA AAAAAAAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAhdAgBeAWMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMW AAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIA YxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZd AgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAA Bl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMW AAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAAACa2DgAA0g4AANMO AADUDgAA6Q4AAOoOAAAyDwAAMw8AADQPAAA1DwAANg8AAD0PAAA+DwAAaA8AAGkPAABqDwAA aw8AAGwPAAB4DwAAeQ8AAKkPAACqDwAAqw8AAKwPAACtDwAAtQ8AALYPAADYEAAA2RAAANoQ AADqEAAAIBEAACERAAA6EQAAOxEAADwRAABVEQAAVhEAAFcRAAD79/Pv6+fj39vX08/Lx8O/ u7ezr6uno5+bl5OPi4eDf3t3c25qZgAAAAAAAAAAAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAACF0CAF4B YxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZd AgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAA Bl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMW AAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIA YxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZd AgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAAJlcRAADBEQAAwhEAAMMRAAAFEgAABhIAAAcSAABLEgAATBIAAE0S AACeEgAAnxIAAKASAADrEgAA7BIAAO0SAABLEwAATBMAAE0TAABwEwAAcRMAAHITAADWEwAA 1xMAANgTAADqEwAA6xMAAAQUAAAFFAAABhQAADwUAAA9FAAAPhQAAHwUAAB9FAAAfhQAAK0U AACuFAAArxQAAPv38+/r5+Pf29fTz8vHw7+7t7Ovq6ejn5uXk4+Lh4N/e3dzb2tnAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAA Bl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMW AAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIA YxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZd AgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAA Bl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAAm3KVlACPACQQAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+QIAABcWAAACKwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwqAABsAAAALCoAAGwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQqAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAqAAAKAAAACioAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKoCAABPAAAAKCoAAAQAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOwq AAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA mCoAAFQAAADuKgAAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAwAEgAGAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAE8AEyAAAAAATVMgU2FucyBTZXJpZgAMEAAAAgBTeW1i b2wAFRAAAAAAVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuABUQAAAAAFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbgAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBBTEVSVCBQUk9DRURV UkVTDQ0gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg RWZmZWN0aXZlIDE3IE1heSAxOTk3DQ1CZWZvcmUgY2FyZHMgYXJlIHJlbW92ZWQgZnJvbSB0 aGUgYm9hcmQsIHByZS1hbGVydCBoaWdobHkgdW51c3VhbCBnZW5lcmFsIGFwcHJvYWNoZXMg KGUuZy4sIHZlcnkgbGlnaHQgYWN0aW9ucywgY2FuYXDpLCBzdWl0cyB0aGF0IG1heSBiZSBz aG9ydGVyIHRoYW4gdXN1YWwgZm9yIGEgYmlkKS4gRG8gbm90IHByZS1hbGVydCBhbnl0aGlu ZyBlbHNlLCBzdWNoIGFzIG5vdHJ1bXAgcmFuZ2VzLCBvciBkZWZlbnNpdmUgY2FyZGluZyBh Z3JlZW1lbnRzIHRoYXQgYXJlIHBsYWlubHkgc2hvd24gb24gdGhlIGNvbnZlbnRpb24gY2Fy ZC4gDQ1BTEVSVCAoU2F5IJNBbGVydJQgd2hlbiBwYXJ0bmVyIG1ha2VzIHRoZSBjYWxsIGJ1 dCBkbyBub3QgZXhwbGFpbiB1bnRpbCBhc2tlZCk6DZcgTW9zdCBjb252ZW50aW9ucyBhbmQg YWxsIHVudXN1YWwgY2FsbHMgKGUuZy4sIGNhbmFw6SBiaWRzOyB1bnVzdWFsIHN0cmVuZ3Ro LCBsZW5ndGgsIG9yIGxpbWl0YXRpb25zIG9mIGEgY2FsbCkNlyBBbGwgTWlkLUNoYXJ0IGFu ZCBTdXBlci1DaGFydCBjb252ZW50aW9ucyAoc2VlIEFDQkwgQ29udmVudGlvbiBDaGFydHMp DZcgQnVzaW5lc3MgZG91YmxlcyBvZiBvdmVyY2FsbHMgb2YgYSBvbmUtbGV2ZWwgc3VpdCBv cGVuaW5nLCB0aHJvdWdoIDQgOyBuZWdhdGl2ZSBkb3VibGUgb2YgNCAgb3IgaGlnaGVyDZcg QnVzaW5lc3MgZG91YmxlcyBvZiBvcGVuaW5nIHN1aXQgYmlkcywgdGhyb3VnaCA0IDsgdGFr ZW91dCBkb3VibGVzIG9mIG9wZW5pbmcgNCAgb3IgaGlnaGVyDZcgTmVnYXRpdmUgZG91Ymxl cyBvZiBvdmVyY2FsbHMgb2YgYSAxTlQgb3IgaGlnaGVyIG9wZW5pbmcgKGUuZy4sIDFOVC8y IC0yIC1EYmwgaWYgbm90IGZvciBwZW5hbHR5KQ2XIE5lZ2F0aXZlIGRvdWJsZXMgdGhhdCBk byBub3Qgc2hvdyB3aGF0IGlzIHVzdWFsbHkgZXhwZWN0ZWQgKGUuZy4sIDEgLTEgLURibCBk ZW55aW5nIGZvdXIgc3BhZGVzKQ2XIE90aGVyIG5vbi1wZW5hbHR5IGRvdWJsZXMgd2hlbiBw YXJ0bmVyIGhhcyBwcmV2aW91c2x5IGFjdGVkOiByZXNwb25zaXZlIGRvdWJsZXMsIGFjdGlv biBkb3VibGVzLCBkb3VibGUgb2YgbmV3IHN1aXQgcmVzcG9uc2UgbWFkZSBvdmVyIGEgdGFr ZW91dCBkb3VibGUgKGUuZy4sIDEgLURibC0xIC1EYmwgbmVnYXRpdmUgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiBw ZW5hbHR5KQ2XIERvdWJsZSBvZiBhbnkgbm90cnVtcCBiaWQgdGhhdCBpcyBub3QgcHJpbWFy aWx5IGZvciBidXNpbmVzcyAoZS5nLiwgMSAtUC0xTlQtRGJsLCAxIC0xTlQtRGJsKSANlyBB bGwgdHJhbnNmZXIgYmlkcyBvdGhlciB0aGFuIHRob3NlIG5vdGVkIHVuZGVyIEFOTk9VTkNF DZcgVW51c3VhbCBTdGF5bWFuIHVzYWdlcyAoZS5nLiwgVHdvLVdheSBTdGF5bWFuLCBQdXBw ZXQgU3RheW1hbikNlyBCaWQgb2YgTlQgYnkgYSBTdGF5bWFuIGJpZGRlciBpZiBpdCBkb2Vz IG5vdCBwcm9taXNlIGEgbWFqb3IgKGRvIG5vdCBhbGVydCB0aGUgU3RheW1hbiBiaWQpDZcg Tm9uLWZvcmNpbmcganVtcCB0YWtlb3V0IHJlc3BvbnNlcyB0byBhbiBvcGVuaW5nIGJpZCBv ciBvdmVyY2FsbA2XIDIgIG9wZW5pbmcgdGhhdCBpcyBuYXR1cmFsIGFuZCBub24tZm9yY2lu Zw2XIFVudXN1YWwgcmVzcG9uc2VzIHRvIHR3by1sZXZlbCBmb3JjaW5nIG9wZW5pbmdzIChl LmcuLCBjb250cm9scywgcG9pbnRzLCAyICBidXN0LCAyICBnYW1lIGZvcmNlKQ2XIE5hdHVy YWwgMk5ULCBub24tZm9yY2luZyBuZXcgc3VpdCBiaWQsIG9yIGludml0YXRpb25hbCByYWlz ZSwgaW4gcmVzcG9uc2UgdG8gYSB3ZWFrIHR3byBiaWQqDZcgTm9uLWZvcmNpbmcganVtcCBy ZXNwb25zZSBvZiAyTlQqDZcgVW51c3VhbCBOVCBpZiBub24tanVtcCAxTlQvMk5ULzNOVCBi aWQgYnkgYW4gdW5wYXNzZWQgaGFuZCAoZS5nLiwgk1NhbmR3aWNoIDFOVJQpDZcgV2VhayBq dW1wIHRha2VvdXQgcmVzcG9uc2VzIHRvIGFuIG9wZW5pbmcgYmlkIG9yIG92ZXJjYWxsDZcg V2VhayBqdW1wIHJhaXNlcywgZXhjZXB0IHdoZW4gYmlkIG92ZXIgYW4gb3Bwb3NpbmcgdGFr ZW91dCBvciBuZWdhdGl2ZSBkb3VibGUgDZcgU3Ryb25nIGp1bXAgcmFpc2VzIG92ZXIgYW4g b3Bwb3NpbmcgdGFrZW91dCBvciBuZWdhdGl2ZSBkb3VibGUNlyBTdHJvbmcgc2luZ2xlIHJh aXNlcywgZXZlbiBpZiBvbmx5IJNjb25zdHJ1Y3RpdmWUDZcgQ3VlIGJpZHMgdGhhdCBhcmUg bm9uLWZvcmNpbmcgKGkuZS4sIGEgcmVhbCBzdWl0KSBvciBoYXZlIGFuIHVudXN1YWwgbWVh bmluZw2XIFN0cm9uZyBvciBpbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUganVtcCBvdmVyY2FsbHMNlyBOVCByZXNw b25zZXMgdGhhdCBtYXkgZnJlcXVlbnRseSBieXBhc3MgYSBtYWpvciBzdWl0LCBleGNlcHQg MSAtMU5UDZcgMU5UIChub3QgMk5UIG9yIDNOVCkgcmViaWQgYnkgb3BlbmVyIHRoYXQgbWF5 IGJ5cGFzcyBhIG1ham9yIHN1aXQsIG9yIG1heSBiZSBzdHJvbmdlciB0aGFuIDE1IEhDUA2X IE5vbi1mb3JjaW5nIGJlbG93LWdhbWUgbmV3IHN1aXQgcmVzcG9uc2VzIHRvIG9wZW5pbmcg c3VpdCBiaWRzIGF0IGFueSBsZXZlbCoNlyBPbmUtb3Zlci1vbmUgc3VpdCByZXNwb25zZXMg dGhhdCBwcm9taXNlIGF0IGxlYXN0IGZpdmUgY2FyZHMgaW4gdGhlIHN1aXQsIGV4Y2VwdCAx ICByZXNwb25zZSB0byAxIA2XIDEgIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIDEgIHRoYXQgaW1wbGllcyBubyBm b3VyLWNhcmQgbWFqb3IgKGV4cGxhaW4gd2hlbiB0aGlzIHJ1bGUgbWF5IGJlIHZpb2xhdGVk LCBpZiBldmVyKQ2XIFByZWVtcHRpdmUgZ2FtZSBvcGVuaW5nIGJpZHMgdGhhdCBkZW55IGEg Z29vZCBoYW5kLCBvciBwcmVlbXB0cyB0aGF0IGFyZSBzdHJvbmdlciB0aGFuIGV4cGVjdGVk DQ1BTk5PVU5DRSAoRXhwbGFpbiBwYXJ0bmVyknMgY2FsbCB3aXRob3V0IGJlaW5nIGFza2Vk KToNlyBUaGUgcmFuZ2Ugb2YgcGFydG5lcpJzIDFOVCBvcGVuaW5nIG9yIG92ZXJjYWxsIGlm IGl0IGlzIGFsbCBvciBwYXJ0bHkgb3V0c2lkZSAxNS0xOCBIQ1AgcmFuZ2UNlyCTRm9yY2lu Z5Qgd2hlbiBwYXJ0bmVyIG1ha2VzIGEgZm9yY2luZyAxTlQgcmVzcG9uc2UNlyCTU2VtaS1G b3JjaW5nlCB3aGVuIHBhcnRuZXIgbWFrZXMgYSBzZW1pLWZvcmNpbmcgMU5UIHJlc3BvbnNl Kg2XIJNUcmFuc2ZlcpQgZm9yIGRpYW1vbmQtdG8taGVhcnQgb3IgaGVhcnQtdG8tc3BhZGUg KEphY29ieSkgdHJhbnNmZXIgYnkgcGFydG5lciBpbiByZXNwb25zZSB0byBhbnkgbmF0dXJh bCAxTlQvMk5UICBvcGVuaW5nIG9yIG92ZXJjYWxsIChpbmNsdWRpbmcgYSAyTlQgcmViaWQg YnkgYSAyICBvcGVuZXIsIHNob3dpbmcgYSBub3RydW1wIGhhbmQpLCBidXQgb25seSB3aGVu IHJpZ2h0IGhhbmQgb3Bwb25lbnQgaGFzIHBhc3NlZCBvdmVyIHRoZSBub3RydW1wIGJpZC4g QWxsIG90aGVyIHRyYW5zZmVycyBhcmUgYWxlcnRhYmxlLg0NKiBTdWNoIHJlc3BvbnNlc2J5 IGEgcGFzc2VkIGhhbmQgYXJlIGFzc3VtZWQgdG8gYmUgbm9uLWZvcmNpbmcsIHNvIGRvbpJ0 IEFsZXJ0IG9yIEFubm91bmNlIHRoZW0uDQ1ETyBOT1QgQUxFUlQgT1IgQU5OT1VOQ0U6DZcg TmVnYXRpdmUgZG91YmxlcyBpbiByZXNwb25zZSB0byBhIG9uZS1sZXZlbCBzdWl0IG9wZW5p bmcsIHRocm91Z2ggNCAsIGlmIHRoZXkgc2hvdyBhYm91dCB3aGF0IGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkDZcg VGFrZW91dCBkb3VibGVzIG9mIHN1aXQocykgYmlkLCB0aHJvdWdoIDQgLCB3aXRoIHBhcnRu ZXIgaW5hrxQAADkVAAA6FQAAwBUAAMEVAADPFQAA0BUAANEVAADSFQAAFhYAABcWAAD79/Pv 6+fj39vZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAADXQMABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZd AgBjFgAABl0CAGMWAAAGXQIAYxYAAAZdAgBjFgAAAAr5AgAAOgMAADsDAACCAwAAgwMAALQE AAC1BAAABQUAAHYFAAC/BQAAKAYAAIUGAADpBgAATAcAABgIAAB5CAAAswgAAPQIAABSCQAA lQkAAMIJAAAlCgAAhAoAAKgKAAD8CgAA+gAAAAAAAPUAAAAAAADwAAAAAAAA6wAAAAAAAOYA AAAAAADhAAAAAAAA3AAAAAAAANcAAAAAAADSAAAAAAAAzQAAAAAAAMgAAAAAAADDAAAAAAAA vgAAAAAAALkAAAAAAAC0AAAAAAAArwAAAAAAAKoAAAAAAAClAAAAAAAAoAAAAAAAAJsAAAAA AACWAAAAAAAAkQAAAAAAAIwAAAAAAACHAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQA ABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAA AQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAA BAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU 8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEA AAAAGPwKAAA4CwAAiQsAAMoLAAD+CwAATQwAAHUMAAC7DAAAHw0AAG4NAADTDQAAOQ4AAJsO AACcDgAA0w4AADMPAABpDwAAqg8AANkQAADaEAAAOxEAADwRAABWEQAAwhEAAAYSAAD6AAAA AAAA9QAAAAAAAPAAAAAAAADrAAAAAAAA5gAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADcAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAANIA AAAAAADNAAAAAAAAyAAAAAAAAMMAAAAAAAC+AAAAAAAAuQAAAAAAALQAAAAAAACvAAAAAAAA qgAAAAAAAKUAAAAAAACgAAAAAAAAmwAAAAAAAJYAAAAAAACRAAAAAAAAjAAAAAAAAIcAAAAA AAAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAA BAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU 8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEA AAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQA ABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAAYBhIAAEwSAACfEgAA7BIAAEwTAABxEwAA 1xMAAAUUAAA9FAAAfRQAAK4UAADRFQAA0hUAABcWAAD6AAAAAAAA9QAAAAAAAPAAAAAAAADr AAAAAAAA5gAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAADcAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAANIAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAyAAAAAAA AMMAAAAAAAC+AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQA ABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAA AQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAABAAAFPAAAQAAAAQAABTwAAEAAAAEAAAU8AABAAAA AA35AgAAFxYAAAwA+QIAABcWAAASAAAAAAAeEwAAAAD/////AAD/////LycAAA4ADwAIAAEA SwAPAAAAAAAaAABA8f8CABoABk5vcm1hbAACAAAAAwBhCQQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA IgBBQPL/oQAiABZEZWZhdWx0IFBhcmFncmFwaCBGb250AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAA AADQAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP9AFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEA/v8DCgAA/////wAJAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAA AEYcAAAATWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgNi4wIERvY3VtZW50AAoAAABNU1dvcmREb2MAAAAAAPQ5 snEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA --PART.BOUNDARY.0.18872.emout20.mail.aol.com.866502314-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 09:30:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:30:43 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29462; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:30:40 +1000 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:30:40 +1000 From: Markus Buchhorn Message-Id: <199706162330.JAA29462@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: subscriber list Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Please keep in mind that the technically-correct (dare I say the > "demonstrably" correct :-) ) address is majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > > Does this apply to messages to the list as well as to majordomo? Should we > be sending to bridge-laws@rgb... in instead of to bridge-laws@octavia... as > well? Yes - quite right. BLML and the majordomo that administers it reside on the same machine. Individual messages to the list go through the majordomo processor too - just a different part of it. It keeps an eye for things like subscribe/unsubscribe requests accidentally sent to the list (they get redirected to me for handling), as well as restricting posting access to subscribers (avoids e.g. spammers, unless they subscribe first). Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 6 2798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,| Fax: +61 6 2798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |*Mobile: 0417 281429* From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 11:43:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:43:59 +1000 Received: from punt-1.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 LAA29848 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:43:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1113307; 17 Jun 97 2:43 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:18:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Its all gone quiet In-Reply-To: <199706161406.AA130599997@brisbane> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote >Robin Barker wrote: > >> No messages on BLML since Friday. > >> Is everyone busy directing or has the list fallen over? > > Robin, I have submitted a posting on Friday, and have >still not seen it, so I'm afraid the second possibility >you mentioned has come true. So how come I have read this article? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 14:28:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:28:58 +1000 Received: from emout12.mail.aol.com (emout12.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA00393 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:28:52 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA29358; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 00:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970617002808_-26226748@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Its all gone quiet Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, you have read this article because when a tree falls in the forest primeval there IS a sound made. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 16:52:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:52:03 +1000 Received: from mail1.halcyon.com (mail1.halcyon.com [206.63.63.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA00989 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:51:40 +1000 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (bbo@chinook.halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18099; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:51:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" Reply-To: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: <25375.9706160905@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We had a friend lose the Regional Open Pairs event at Denver recently as a result of the ACBL factoring method. The winners had 420.96, and our friend was second with 420.88, in a two-session play-through event. The reason was that a director determined that one pair playing a certain board would have to get ave+ and ave- on the board, and it affected all the other contestants' other scores on that board. Under the ACBL method, the pair that won was awarded 11.96 for having the top score NS. The pair that came in second was unfortunate enough to have been EW in the same section, and was awarded 10.88 for the second highest score their way on that board. They outscored the winners on the other 52 boards by one matchpoint, so lost the event by the slim margin of 0.08ths of a matchpoint!! This just doesn't seem to be a fair result! Why should the winner of an event be determined by a happenstance at another table which did not permit the entering of a normal result on a board? If the second-place team had happened to be in the other section with the second-best score on the same duplicated board, they would have got an 11, and would then have won the event by 0.04ths of a matchpoint!! Actually the score they did get would have been a 12 in the other section, so they might have won by more than one matchpoint!! Another interesting facet of this affair is that the total matchpoints to the NS and EW sides were different on the board, with NS being slightly higher. If one figured the percentage for their respective totals, adding in 312 for the first session, the EW pair that came in second had a slightly higher percentage game than did the winners who were NS on the board in question!! NO FAIR!!! It used to be the case that the ACBL had a rule that you had to win an event by more than one-half a point or it was a tie. It would seem that in this case, that would have been a reasonable result for this particular tournament event. But some time back, this was changed by Board edict, I think, and an .01 was thereafter deemed a winning margin. In the case of multiple-session events where there is factoring of scores down after a session to allow there to be no more than a two-board margin between the top and bottom qualifiers, or in case of certain long team events, I can see where this could be deemed a reasonable answer. But in the present case, where the second place team would have tied for first if the ave+- table had been able to record any kind of normal result, it seems unusually cruel to have the ACBL-mandated method for determining matchpoints on a board with an average in it end up determining who is the winner and who loses!! It used to be also [didn't it?] that in a case like this, every other pair was give one-half a matchpoint over their raw score matchpointed on an 11 top, to compensate for the one-less play, which would have also produced a tie in the Denver event. I guess the question is, is the ACBL method an equitable one? Is it proper? Is it fair, and is it right; or are there better methods and better ways to handle these ave+- situations? And if so, what are the details so we can petition the ACBL for a change which would stop this kind of ugly anomoly from happening again in the future? Richard B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 17:03:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:03:47 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA01057 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:03:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0628011; 17 Jun 97 2:43 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:22:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: re 1997 Laws: Preface? Scope of the Laws In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970613091607.006ac900@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote >I maintain that it if (a) A is AI, and (b) A implies B with 100% certainty, >then it is logical nonsense to say that B is UI. A TD or AC cannot require >a player to act in a manner inconsistent with logical necessity. If you are going to argue on logical grounds, then I am afraid that the second sentence above does not follow from the first. Not only **can** a TD/AC require such action, but he *should* if the *Laws* require it. I do not have the strong feelings about this that several do, but I believe you have to resolve it *without* the fallacious argument above. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 19:59:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:59:32 +1000 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA01661 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:59:26 +1000 From: OAdamec@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id FAA28671 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970617055849_-529616479@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Alert Procedures Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-06-17 04:48:34 EDT, Mlfrench@aol.com writes: << 1H-1NT bypassing four spades is not alertable (what about 1H-2NT?) Other NT responses "frequently" bypassing a major are alertable ("frequently" undefined) 1NT rebid by opener bypassing a major is alertable 2NT (and, presumably, 3NT) rebid by opener bypassing a major is not alertable 1H/1S response to 1C bypassing diamonds is not alertable. 1D response denying bypass capability (i.e., implying no major) is alertable How can players be expected to remember all that? (TDs are supposed to know these nuances, but my questioning shows that few do) >> As a working director, I am familiar with all of the above alerts. AND it is my impression that in my club, the players that use these conventions know the alert procedure. I see no reason not to know this stuff by player or director. Otto From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 17 22:45:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:45:55 +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 WAA02054 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:45:48 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA10384 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970617084650.006b165c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:46:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <33b5aa6b.16393262@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199706161927.VAA17479@isa.dknet.dk> <199706161927.VAA17479@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:05 PM 6/16/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:27:50 +0200, "Jens & Bodil" > wrote: >>Hint for trick question about pass showing 8-12: >> >>Why is there no reference to L30C in the definition of "convention"? > >Probably because the authors were not aware of both definitions >of a conventional pass at the same time; if they had been aware >that there were two definitions, those definitions would have >been consistent. > >Considering that the two definitions are inconsistent, it could >be argued that we should consider the L30C definition valid only >for passes out of rotation, using the other one in all other >situations. > >On the other hand (being one of the Danish makers of systems >regulations) I can certainly see the advantage of considering all >value-showing initial passes conventional... I don't read these two definitions as inconsistent. Chapter I says "an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call convention". In the case of a strength-showing pass, the nature of the agreement does not make the pass conventional; something else is required to do that. That "something else" is the explicit wording of L30C. An agreement as to overall strength does not preclude a call being a convention, if it qualifies based on some other criterion in the Laws, such as the preceding sentence in the Chapter I definition, or L30C. 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 Jun 17 22:59:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:59:53 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02091 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:59:44 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1325466; 17 Jun 97 9:36 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:34:53 +0100 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Definition of "Convention" in 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <199706161927.VAA17479@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199706161927.VAA17479@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >> From: Mlfrench@aol.com > >> Maybe I've missed some discussions about the revised definition of >> "convention," but I'm surprised at the lack of comments about it. The new >> wording: >> >> "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than >> willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination >> named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, >> an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." >> >> The parenthetical phrase means that (former) conventions such as Jacoby 2NT >> raises and Bergen raises (jump in a minor showing support for a major) are no >> longer conventions! > >I can see how this definition can be interpreted in this way. But I >have always read it as "(or, when the call is pass, double, or >redouble, in the last denomination named)". It doesn't say that in >so many words, but surely this was the intention ... > >By the way, would you rule that a pass by dealer showing any >distribution and 8-12 balanced high card points is a convention? It >shows willingness to pass the hand out (if partner is weak), it shows >exactly the same distribution as a standard 1NT opening, and the >agreement as to overall strength does not seem to make it a >convention ... > > > >> Did you know that the ACBL does not require an Alert for, or label as a >> convention, the practice of rebidding 2C after opening one of a major with a >> 5=4=2=2 or 4=5=2=2 hand? Hey, Board members, that's a convention! > >It is a convention. So what? No one forces the ACBL to require that >all conventions be alerted. In Denmark this convention should be >alerted, but so should a negative (or Sputnik) double as in 1H - (1S) >- X. I would be surprised if any SO requires an alert for the >take-out double as in 1H - (X), which is also a convention. > >--- > >Hint for trick question about pass showing 8-12: > >Why is there no reference to L30C in the definition of "convention"? > > >-- >Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying Yes - It is clear in EBU land that convebtion as defined by Law and bids that have to be alerted are NOT the same thing Penalty doubles of Weak Twos and Pre-empts at the 3 level are alertable here but not conventional in Law Completion of transfer bids are alertable but IMO are not conventions 3 card Minor openings are alertable but not conventional (Much more interesting is the case of 3 card majors - also banned by the EBU - will this survive the new Law Book and the definition quoted above???) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 00:02:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:02:12 +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 AAA02305 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 00:02:07 +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 KAA06012 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20934; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:02:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:02:00 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706171402.KAA20934@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: BLML definition of convention X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There were enough requests that it's probably worth sending to the list. The following definition was dated June 24, 1996. There were still a few loose ends identified, but evidently the thread lost interest. At least there were no further responses that I saw. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are still some loopholes, and of course not everyone will agree with all the details. Still, this seems to capture what most people mean. In case it isn't obvious, the definition below has no official standing whatsoever; it's merely a BLML exercise. I'm afraid the only strong conclusion is that no simpler definition is likely to be free of loopholes. A convention is a call that, by agreement: directly suggests that the final contract be in a denomination other than the current one; or, for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the suit named or directly shows length, strength, or values in another specified suit; or for a notrump bid, does not directly suggest notrumps as a final denomination and may show an unbalanced hand; or for a pass, promises more than a specified amount of strength. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 01:42:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 01:42:50 +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 BAA04964 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 01:42:43 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id LAA23604 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970617114417.006b40e4@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 11:44:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: re 1997 Laws: Preface? Scope of the Laws In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970613091607.006ac900@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 6/16/97 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>I maintain that it if (a) A is AI, and (b) A implies B with 100% certainty, >>then it is logical nonsense to say that B is UI. A TD or AC cannot require >>a player to act in a manner inconsistent with logical necessity. > > If you are going to argue on logical grounds, then I am afraid that >the second sentence above does not follow from the first. Not only >**can** a TD/AC require such action, but he *should* if the *Laws* >require it. > > I do not have the strong feelings about this that several do, but I >believe you have to resolve it *without* the fallacious argument above. Darn. I've been caught mis-punctuating again! Please re-punctuate that paragraph so that "I maintain that" applies to both sentences, making them both premises, rather than suggesting a premise and a conclusion. But I will accept, for the sake of argument, that a TD can require an action which violates logical necessity, and should do so if the Laws require it. I will then maintain, however, that if the Laws are subject to alternate interpretations, where one interpretation conforms to the laws of everyday logic and one does not, common sense requires that we accept the former, and that that's the case here. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 02:28:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 02:28:14 +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 CAA05254 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 02:28:07 +1000 Received: from x22.ripe.net by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA05539 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:27:29 +0200 Received: from x22.ripe.net (localhost.ripe.net [127.0.0.1]) by x22.ripe.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA12916; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:27:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <33A6BAD8.41C67EA6@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:27:04 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal Organization: RIPE NCC X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; BSD/OS 2.0 i386) Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge To: "Barbara B. Odlin" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barbara B. Odlin wrote: > We had a friend lose the Regional Open Pairs event at Denver recently as > a result of the ACBL factoring method. The winners had 420.96, and our > friend was second with 420.88, in a two-session play-through event. The > reason was that a director determined that one pair playing a certain > board would have to get ave+ and ave- on the board, and it affected all the > other contestants' other scores on that board. Under the ACBL method, the > pair that won was awarded 11.96 for having the top score NS. The pair that > came in second was unfortunate enough to have been EW in the same section, > and was awarded 10.88 for the second highest score their way on that board. > They outscored the winners on the other 52 boards by one matchpoint, so lost > the event by the slim margin of 0.08ths of a matchpoint!! > This just doesn't seem to be a fair result! Why should the winner of an > event be determined by a happenstance at another table which did not permit > the entering of a normal result on a board? > If the second-place team had > happened to be in the other section with the second-best score on the same > duplicated board, they would have got an 11, and would then have won the > event by 0.04ths of a matchpoint!! Actually the score they did get would > have been a 12 in the other section, so they might have won by more than one > matchpoint!! I would consider this much more of a problem. Didn't Mike Lawrence once write that he lost an event by 5 feet? (the distance between his table and the same table in the other section, where the same game would have matchpointed to a much higher score). > Another interesting facet of this affair is that the total matchpoints to > the NS and EW sides were different on the board, with NS being slightly > higher. If one figured the percentage for their respective totals, adding > in 312 for the first session, the EW pair that came in second had a slightly > higher percentage game than did the winners who were NS on the board in > question!! NO FAIR!!! This cannot be right. Both the EW and NS scores are matchpointed on an 11 top and then the same formula is applied to spread the scores over a 0 to 12 range. Unless there is a programming error, the sum of the matchpoints should be the same. > It used to be also [didn't it?] that in a case like this, every other pair > was give one-half a matchpoint over their raw score matchpointed on an 11 > top, to compensate for the one-less play, which would have also produced a > tie in the Denver event. I think that the current method is a lot better than the old one. With the old method, the top on the board would be 11.5: 11 from the 12 scores plus 0.5 from the artificial scores. This means that this board gets a lower weight than the other 51 boards where you have a 12 top. The maximum score over the day would be 623.5 (51x12+11.5) and a top on the boards with a 12 top would be 1.92% for the day but a top on the boards with an 11.5 top would be 1.84%, or 0.08% less. The new method does a better job. The maximum score over the day is now 623.96, the top on a board with a 12 top is worth 1.923% and the one with an 11.96 top 1.917%, which is only 0.006% less. The 0.5 rule said, in fact, that you should beat your opponents by more than 1 unit of scoring, which I think is reasonable. With the new method, the unit has become 0.01 point, so changing the rule is at least consistent. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 06:44:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 06:44:51 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA06215 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 06:44:45 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@CSB.BU.EDU [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id QAA13830; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:44:33 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id QAA05866; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706172044.QAA05866@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- To: bbo@halcyon.com Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: from "Barbara B. Odlin" at Jun 16, 97 11:51:26 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is in response to Richard Odlin's complaint that a friend lost a regional pairs event by 0.08, due to an average plus assigned at another table. The full text of Rich's letter is attached at the bottom. (1) Richard complains that the ACBL factoring method assigned scores unfairly on the board in question, giving an 11.96 to the winning pair, who got a top, and a 10.88 to the 2nd place pair, who had a next to top (12 top). Despite the 1MP difference between the pair on the board considering only scores achieved, the factoring method increased the difference to 1.08. The reason the algorithm does this is as follows: one table was unable to achieve a normal result on theboard which could be matchpointed against. If we were to rank the 12 scores which were achieved, and this table had been able to achieve a score, then it could have been in one of 25 places in our ranked list: either tied with one of the other 12 scores (12 places), or ahead of 0-12 of the other scores (13 places). Assume each of these 25 possibilities to be equally likely. The top score would beat 23 of these possibilities, tie one, and lose to 1. Thus it shold be converted to 11 + (23 1/2)/25, which is 11.94. The 2nd score would beat 21 of these possibilities, tie one, and lose to 3. Thus it is converted to 10 + (21 1/2)/25 = 10.86. [note- I think the numbers you gave were not quite right, or else I made a mistake somewhere]. In summary, if a result had been achieved, then it would be 8% more likely to be above the 2nd highest score than it would be above the highest. Therefore, the top should be assigned .08 more matchpoints than the 2nd highest score. This may appear to be a disadvantage to pairs in a section with an avg, because their top is lower. However, since there is one fewer pair competing for that top, it is slightly easier (1/12 rather than 1/13, not counting ties) to get a top in such a section. And the important thing is that the variance of scores (neglecting the avg) is the same, thus making it equally likely to achieve the same percentage game. (2) >> This just doesn't seem to be a fair result! Why should the winner of an >> event be determined by a happenstance at another table which did not permit >> the entering of a normal result on a board? Events are usually determined by happenstances at other tables. In this case, the happenstance is that no true result was achieved, so we guess statistically that the result that would have been achieved was more likely to be above the 2nd highest score than the highest. We give .86 for the comparison to the 2nd highest pair, and .94 to the highest. (3) Richard comments that the score achieved would have been a top in another section. This simply amounts to the luck of the draw. Nobody said there was no luck in bridge. But you already knew that. (4) Richard notes that the NS and EW totals on the board in question were different. I suspect that the differences were due to the avg+/avg- themselves. The average of the other scores, ignoring the avg+ and avg-, should have been equal for NS and EW. (5) The "old" method of dealing with factored boards was to give each pair 0.5 matchpts for each table they could not get an actual comparison against. This was used in the pre-computer scoring days, since it is a much easier method of scoring by hand. I think that this method of averaging is still allowed (by ACBL) in clubs which do not use computer scoring. This method is unfair to the pairs in sections with averages, since it tends to decrease the variance of the scores. However, all ACBL tournaments are computer scored these days, and use the new method. This is also the reason for the switch from the <0.5 margin is a tie to the 0.01 margin. The hand calculations are easier with the .5 case, but with computers the .01 margin is better for determining a unique winner. (6) >> I guess the question is, is the ACBL method an equitable one? Is it proper? >> Is it fair, and is it right; or are there better methods and better ways to >> handle these ave+- situations? I think the ACBL method is indeed equitable, proper, fair, and right. From the point of view of a statistician, it is statistically better than the old methods (which were, however, easier to compute by hand). It is a terrible feeling to lose by such a small margin, but this is the price paid for methods which measure things more accurately - smaller differences become detectable and can be used to differentiate. Losing by such a tiny margin is a bitter pill to swallow, and I have sympathy for your friend. But it happens all the time - just watch the Olympics. If one gymnastics team outscores the other by 0.08 points, the judges still give the first the gold medal and the other the silver. Hopefully, next time your friend's luck will be just a hair better. David Metcalf >> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:51:26 -0700 (PDT) >> From: "Barbara B. Odlin" >> Subject: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- >> We had a friend lose the Regional Open Pairs event at Denver recently as >> a result of the ACBL factoring method. The winners had 420.96, and our >> friend was second with 420.88, in a two-session play-through event. The >> reason was that a director determined that one pair playing a certain >> board would have to get ave+ and ave- on the board, and it affected all the >> other contestants' other scores on that board. Under the ACBL method, the >> pair that won was awarded 11.96 for having the top score NS. The pair that >> came in second was unfortunate enough to have been EW in the same section, >> and was awarded 10.88 for the second highest score their way on that board. >> They outscored the winners on the other 52 boards by one matchpoint, so lost >> the event by the slim margin of 0.08ths of a matchpoint!! >> This just doesn't seem to be a fair result! Why should the winner of an >> event be determined by a happenstance at another table which did not permit >> the entering of a normal result on a board? If the second-place team had >> happened to be in the other section with the second-best score on the same >> duplicated board, they would have got an 11, and would then have won the >> event by 0.04ths of a matchpoint!! Actually the score they did get would >> have been a 12 in the other section, so they might have won by more than one >> matchpoint!! >> Another interesting facet of this affair is that the total matchpoints to >> the NS and EW sides were different on the board, with NS being slightly >> higher. If one figured the percentage for their respective totals, adding >> in 312 for the first session, the EW pair that came in second had a slightly >> higher percentage game than did the winners who were NS on the board in >> question!! NO FAIR!!! >> It used to be the case that the ACBL had a rule that you had to win an event >> by more than one-half a point or it was a tie. It would seem that in this >> case, that would have been a reasonable result for this particular >> tournament event. But some time back, this was changed by Board edict, I >> think, and an .01 was thereafter deemed a winning margin. >> In the case of multiple-session events where there is factoring of scores >> down after a session to allow there to be no more than a two-board margin >> between the top and bottom qualifiers, or in case of certain long team >> events, I can see where this could be deemed a reasonable answer. But in >> the present case, where the second place team would have tied for first if >> the ave+- table had been able to record any kind of normal result, it seems >> unusually cruel to have the ACBL-mandated method for determining matchpoints >> on a board with an average in it end up determining who is the winner and >> who loses!! >> It used to be also [didn't it?] that in a case like this, every other pair >> was give one-half a matchpoint over their raw score matchpointed on an 11 >> top, to compensate for the one-less play, which would have also produced a >> tie in the Denver event. >> I guess the question is, is the ACBL method an equitable one? Is it proper? >> Is it fair, and is it right; or are there better methods and better ways to >> handle these ave+- situations? And if so, what are the details so we can >> petition the ACBL for a change which would stop this kind of ugly anomoly >> from happening again in the future? >> Richard B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 07:15:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:15:43 +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 HAA06312 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:15:37 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA23035; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:15:00 -0800 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:15:00 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First, let me offer the opinion that I like the current factoring method. I am convinced that a) the existing method is fairer than the old method and b) there isn't such a thing as a perfect method. Now, to my main point. At first blush, I liked the idea of restoring the requirement of a 0.5 MP margin to break ties. Then the obvious problem came to mind. Suppose we have a typical 1-session game with a 156 average. You get 192.32. I get 192.00 (I actually got this score in the last regional I played in and was very happy about it. It was second overall, but by a margin of 5 points.) Somebody else gets 191.69. Are you ranked 1/2, am I ranked 1/2/3, and is the other guy ranked 2/3? There are several ways to handle the overlap. I suspect that this is just the sort of reason why the half-point margin rule was dropped. Perhaps someone who has been in the know longer than I have been can tell us if this was the actual reason. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 07:58:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:58:52 +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 HAA06444 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:58:46 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA21844; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:58:02 -0800 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:58:02 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: David Metcalf Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: <199706172044.QAA05866@csb.bu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am almost afraid to bring this up. David Metcalf's posting (and, I daresay, other posts that haven't reached me yet) went into a fair bit of detail about how the ACBL factoring method works. He wound up with a 10.86 instead of a 10.88 and was wondering whether the original poster's figure or his calculation was off. I'm not sure which. But his explanation is different from what I thought the explanation is. Here's the way I thought the comparison worked. (To those who feel this is a waste of bandwidth, my apologies.) The board is to be played 13 times but scores are obtained only 12 times. We list these scores from least to greatest. Suppose that the best score is 680, second-best is 660, and the next three are all 650. Now we have to allocate the 13th pair to some position or positions in this list. The sample of 12 is the best information -- the only information, in fact -- we have about what "should" happen on the board, so we allocate 1/12th of the extra pair to each of the 12 table results. We now have 1 1/12 pairs with 680, 1 1/12 pairs with 660, 3 1/4 pairs with 650, etc. The pair that actually obtained 680 has beaten 11 11/12 pairs and tied 1/12 pairs, hence they get 11 11/12 + (1/2)(1/12) = 11.9583, rounded to 11.96. The 660 pair has beaten 10 5/6 pairs, tied 1/12 pairs, and been beaten by 1 1/12 pairs, hence they get 10 5/6 + (1/2)(1/12) = 10.875, rounded to 10.88. Each of the three 650 pairs has beaten 7 7/12 pairs, tied 2 1/4 pairs, and been beaten by 2 1/6 pairs, hence they get 7 7/12 + (1/2)(2 1/4) = 8.7083, rounded to 8.71. *** I would not swear that the ACBL actually does it this way. But this way agrees with the actual figures presented from the Denver regional, and to me it seems to make more statistical sense than any other. (You're going to have a hard time convincing me, Mr. Metcalf, that the extra pair had a 1/25 chance of falling between any two scores, e.g., scoring 655.) While I wouldn't want to go out on a limb and try to prove it, it seems that assigning 1/12 of a pair to each of 12 results would be the method - of - maximum - likelihood estimate. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 08:53:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:53:48 +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 IAA06708 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:53:41 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id SAA10106 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970617185136_1343805470@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I won't quote Richard B. Odlin's words on this subject, but will just summarize my knowledge and opinions on ACBL methods for fouled boards, different averages, etc. I won't go into the methods for adjusting scores for carryover purposes, about which I know little but feel these are probably done fairly and correctly. Sessions conducted after an elimination should certainly carry more weight than previous sessions do, but how much more? The matchpointing of tournaments that include adjusted scores, fouled boards, boards with different averages due to a half-table, fields (same section or different sections, but in the same session) with different averages, and sessions with different averages, must include methods for handling these anomalies. The ACBL SCORE computer program uses a corrective equation called the Fouled Board Formula (FBF) for all these situations except one: The equalization of sessions is handled by straight factoring, with the second session factored up or down to produce the same average as the first session. ADJUSTED AND ASSIGNED SCORES In the old days, an adjusted score resulted in an award of 1/2 matchpoint to every other pair in the field for that deal. This unfair practice was changed a while back so that a very good or bad score gets almost the top or bottom it deserves. Almost, but not quite. With 12 top, you see scores like 11.96 or 0.04 resulting from the new procedure. Moreover, the minimum margin for a win is now 0.01 matchpoint, so a contestant can win or lose by 0.04 points. This calls for careful examination of the process used to obtain such scores. Adjusted scores (e.g., "average plus" or "average minus" due to an infraction) are currently treated as "missing results," as if the board were fouled or was played fewer times for some other reason. Each valid score is revised by the FBF equation: M = (N x S)/n + (N - n)/2n, with M = revised score, N = number of contestants who should play the board, S = matchpoint score in the group of actual scores, n = number of contestants in that group. The resulting matchpoints are rounded to the nearest hundredth, with .005 rounded up to .01. However, for deals that have an adjusted score entered due to an infraction of some sort, the adjusted score should be considered a result, an outcome, and should not be treated as a missing result. The high scorer(s) did indeed beat the contestant who, either through bad behavior or bad luck, received an adjusted score, while the bottom scorer(s) did indeed have a worse result. Accordingly, use of the FBF, which accounts for one or more missing results, is inappropriate. It produces ludicrous scoring outcomes (e.g., a pair can lose a tournament by .04 matchpoints to a pair who received that much for a -1400 score on a deal played against them). It also means that a +200 score that gets a cold top in one section scores better than a +1400 top in another section where there was an adjusted score (assuming the unfair practice of not combining sections in the scoring is in effect). "Assigned scores," scores which the director has determined to be the fair outcome of some transgression, are treated like any other scores in matchpointing. If the director decides to adjust a score instead of assigning a score, why should his decision affect those with good and bad scores on the board? Imagine a winning pair with a cold top on a board that was disputed at another table having their win taken away because an appeals committee has ruled that an assigned score should have been an adjusted score. Their cold top is reduced by .04 matchpoints and they come in second. Is that fair? Is there a better way? I think so. Since an adjusted score is usually an average score adjusted plus or minus, my first thought was to give everyone over average one matchpoint for besting the "adjustee," and one-half point to those with an average score. That doesn't work, of course, because anywhere from one to eleven of twelve other contestants can be above or below average. However, using a temporary median score works pretty well. My suggestion is to temporarily assign the median of the valid scores in place of the score(s) to be adjusted, matchpoint the board normally, and then make the adjustment(s). If there is no median (i.e., with an even number of valid scores), create a median score with a value equal to the average of the adjacent scores. Let's say that an adjusted score results in a board with only 12 unadjusted outcomes instead of the normal 13. There is one N-S score of +140, nine scores of +110, one of +100, and one score of +90. My method is to temporarily assign the median score (+110) to the pair whose score is to be adjusted, then matchpoint the board. The total matchpoints will be 78, as with all other boards. There is no difference in weight. Then the affected score is revised to reflect the director's adjustment, an act that has no effect on anyone else inside or outside the section. Note that all scores (except perhaps an adjusted score) will be evenly divisible by 0.5--no oddball decimals. Also note that everyone will probably be content. The top score will still be a top, the bottom a bottom, the +100 will get its single matchpoint (having beaten only one team), and the median +110s will note that they received one-half matchpoint from the adjusted result, which will not seem unfair. As of now, however, there are plenty of complaints. If the current method is so great, how come so many people are unhappy? If the two worst scorers protest that they were not really beaten by the adjusted result, the answer is, "Yes you were. That pair did better than you did." Average plus or average minus, you see, is indeed superior to their bad scores. Let's look more closely at that imposing FBF equation. Ostensibly its purpose is to calculate probabilities concerning the missing result(s). When I first saw scores of 11.96, 0.04, etc., I thought "How clever. They now have some wondrous method of calculating the probability that an added result would be higher than the top or lower than the bottom." It looked like the new method did the same for other scores, affecting them with some arcane probability calculations. It didn't occur to me right away that it would be impossible to calculate the probability that a top or bottom score might be exceeded. I don't mean that accuracy would be impossible; I mean that there is no conceivable method for even attempting such calculations. Now apply the equation with the above sample board as input. All the first term does is to ratio up all scores by a factor of 13/12, nothing wondrous about that. The top score becomes 11.92 instead of 11 and the bottom score remains zero. The total of all scores becomes 71.5 instead of the previous 66. The second term in the equation is merely a calculation of the value (one-half matchpoint in this case) that would bring the total matchpoints up to 72, the "par" total for 12 results out of 13, and divides that "shortfall" amount equally among the 12 contestants. The top score, the bottom score, and everyone in between thereby gets increased by an identical amount (0.0417), along with the results of identical factoring (13/12). There is nothing predictive in that process. Note that if the top pair had +1400 and the bottom pair -1400, they would still get the same score! The equation "predicts" that those results would be as likely to be exceeded as the actual +140 and +90. The equation produces results that look predictive (as I believed at first), but it is all "smoke and mirrors." It doesn't predict anything. The equation could be replaced by simple words: "Factor up all scores by the same barely insufficient ratio, then figure the shortfall and divide that amount equally among all contestants." Of course computers don't understand English, so the equation is necessary. I believe my recommendation is a better way to go. FOULED BOARDS Now what about FBF's use for fouled boards, its original purpose, where there is indeed one or more missing results? Is it the best solution we can come up with? That's doubtful, considering the lack of "science" represented by the equation. Try this: Since it is impossible to predict whether a unique top or bottom score would be exceeded or tied by one or more added results, let the contestants with such scores keep their top or bottom. That's not fair, but arbitrarily taking away their top or saving them from a bottom is also unfair. Apply the FBF, but when dividing up the "shortfall" matchpoints, give the share that would normally go to the bottom scorer to the top scorer. Then the total will come out right, a top will still be a top, and a bottom will still be a bottom. If there is no unique top or bottom, apply FBF as-is. If there is a unique top but not a unique bottom, or vice-versa, take the "shortfall" effect that the FBF normally applies to a unique score, and divide it equally among the tied scores at the other extreme. When the field of contestants playing the fouled board before or after fouling is three or fewer, the FBF is used for a field of three when it is the larger group. Otherwise the scores in a group of three are arbitrarily awarded scores of 70%, 60%, and 50% (ties sharing, of course). The scores in a group of two are awarded scores of 65% and 55%, while a single contestant gets a score of 60%. Fouled boards in board-a-match team events are necessarily handled in a different manner, which I won't go into here. EQUALIZATION OF BOARDS Boards with different averages due to a phantom pair are currently handled in the same way as fouled boards, with the FBF used to equalize all boards. That being logical, the recommendation I made for fouled boards also applies to boards with different averages for reasons other than fouling. The boards with lower averages should be brought up level with those having the highest top by the same procedure. FIELDS WITH DIFFERENT AVERAGES The current ACBL practice is to use the FBF to equalize fields within the same session that have different averages, applying FBF to the field(s) with an average lower than the highest-average field. When the different fields involve different sections playing the same boards, a better method is to use overall scoring instead of section scoring. Many players (and TDs) do not like overall scoring (One senior woman was heard to say, "I know it's more fair, but I don't want fair!). When fairness conflicts with personal preference, however, it surely must be agreed that fairness should prevail. The reason TDs don't like overall scoring is that misduplicated boards complicate the scoring process somewhat. Sorry, but I don't know how that situation is handled, although I would think the FBF should enter the picture. When the different fields have played different hands (e.g., N-S and E-W fields in a one-session game that calls for an overall winner), use of FBF is preferable to basing standings on unadjusted percentage scores when the fields have different averages (e.g., there is a half-table). My impression is that this is not being done, at least in games that I have participated in. If FBF is used, my suggestions for changing its application would apply in this situation also. SESSIONS WITH DIFFERENT AVERAGES It often happens in a two-session game (without elimination) that fewer or more players are involved in the second session, sometimes resulting in different averages for the two sessions. The current practice is to simply factor the scores of the second session up or down to provide equality with the first session for the purpose of overall awards. There was some historical reason, now forgotten, why the first session is given precedence in the equalization process. Today it is just a custom for which there is no justification. One would think that factoring would always be in the upward direction, as mandated in the old days when factoring was used instead of the FBF for everything. That was for PR reasons only, since the results are the same either way. Players don't like the idea of their scores being factored down, even if it doesn't make any difference in the standings. Since everyone retains the same percentage score for each session when factoring is used, it would be simpler to just add percentages for each session to obtain overall results. Why factor at all? As with all the other occasions for recomputing scores, there is really no justification for using the unfair practice of straight factoring in this situation. It is easier to score well (or badly) in a session that has a lower average than another, so the same reasoning that justifies the use of FBF in other situations requiring equalization of fields applies in this case, and the FBF should replace factoring, applying it to the boards of the lower-average session. Some players might object, but it's the right thing to do. The ACBL's position on this is that "all boards played in a multi-session event must have the same weight." That is an impressive-sounding dictum that has no legitimate basis. A simpler procedure, suggested by Danny Kleinman, is to merely add the two session scores without any factoring. That would give the lower-average session scores less weight, which is what they deserve. Suppose a pair A has a 60% first session with 156 average and a 70% second session with 143 average. Another pair B has 70% for the first session and 60% for the second. Using the present practice of factoring sessions for equality, these players would be tied. That is unfair to B, because it is easier to score 70% with the smaller top. Merely adding the session scores would give pair B the win they deserve. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) P. S. Has it ever occurred to anyone that it is unfair to compare the apples and oranges of different size fields on an equal basis in such events as the World-Wide Pairs, Sectionals at Bridge Clubs, etc.? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 09:19:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:19:20 +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 JAA06818 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:19:15 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id TAA23605 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:18:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 19:18:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970617191705_239985717@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 2C rebid with 5=4=2=2 or 4=5=2=2 hand Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Everyone's jumping on me for saying that the Board should realize that this 2C rebid is a convention and require that it be alerted. No, all conventions don't have to be alerted, but the Board's apparent intent is to require an Alert for all unexpected conventions, and the average player will hardly consider that this conventional bid may be based on a doubleton. It should be alerted, as should the Flannery practices of responding 1NT to 1H with four spades, or promising five spades with a 1S response, even though neither bid constitutes a convention. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 10:35:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:35:13 +1000 Received: from mail1.halcyon.com (mail1.halcyon.com [206.63.63.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07009 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:35:07 +1000 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27937; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 17:34:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" Reply-To: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: Henk Uijterwaal Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: <33A6BAD8.41C67EA6@ripe.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Henk. Thanks for the response. > I would consider this much more of a problem. Didn't Mike Lawrence once > write that he lost an event by 5 feet? (the distance between his table and > the same table in the other section, where the same game would have > matchpointed to a much higher score). Yes, I remember an article in this vein. I have several times done the same thing myself when my 201, or whatever, came in 3rd in a section, and found we had an easy win in other sections!! :) C'est la vie!! > > Another interesting facet of this affair is that the total matchpoints to > > the NS and EW sides were different on the board, with NS being slightly > > higher. If one figured the percentage for their respective totals, adding > > in 312 for the first session, the EW pair that came in second had a slightly > > higher percentage game than did the winners who were NS on the board in > > question!! NO FAIR!!! > > This cannot be right. Both the EW and NS scores are matchpointed on an 11 > top and then the same formula is applied to spread the scores over a 0 to > 12 range. Unless there is a programming error, the sum of the matchpoints > should be the same. I would have thought so, too, but here is what the matchpointing looked like: [I find our friend sat NS, not EW, as indicated in the first write-up] NS Pr NS Score NS MPs EW MPs EW Score EW Pr ----- -------- ------ ------ -------- ----- 1 -100 4.92 7.08 +100 12 2 -200 2.75 9.25 +200 14 3 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 2 4 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 4 5 ------- Board 10 -- Dealt at table 5------- 6 +620 11.96 0.04 -620 7 7 -100 4.92 7.08 +100 9 8 -300 1.13 10.88 +300 11 9 A- 4.80 7.20 A+ 13 *--> 10 +170 *> 10.88 1.13 -170 1 11 -800 0.04 11.96 <** +800 3 <--** 12 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 6 13 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 8 14 -200 2.75 9.25 +200 10 ----- ----- 76.83 79.19 * = our friend, 2nd ** = The winners Because of the anomoly on this board, the NS checktotal was 2182.83. The EW checktotal was 2185.19. Adding in 2184 for the first session, the final checktotal for NS was 4366.83, and for EW was 4369.19. NS #10 then had 409.88 out of 623.83284 average, or 65.70%. EW #3 [the winners] then had 409.96 out of 624.08500 average, or 65.69% Now I know why the ACBL print-out sheets do not compute the average of any pair's total game over two sessions. They only compute the session averages!! :) > I think that the current method is a lot better than the old one. With > the old method, the top on the board would be 11.5: 11 from the 12 scores > plus 0.5 from the artificial scores. This means that this board gets a > lower weight than the other 51 boards where you have a 12 top. The > maximum score over the day would be 623.5 (51x12+11.5) and a top on the > boards with a 12 top would be 1.92% for the day but a top on the boards > with an 11.5 top would be 1.84%, or 0.08% less. The new method does a > better job. The maximum score over the day is now 623.96, the top on a > board with a 12 top is worth 1.923% and the one with an 11.96 top 1.917%, > which is only 0.006% less. The 0.5 rule said, in fact, that you should > beat your opponents by more than 1 unit of scoring, which I think is > reasonable. With the new method, the unit has become 0.01 point, so > changing the rule is at least consistent. I understand where you are coming from in the discussion above, but I still wonder if it is fair to have the winner declared by such an anomoly that neither pair had anything to do with? I still think the event was a basic tie, based on table results, and am searching for an answer as to why it shouldn't be -- as it would have been before they abandoned the .50 rule. Seems to me that the 0.5 rule might best be revived, at least for two session events with a playthrough, and no factoring to reduce the spread to a two-board margin. Seemed like it was a good rule. Anyone know exactly why [and when] the ACBL changed it? Thanks for your input. Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 10:54:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:54:51 +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 KAA07127 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:54:47 +1000 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 KAA20072 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:54:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p07.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.87]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA17689 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:54:44 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970617224255.006aa244@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:42:55 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Conventional bids Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Definition of Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named....., or high card strength or length (three cards or more) there... If one describes a 'natural' bid as one that is not conventional, then one could say that, to be natural, then the call must (a) convey a willingness to play in the denomination named OR (b) show high card strength or at least three cards in the suit named. I would be much more comfortable with this definition if the 'or' was 'and'. In the area in which I direct, many pairs play a 5 card major version of Standard or Acol (some expatriate Brits refer to it as 'Colonial Acol') which opens 1C on as little as Cxx. In most such cases, responder will pass without normal responding values, and declarer takes his chances in 1C if passed out. Is the 1C conventional or not? Whilst obviously opener would prefer not to play in 1C, systemically he is prepared to do so, so he meets one criterion of being non-conventional (and the way the definition reads, that is all he needs to meet). Would the 1C be conventional if responder is required to make a negative 1D response? Corollaries: If these bids are deemed conventional, then (a) when insufficient, partner is barred. This is probably no big deal,as in any case the correction to 2C would probably be to a conventional bid, so partner will be barred anyway. (b) Lead penalties: if the 1C bid is deemed conventional, then presumably it does not relate to a specific suit. Or does it still relate to clubs, despite being conventional? Do we apply 26A or 26B? Comments please. Reg Busch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 11:30:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:30:00 +1000 Received: from mail1.halcyon.com (mail1.halcyon.com [206.63.63.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA07232 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:29:55 +1000 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA09733; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:29:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: David Metcalf cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: <199706172044.QAA05866@csb.bu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks, David, for your reply. On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, David Metcalf wrote: > This is in response to Richard Odlin's complaint that a friend > lost a regional pairs event by 0.08, due to an average plus > assigned at another table. > (1) Richard complains that the ACBL factoring method assigned scores > unfairly on the board in question, giving an 11.96 to the winning pair, > who got a top, and a 10.88 to the 2nd place pair, who had a next to > top (12 top). Despite the 1MP difference between the pair on the board > considering only scores achieved, the factoring method increased > the difference to 1.08. Well, "complaint", "complains", and "unfairly" not really, because I know it works this way. Maybe we can substitute "observation", "observes", and "differently". Then comes the question of fair or not. > The reason the algorithm does this is as follows: one table > was unable to achieve a normal result on theboard which could be > matchpointed against. If we were to rank the 12 scores which were > achieved, and this table had been able to achieve a score, then it could > have been in one of 25 places in our ranked list: either tied with > one of the other 12 scores (12 places), or ahead of 0-12 of the other > scores (13 places). Assume each of these 25 possibilities to > be equally likely. The top score would beat 23 of these possibilities, > tie one, and lose to 1. Thus it shold be converted to 11 + (23 1/2)/25, > which is 11.94. The 2nd score would beat 21 of these possibilities, > tie one, and lose to 3. Thus it is converted to 10 + (21 1/2)/25 = > 10.86. [note- I think the numbers you gave were not quite right, I am following you, and I don't know why the difference either -- see the actual matchpoint scores on the board which I posted in my reply to Henk a little bit ago. > In summary, if a result had been achieved, then it would be 8% more likely > to be above the 2nd highest score than it would be above the highest. > Therefore, the top should be assigned .08 more matchpoints than the 2nd > highest score. > This may appear to be a disadvantage to pairs in a section > with an avg, because their top is lower. However, since there is > one fewer pair competing for that top, it is slightly easier (1/12 > rather than 1/13, not counting ties) to get a top in such a section. > And the important thing is that the variance of scores (neglecting > the avg) is the same, thus making it equally likely to achieve the > same percentage game. Again, I understand where you are coming from, but I am not ready to concede that it is equally likely that any given pair will get a score that exceeds all twelve others, or a score lower than 12 others on any one given board. I think it much more likely that a given pair will achieve something above, at, or below average. I think we have sort of a Bell-Curve expectation here when it comes down to the likelihood as to the result any given pair may obtain on any one given board. In any session, you might get a couple of 12s and 0s, but you are going to get a lot more 5s, 6s, and 7s I believe, forgetting about halves. Don't think an average round would be two of every score, zero thru 12. > Events are usually determined by happenstances at other tables. > In this case, the happenstance is that no true result was achieved, > so we guess statistically that the result that would have been achieved > was more likely to be above the 2nd highest score than the highest. > We give .86 for the comparison to the 2nd highest pair, and .94 to the > highest. > (3) Richard comments that the score achieved would have been a top > in another section. > This simply amounts to the luck of the draw. Nobody said there > was no luck in bridge. But you already knew that. Yes, indeed! The rub of the green! Nut if they had been in another section and had got their 11, and won by an .04, I think the other pair would have had a skwawk too. > (4) Richard notes that the NS and EW totals on the board in question > were different. > I suspect that the differences were due to the avg+/avg- > themselves. The average of the other scores, ignoring the avg+ > and avg-, should have been equal for NS and EW. I don't know why the difference either. This is the first time I really looked at it and noticed it. Perhaps something like this happens on every factored board. [Again, see Henk letter] > (5) The "old" method of dealing with factored boards was to give > each pair 0.5 matchpts for each table they could not get an actual > comparison against. > This was used in the pre-computer scoring days, since it > is a much easier method of scoring by hand. I think that this > method of averaging is still allowed (by ACBL) in clubs which do > not use computer scoring. This method is unfair to the pairs in > sections with averages, since it tends to decrease the variance of > the scores. However, all ACBL tournaments are computer scored these > days, and use the new method. > This is also the reason for the switch from the <0.5 margin > is a tie to the 0.01 margin. The hand calculations are easier with > the .5 case, but with computers the .01 margin is better for > determining a unique winner. > I think the ACBL method is indeed equitable, proper, fair, > and right. From the point of view of a statistician, it is > statistically better than the old methods (which were, however, > easier to compute by hand). It is a terrible feeling to lose by such a > small margin, but this is the price paid for methods which measure > things more accurately - smaller differences become detectable and > can be used to differentiate. Okay, noted. I thought there was something better that I thought I saw discussed on rec.games.bridge two-three years ago, but couldn't recall one detail at all. > Losing by such a tiny margin is a bitter pill to swallow, > and I have sympathy for your friend. But it happens all the time - > just watch the Olympics. If one gymnastics team outscores the other > by 0.08 points, the judges still give the first the gold medal > and the other the silver. Hopefully, next time your friend's luck > will be just a hair better. Yes, it is to be hoped! The difference in gymnastics is that it seems everyone get 9-point-high-something in each event, for what--five events? So, an .08 there means something. In a bridge game where the award varies from 0 to 12 on 52 events. it seems like an .08 really is a tie, especially when produced by an anomoly like this. Cheers, Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 14:07:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:07:33 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA07608 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:07:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0621892; 18 Jun 97 3:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:18:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rich Odlin wrote >We had a friend lose the Regional Open Pairs event at Denver recently as >a result of the ACBL factoring method. That is one hell of a statement. I do not believe that the rest of this article justifies it. > The winners had 420.96, and our >friend was second with 420.88, in a two-session play-through event. The >reason was that a director determined that one pair playing a certain >board would have to get ave+ and ave- on the board, and it affected all the >other contestants' other scores on that board. Under the ACBL method, the >pair that won was awarded 11.96 for having the top score NS. The pair that >came in second was unfortunate enough to have been EW in the same section, >and was awarded 10.88 for the second highest score their way on that board. >They outscored the winners on the other 52 boards by one matchpoint, so lost >the event by the slim margin of 0.08ths of a matchpoint!! Unfortunately I am not the expert on Neuberg's formula and the effects of averages using the ACBL. It does seem to me that it may have been miscalculated. I would believe that the difference between consecutive scores in such a case should be less than 1 mp. >This just doesn't seem to be a fair result! Why should the winner of an >event be determined by a happenstance at another table which did not permit >the entering of a normal result on a board? If the second-place team had >happened to be in the other section with the second-best score on the same >duplicated board, they would have got an 11, and would then have won the >event by 0.04ths of a matchpoint!! Actually the score they did get would >have been a 12 in the other section, so they might have won by more than one >matchpoint!! This does not seem correct to me. Are these not scored overall? If they are not, then saying what would have happened in another section is tottally irrelevant. After all, their scores would be different on every other board as well. >Another interesting facet of this affair is that the total matchpoints to >the NS and EW sides were different on the board, with NS being slightly >higher. If one figured the percentage for their respective totals, adding >in 312 for the first session, the EW pair that came in second had a slightly >higher percentage game than did the winners who were NS on the board in >question!! NO FAIR!!! This is not an effect of Neuberg, and is just not possible *unless* there is a PP involved, or another case when A+ was given but not balanced by A-. The correct way to check such things is to add the scores up without PPs, and with averages on the actual boards, ie without the plus or minus bit. Then the NS and the EW will balance, and they will always sum to the same figure when a certain number of pairs play a certain number of boards. Only after that check should the PPs and plusses and minusses be added. Are you sure they did not balance in this way? If not, then it does look as though they were miscalculated. >It used to be the case that the ACBL had a rule that you had to win an event >by more than one-half a point or it was a tie. It would seem that in this >case, that would have been a reasonable result for this particular >tournament event. But some time back, this was changed by Board edict, I >think, and an .01 was thereafter deemed a winning margin. Why should it be reasonable "for this tournament"? They played, they got a lesser score, they did not win. What on earth is wrong with that? In cricket, two teams play tests for five days, score roughly 600 runs each and on a couple of occasions the winning score has been one run: what would you do, call it a tie if they are within 5 runs? In athletics, wins by 0.01 sec are common: would you call it a tie if the win is less than by 0.1 sec? >In the case of multiple-session events where there is factoring of scores >down after a session to allow there to be no more than a two-board margin >between the top and bottom qualifiers, or in case of certain long team >events, I can see where this could be deemed a reasonable answer. But in >the present case, where the second place team would have tied for first if >the ave+- table had been able to record any kind of normal result, it seems >unusually cruel to have the ACBL-mandated method for determining matchpoints >on a board with an average in it end up determining who is the winner and >who loses!! Now come on! Can the rhetoric, please! "...unusually cruel to have the ACBL-mandated method...": rubbish! It is absolutely standard in any sport for certain events to be decided by the regulations of that sport, and bridge is no exception. It is not unusually cruel! If the officials call a foul on the last play of an American Football game, following the laid-down procedures, and a team loses that could have won without the foul, that is tough luck, but it is not "unusually cruel" >It used to be also [didn't it?] that in a case like this, every other pair >was give one-half a matchpoint over their raw score matchpointed on an 11 >top, to compensate for the one-less play, which would have also produced a >tie in the Denver event. I will leave this one to Herman, but while I have difficulty in explaining it, there is *no* doubt that this is less fair than Neuberg. *But* it does not matter: there will always be averages, and whatever formula you use will give wins to one side or the other. >I guess the question is, is the ACBL method an equitable one? Is it proper? >Is it fair, and is it right; or are there better methods and better ways to >handle these ave+- situations? And if so, what are the details so we can >petition the ACBL for a change which would stop this kind of ugly anomoly >from happening again in the future? The ACBL method is equitable, though as I have said, it probably needs Herman [or Max Bavin] to explain why. It is proper and right. However, there are other considerations: was it applied correctly? Was it scored correctly? The little evidence given here suggest it may not have been, and if so that would be a worry. Let us suppose that it was scored correctly. There will always be close finishes, and any event that allows a form of scoring where the minimum unit of score is 0.01 mp will get wins by 0.01 mp. It is not an "ugly anomoly": people who lose events in such a way should merely try harder next time. It is also fairly clear that you have not concerned yourself with the other pair: what would you have thought if your friends had won by 0.04 mp? When Rich said >We had a friend lose the Regional Open Pairs event at Denver recently as >a result of the ACBL factoring method. I can believe that they lost it by a miscalculation. But, if they did not, then they lost it because they got a poorer score than the other pair - and they are not alone in doing that! Lest anyone doubt my own approach let me tell you that I have played last weekend with a delightful Scottish lady last weekend. Among other things, we lost *two* *separate* teams events, in each case by a single imp. I should have played better. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 18:10:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:10:47 +1000 Received: from mail1.halcyon.com (mail1.halcyon.com [206.63.63.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA08190 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:10:41 +1000 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA26299; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 01:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 01:10:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" Reply-To: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Rich Odlin wrote- > >We had a friend lose the Regional Open Pairs event at Denver recently as > >a result of the ACBL factoring method. > > That is one hell of a statement. I do not believe that the rest of > this article justifies it. I really don't see anything wrong with the statement. If there had been any kind of normal result at the ave table, there would have been a tie. Or, if the old methods were used, there would have been a tie. Thus, they lost as a result of the ACBL method currently in use. The article was not intended to try to justify it; it was written to explain what happened and to seek answers as to fairness and better alternatives, if any. > >The winners had 420.96, and our > >friend was second with 420.88, in a two-session play-through event. The > >reason was that a director determined that one pair playing a certain > >board would have to get ave+ and ave- on the board, and it affected all the > >other contestants' other scores on that board. Under the ACBL method, the > >pair that won was awarded 11.96 for having the top score NS. The pair that > >came in second was unfortunate enough to have been EW in the same section, > >and was awarded 10.88 for the second highest score their way on that board. > >They outscored the winners on the other 52 boards by one matchpoint, so lost > >the event by the slim margin of 0.08ths of a matchpoint!! > > Unfortunately I am not the expert on Neuberg's formula and the effects > of averages using the ACBL. It does seem to me that it may have been > miscalculated. I would believe that the difference between consecutive > scores in such a case should be less than 1 mp. My response to Henk does not appear to have hit the bridge-laws group, and I am not sure if you are a subscriber to rec.games.bridge, where it did appear. So let me quote from the response to Henk just below here - --------------------------------------- > This cannot be right. [Henk wrote] Both the EW and NS scores are matchpointed > on an 11 top and then the same formula is applied to spread the scores > over a 0 to 12 range. Unless there is a programming error, the sum of the > matchpoints should be the same. I would have thought so, too, but here is what the matchpointing looked like: [I find our friend sat NS, not EW, as indicated in the first write-up] NS Pr NS Score NS MPs EW MPs EW Score EW Pr ----- -------- ------ ------ -------- ----- 1 -100 4.92 7.08 +100 12 2 -200 2.75 9.25 +200 14 3 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 2 4 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 4 5 ------- Board 10 -- Dealt at table 5------- 6 +620 11.96 0.04 -620 7 7 -100 4.92 7.08 +100 9 8 -300 1.13 10.88 +300 11 9 A- 4.80 7.20 A+ 13 *--> 10 +170 *> 10.88 1.13 -170 1 11 -800 0.04 11.96 <** +800 3 <--** 12 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 6 13 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 8 14 -200 2.75 9.25 +200 10 ----- ----- 76.83 79.19 * = our friend, 2nd ** = The winners Because of the anomaly on this board, the NS checktotal was 2182.83. The EW checktotal was 2185.19. Adding in 2184 for the first session, the final checktotal for NS was 4366.83, and for EW was 4369.19. NS #10 then had 409.88 out of 623.83284 average, or 65.70%. EW #3 [the winners] then had 409.96 out of 624.08500 average, or 65.69% Now I know why the ACBL print-out sheets do not compute the average of any pair's total game over two sessions. They only compute the session averages!! :) -------------------------------- > This does not seem correct to me. Are these not scored overall? If > they are not, then saying what would have happened in another section is > tottally irrelevant. After all, their scores would be different on > every other board as well. Unfortunately, the directors did not choose to score the event "across the field" with a 25 top. And, of course we are aware that what happened in another section does not matter. It was an interesting observation, nonetheless, and if they happened to have been seated there and received a similar result as in the other section, it would have been .04 the other way. > This is not an effect of Neuberg, and is just not possible *unless* > there is a PP involved, or another case when A+ was given but not > balanced by A-. The correct way to check such things is to add the > scores up without PPs, and with averages on the actual boards, ie > without the plus or minus bit. Then the NS and the EW will balance, and > they will always sum to the same figure when a certain number of pairs > play a certain number of boards. Only after that check should the PPs > and plusses and minusses be added. > > Are you sure they did not balance in this way? If not, then it does > look as though they were miscalculated. See the table above. I don't know why the different checktotals. Rounding only takes care of .02 of the difference. Perhaps this always happens on one of these, I just never noticed it before until I saw it this time. > >In the case of multiple-session events where there is factoring of scores > >down after a session to allow there to be no more than a two-board margin > >between the top and bottom qualifiers, or in case of certain long team > >events, I can see where this could be deemed a reasonable answer. But in > >the present case, where the second place team would have tied for first if > >the ave+- table had been able to record any kind of normal result, it seems > >unusually cruel to have the ACBL-mandated method for determining matchpoints > >on a board with an average in it end up determining who is the winner and > >who loses!! > > Now come on! Can the rhetoric, please! "...unusually cruel to have > the ACBL-mandated method...": rubbish! Sorry, I guess you have never ever used a little hyperbole in your posts, now, have you, David? No rubbish? > >I guess the question is, is the ACBL method an equitable one? Is it proper? > >Is it fair, and is it right; or are there better methods and better ways to > >handle these ave+- situations? And if so, what are the details so we can > >petition the ACBL for a change which would stop this kind of ugly anomoly > >from happening again in the future? > > The ACBL method is equitable, though as I have said, it probably needs > Herman [or Max Bavin] to explain why. It is proper and right. However, > there are other considerations: was it applied correctly? Was it scored > correctly? The little evidence given here suggest it may not have been, > and if so that would be a worry. What do you think, seeing the table of how the board was matchpointed? > Let us suppose that it was scored correctly. There will always be > close finishes, and any event that allows a form of scoring where the > minimum unit of score is 0.01 mp will get wins by 0.01 mp. It is not an > "ugly anomoly": people who lose events in such a way should merely try > harder next time. > > It is also fairly clear that you have not concerned yourself with the > other pair: what would you have thought if your friends had won by 0.04 > mp? I will quote from my response to David Metcalf, which also appears not to have made the trip to bridge-laws: "Yes, indeed! The rub of the green! But if they had been in another section and had got their 11, and won by an .04, I think the other pair would have had a squawk too." Thank you David for the reply. I thought I had seen some articles two-three years ago on here talking about a better method, but could not remember any detail at all. It is beginning to look like I was wrong there. Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 18:48:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:48:38 +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 SAA08379 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:48:31 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA16930 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:47:55 +0200 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:47:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Rich Odlin wrote > Unfortunately I am not the expert on Neuberg's formula and the effects > of averages using the ACBL. It does seem to me that it may have been > miscalculated. I would believe that the difference between consecutive > scores in such a case should be less than 1 mp. No, it should be more than 1mp: you start with 12 matchpoint scores running from 0 to 11 with 1 mp intervals. Neuberg spreads them over a 0 to 12 range. The step between two scores then should be approximately 12/11, which is larger than 1. > This does not seem correct to me. Are these not scored overall? If > they are not, then saying what would have happened in another section is > tottally irrelevant. After all, their scores would be different on > every other board as well. This is true, the other section could as well have played completely different boards. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 19:24:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:24:30 +1000 Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA08542 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:24:23 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id KAA20668 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:39:49 +0200 Received: from smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via smap (V1.3+ESMTP) with ESMTP id sma020475; Wed Jun 18 10:39:13 1997 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.2.1m-970402) with ESMTP id KAA21722 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:39:12 +0200 Received: from perth (perth [130.144.63.217]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id KAA07793 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:39:10 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by perth (1.37.109.15/) id AA147453146; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:39:06 +0200 Message-Id: <199706180839.AA147453146@perth> Subject: Re: what Im doing here??? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:39:06 METDST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Someone wrote: >> In the Netherlands, however, cases like this one are dealt with in a >> different (and very controversial, much disputed) way: According to >> the famous arrest number 95-15 by the national AC, an error in an >> artificial bid (convention disruption) in the first round is >> considered an *infraction*. So in this case, the decision would be: >> West's misbid has effectively bamboozled NS out of their spade game, >> so correction to +/- 620 would be in order. As a member of the Dutch national AC (and signer of '95-15') I want to remark that the arguments of the Dutch AC are misrepresented here. > Up to now I thought this was only a curios idea from Bobby Wolf. > Didnt know that they handle this one in NL this way. Dont like it. > It is probably legal under L40D, but it is against the general ideas > on how Bridge is played, and should not be legal. If you forget the > meaning of a natural bid, then convention disruption is illegal. The argumentation of the Dutch AC refers to laws 12C1 and 74b1 and explicitly states that Law 40 is not applicable in the Dutch circumstances. If people here are interested and I have the time, I might translate the argumentation of '95-15' into English and post it...... -- Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 19:34:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:34:46 +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 TAA08565 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:34:39 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA19121 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:34:05 +0200 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:34:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, "Barbara B. Odlin" Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Barbara B. Odlin wrote: >> Another interesting facet of this affair is that the total matchpoints to >> the NS and EW sides were different on the board, with NS being slightly >> higher. If one figured the percentage for their respective totals, adding >> in 312 for the first session, the EW pair that came in second had a slightly >> higher percentage game than did the winners who were NS on the board in >> question!! NO FAIR!!! > This cannot be right. Both the EW and NS scores are matchpointed on an > 11 > top and then the same formula is applied to spread the scores over > a 0 to > 12 range. Unless there is a programming error, the sum of the > matchpoints > should be the same. > I would have thought so, too, but here is what the matchpointing looked > like: > [I find our friend sat NS, not EW, as indicated in the first write-up] > > NS Pr NS Score NS MPs EW MPs EW Score EW Pr > ----- -------- ------ ------ -------- ----- > 1 -100 4.92 7.08 +100 12 > 2 -200 2.75 9.25 +200 14 > 3 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 2 > 4 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 4 > 5 ------- Board 10 -- Dealt at table 5------- > 6 +620 11.96 0.04 -620 7 > 7 -100 4.92 7.08 +100 9 > 8 -300 1.13 10.88 +300 11 > 9 A- 4.80 7.20 A+ 13 > *--> 10 +170 *> 10.88 1.13 -170 1 > 11 -800 0.04 11.96 <** +800 3 <--** > 12 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 6 > 13 +140 8.17 3.83 -140 8 > 14 -200 2.75 9.25 +200 10 > ----- ----- > 76.83 79.19 > * = our friend, 2nd > ** = The winners Ah, but now you're adding up apples and oranges. One has, as it were, two different boards here: one board that was played 12 times at the tables 1-4, 6-8 and 10-14 and a second board that was played at table 9 only. On the board that was played 12 times, in both directions matchpoints were awarded ranging from 0 to 11, for a total of 66 matchpoints. The factoring method then scaled the scores from 0.04 to 11.96 and gave 72.03 matchpoints in the NS direction and 71.99 in the EW direction. One would expect 72 matchpoints in each direction (12 tables x 6 average) and the differences are due to rounding. (If you do this analytically, then you end up with 72.00 in both directions). The second board was played once, at table 9. Obviously, you cannot matchpoint one score, so the laws provide a method to assign a score in this case: ave-, ave+ or just ave. This does introduce a difference in the checktotal. But, this doesn't affect the maximum score that any of the other pairs can obtain, that still is 624 (52x12, well 623.96 but that's only a 0.006% difference). In fact, as far as the other pairs are concerned, table 9 can vanish from the earth and their maximum score still remains 624. Their percentage score, which simply is the fraction of the maximum number of mp that they scored, remains the same too. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 19:46:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:46:16 +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 TAA08598 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:46:10 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA19436 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:45:28 +0200 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:45:27 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "G. R. Bower" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, G. R. Bower wrote: > I would not swear that the ACBL actually does it this way. But this way > agrees with the actual figures presented from the Denver regional, and to > me it seems to make more statistical sense than any other. They actually do. Neuberg's formula assumes that the shape of the distribution of the scores doesn't change when you go from the small group to the big group, which is exactly what you do. The FBF is mathematically the same as Neuberg. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 21:07:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:07:09 +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 VAA08832 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:07:03 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA16598 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:06:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Yet another contested claim Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Q9642 9 -- -- A 53 -- T7 876 92 52 -- 7 -- 54 973 Hearts are trumps. Declarer is West. South has failed to follow to an earlier round of hearts. At this point declarer (West) said, "Ten of hearts," (dropping the C2 on the table) "Seven of hearts" (dropping the C5 on the table) "Nine of diamonds, and then my hand is good." (showing his hand). At this point, North contested the claim, and called for the Director. West had made the claim on the belief that the lead was in dummy, when in fact it was in his own hand. West knew perfectly well that North had one trump left. If he had known he was in hand, he obviously would have trumped a club low in dummy and continued as in his claim. However, his method of claiming, dropping a club as he said "Ten of hearts" led to an ambiguity. The director awarded North-South one trick. Was he correct, or is this "an irrational line of play" if Declarer really knows he is in his own hand? (For the record, it made no difference. NS -170 was exactly the same matchpoints as NS -200 would have been.) -- Richard Lighton | If intelligence is the ability to reason (lighton@idt.net) | then Artificial Intelligence is the ability Wood-Ridge NJ | to pretend. USA | -- Kevin Lighton From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 22:34:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:34:10 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA09309 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:34:04 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id IAA12327 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:33:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Jun18.202800.1189.107825; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:30:42 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jun18.202800.1189.107825@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:30:42 -0600 Subject: Sillyness Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's a bunch of sillyness which crept up yesterday evening while playing (very badly I might at) at a local club. MP, red versus red Me K92 J92 A73 J982 Partner AQ106 AQ64 QJT54 ------ The auction CHO - RHO - Me - RHO 1S* - (P) - 1N - (3C) 3D* - All pass 3D+2 = 150 Partner and I play a modified version of Blue Club 1S showed 12-17 HCP, might have a longer second suit 1N is natural, showing 7-10 HCP 3D shows diamonds as least as long as the spades. The background Prior to bidding 3C, RHO made a great show of interrogating partner and I about our agreements. Afterwards, he made a skip bid warning and bid 3C. Partner made what everyone at the table will agree was an extremely fast 3D bid. The director was called immediately, reviewed the proceedings, and made the expected ruling (IE, I should not take any inference from partner's bid, call him if needed at the end of the round, yada, yada, yada) The sillyness. I chose to pass my hand since I did not think that biding 4D as an invite was a clear cut action. However, during this whole affair, a somewhat silly chain of thought went through my head. I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable in the ways of the bridge laws could point out the flaw in my reasoning. A variety of information was passed by the bidding irregularity. The speed of partner's bid certainly suggests that he had a clear cut bid over the 3C preempt. However, there is another important piece of information available. After the director call, partner and I are effectively fixed. If I bid 4D and partner accepts the invite, one of two things can happen. Partner can go down, in which case we get a bad result. Partner could make the contract, in which case the other pair would appeal, and we would most likely have our score reset to +150. (As I said, I don't think an invite on this hand is clearcut) First. Is the fact that there was a director's call authorized information? Can I use the fact that the opposition can appeal any good result we get in making bidding decisions? Second If the Director's call is NOT authorized information, could I ever be forced to make an invitational bid under the assumption that my knowledge of the option of an appeal of our good result might cause me to be unusually conservative in valuing my hand. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 18 22:54:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:54:42 +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 WAA09539 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:54:37 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA29254 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970618085617.006b7be0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 08:56:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970617224255.006aa244@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:42 PM 6/17/97 +1000, Reg wrote: >Definition of Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a >meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named....., or >high card strength or length (three cards or more) there... > >If one describes a 'natural' bid as one that is not conventional, then one >could say that, to be natural, then the call must (a) convey a willingness >to play in the denomination named > >OR (b) show high card strength or at least three cards in the suit named. > >I would be much more comfortable with this definition if the 'or' was 'and'. > >In the area in which I direct, many pairs play a 5 card major version of >Standard or Acol (some expatriate Brits refer to it as 'Colonial Acol') >which opens 1C on as little as Cxx. In most such cases, responder will pass >without normal responding values, and declarer takes his chances in 1C if >passed out. Is the 1C conventional or not? Whilst obviously opener would >prefer not to play in 1C, systemically he is prepared to do so, so he meets >one criterion of being non-conventional (and the way the definition reads, >that is all he needs to meet). If the 1C opening guarantees at least three clubs, it is not conventional. >Would the 1C be conventional if responder is required to make a negative 1D >response? No. The second sentence of the definition (omitted above) tells us that the fact that it is unlimited in strength, and therefore forcing, does not make it conventional. (The 1D response, of course, is conventional.) This is an excellent example of a case where the old definition would have left us floundering, but the new definition clears things up nicely. 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 Jun 18 23:21:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:21:46 +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 XAA09751 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:21:40 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA07193 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970618092321.006b7108@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:23:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:15 PM 6/17/97 -0800, Gordon wrote: >You get 192.32. >I get 192.00 (I actually got this score in the last regional I played in >and was very happy about it. It was second overall, but by a margin of 5 >points.) >Somebody else gets 191.69. > >Are you ranked 1/2, am I ranked 1/2/3, and is the other guy ranked 2/3? >There are several ways to handle the overlap. I suspect that this is just >the sort of reason why the half-point margin rule was dropped. Perhaps >someone who has been in the know longer than I have been can tell us if >this was the actual reason. When the rule was in effect, it specified a break in the rankings following a cluster of combined placings, i.e. there was no "cascading". So the 192.32 and the 192.00 would be tied 1st/2nd, and the 191.69 would be 3rd. The mechanics of determining placings had nothing at all to do with the decision to drop the rule. 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 Jun 19 00:55:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:55:47 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12363 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:55:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1000777; 18 Jun 97 13:45 BST Message-ID: <33Xu5DA0z7pzEwph@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:48:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Methods In-Reply-To: <970617185136_1343805470@emout04.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote >The matchpointing of tournaments that include adjusted scores, fouled boards, >boards with different averages due to a half-table, fields (same section or >different sections, but in the same session) with different averages, and >sessions with different averages, must include methods for handling these >anomalies. The ACBL SCORE computer program uses a corrective equation called >the Fouled Board Formula (FBF) for all these situations except one: The >equalization of sessions is handled by straight factoring, with the second >session factored up or down to produce the same average as the first session. > >ADJUSTED AND ASSIGNED SCORES > >In the old days, an adjusted score resulted in an award of 1/2 matchpoint to >every other pair in the field for that deal. This unfair practice was changed >a while back so that a very good or bad score gets almost the top or bottom >it deserves. Almost, but not quite. With 12 top, you see scores like 11.96 or >0.04 resulting from the new procedure. Moreover, the minimum margin for a >win is now 0.01 matchpoint, so a contestant can win or lose by 0.04 points. >This calls for careful examination of the process used to obtain such scores. > >Adjusted scores (e.g., "average plus" or "average minus" due to an >infraction) are currently treated as "missing results," as if the board were >fouled or was played fewer times for some other reason. Each valid score is >revised by the FBF equation: > >M = (N x S)/n + (N - n)/2n, > >with M = revised score, N = number of contestants who should play the board, >S = matchpoint score in the group of actual scores, n = number of contestants >in that group. > >The resulting matchpoints are rounded to the nearest hundredth, with .005 >rounded up to .01. > >However, for deals that have an adjusted score entered due to an infraction >of some sort, the adjusted score should be considered a result, an outcome, >and should not be treated as a missing result. The high scorer(s) did indeed >beat the contestant who, either through bad behavior or bad luck, received an >adjusted score, while the bottom scorer(s) did indeed have a worse result. >Accordingly, use of the FBF, which accounts for one or more missing results, >is inappropriate. It produces ludicrous scoring outcomes (e.g., a pair can >lose a tournament by .04 matchpoints to a pair who received that much for a >-1400 score on a deal played against them). It also means that a +200 score >that gets a cold top in one section scores better than a +1400 top in another >section where there was an adjusted score (assuming the unfair practice of > not combining sections in the scoring is in effect). > >"Assigned scores," scores which the director has determined to be the fair >outcome of some transgression, are treated like any other scores in >matchpointing. If the director decides to adjust a score >instead of assigning a score, why should his decision affect those with good >and bad scores on the board? Imagine a winning pair with a cold top on a >board that was disputed at another table having their win taken away because >an appeals committee has ruled that an assigned score should have been an >adjusted score. Their cold top is reduced by .04 matchpoints and they come in >second. Is that fair? Yes and no. One of the problems is that in NAmerica [and in several other parts of the world] scores are artificially adjusted when the Law book requires them to be assigned. Whether this is laziness on the part of the TD/ACs, or ineptitude, is not clear. Probably it is no more than ignorance: despite the wording of L12C1 and L12C2 amaking it entirely clear when an ArtAS should be used, and when an AssAS, custom and practice has decreed otherwise. So in the example you give, when an AssAS has been altered, probably illegally, to an ArtAS, then you might have some ground for complaint: but it is with the method of ruling, not the method of score calculation. >Is there a better way? I think so. Since an adjusted score is usually an >average score adjusted plus or minus, my first thought was to give everyone >over average one matchpoint for besting the "adjustee," and one-half point to >those with an average score. That doesn't work, of course, because anywhere >from one to eleven of twelve other contestants can be above or below average. >However, using a temporary median score works pretty well. My suggestion is >to temporarily assign the median of the valid scores in place of the score(s) >to be adjusted, matchpoint the board normally, and then make the >adjustment(s). If there is no median (i.e., with an even number of valid >scores), create a median score with a value equal to the average of the >adjacent scores. It is very difficult to see any advantage whatever in this method. >Let's say that an adjusted score results in a board with only 12 unadjusted >outcomes instead of the normal 13. There is one N-S score of +140, nine >scores of +110, one of +100, and one score of +90. My method is to >temporarily assign the median score (+110) to the pair whose score is to be >adjusted, then matchpoint the board. The total matchpoints will be 78, as >with all other boards. There is no difference in weight. Then the affected >score is revised to reflect the director's adjustment, an act that has no >effect on anyone else inside or outside the section. Note that all scores >(except perhaps an adjusted score) will be evenly divisible by 0.5--no >oddball decimals. This, of course, is basically the old unfair method of calculating averages re-introduced in a new guise. The whole point of an ArtAS is that it is *not* a real assigned score, so to score it as though it is the median score is grossly unfair. >Also note that everyone will probably be content. The top score will still be >a top, the bottom a bottom, the +100 will get its single matchpoint (having >beaten only one team), and the median +110s will note that they received >one-half matchpoint from the adjusted result, which will not seem unfair. As >of now, however, there are plenty of complaints. If the current method is so >great, how come so many people are unhappy? If the two worst scorers protest >that they were not really beaten by the adjusted result, the answer is, "Yes >you were. That pair did better than you did." Average plus or average minus, >you see, is indeed superior to their bad scores. Let us look a little more closely at this. Suppose for simplicity that the scores on the board are as follows: +200 +100 +100 -200 -300 Ave Now what is fair? Some people seem to think that the +200 should get the full five matchpoints, but that is wrong: they did not beat five other scores. Similarly it is wrong for -300 to get zero. When you say that A+ or A- is better than the bottom scores, that is wrong: it is not a score. If the pair concerned had been able to play the board then they might have got +500: they might have got -800: no-one will ever know. So any fair adjustment method will allow for this. Any suggestion of using a median or a mean for an average [-20 or -50] cannot be right: it is not a smaller score than the largest, nor greater than the smallest. A fair result gives the highest score a near top, but not a complete top, because the probabilities suggest that the pair would probably and not certainly get a top: similarly the lowest score gets a near bottom fairly. Perhaps the best way of considering how to score this sheet is to consider what the fairest score would be if the board had been played six times, but the sixth pair [and their opponents] have gone home without entering a score and cannot be contacted. What is our guestimate going to be based on? Let's guess that the chance of them getting each score is equal and see where that leads us. +200 5.0 +100 3.5 +100 3.5 -200 2.0 -300 0.5 <> Ave 0.5 +200 5.0 +100 3.5 +100 3.5 -200 1.5 <> Ave 1.5 -300 0.0 +200 5.0 +100 3.0 +100 3.0 <> Ave 3.0 -200 1.0 -300 0.0 +200 5.0 +100 3.0 <> Ave 3.0 +100 3.0 -200 1.0 -300 0.0 +200 4.5 <> Ave 4.5 +100 2.5 +100 2.5 -200 1.0 -300 0.0 Averaging the matchpoints for each score we get: +200 4.9 +100 3.1 +100 3.1 -200 1.3 -300 0.1 and that is a fairly fair representation of what an ArtAS should do to the rest of the scores. What does Neuberg say? >M = (N x S)/n + (N - n)/2n, > >with M = revised score, N = number of contestants who should play the board, >S = matchpoint score in the group of actual scores, n = number of contestants >in that group. +200 4.9 +100 3.1 +100 3.1 -200 1.3 -300 0.1 Where have I seen this before? Now this method may not be perfect, but it does seem to approach what an Average means. It is an artificial adjusted score [the word Average is a slang term and does not help the argument] that is given when a real score was not obtained. It is not a middle score: it is a representation of what is fair when there is no score at all. Why are so many people unhappy with the present method? They do not understand it, nor why it is fair. That gives them a wonderful excuse to moan when such things go against them [did the pair that won by 0.08 mp complain how unfair the formula was, I wonder ?]. People must realise what an Average is. Giving Averages illegally when a score should be assigned does not help people's understanding, of course. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 01:57:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:57:54 +1000 Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12679 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:57:47 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id RAA15044 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:57:44 +0200 Received: from smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via smap (V1.3+ESMTP) with ESMTP id sma014337; Wed Jun 18 17:55:18 1997 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.2.1m-970402) with ESMTP id RAA04758 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:55:16 +0200 Received: from perth (perth [130.144.63.217]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id RAA01585 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:55:13 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by perth (1.37.109.15/) id AA287969306; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:55:06 +0200 Message-Id: <199706181555.AA287969306@perth> Subject: Re: Yet another contested claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:55:06 METDST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: RL> Q9642 RL> 9 RL> -- RL> -- RL> A 53 RL> -- T7 RL> 876 92 RL> 52 -- RL> 7 RL> -- RL> 54 RL> 973 RL> RL> Hearts are trumps. Declarer is West. RL> South has failed to follow to an earlier round of hearts. RL> RL> At this point declarer (West) said, RL> "Ten of hearts," (dropping the C2 on the table) RL> "Seven of hearts" (dropping the C5 on the table) RL> "Nine of diamonds, and then my hand is good." (showing his hand). RL> RL> At this point, North contested the claim, and called for the RL> Director. RL> RL> West had made the claim on the belief that the lead was in dummy, RL> when in fact it was in his own hand. West knew perfectly well RL> that North had one trump left. RL> RL> If he had known he was in hand, he obviously would have trumped RL> a club low in dummy and continued as in his claim. RL> RL> However, his method of claiming, dropping a club as he said RL> "Ten of hearts" led to an ambiguity. RL> RL> The director awarded North-South one trick. RL> RL> Was he correct, or is this "an irrational line of play" if RL> Declarer really knows he is in his own hand? I think we should go back to trick 7. Declarer played the H10 and the C2 to that trick. There are two interpretations: a. He played the C2 and ruffed with the H10 b. He played the H10 from dummy In case a opponents win the heart 7 with the nine and get one trick, because North has to lead a spade. In case b opponents should contest this because declarer is in fact in his own hand. In that case they can force declarer to play from his own hand )or accept dummy's play) in which case declarer makes all the tricks. Depending on whether the TD considers scenario a or scenario b to have happened, declarer looses 1 trick or none. The claim and the irrational line of play do not apply until trick 7 has been resolved. Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 02:11:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 02:11:50 +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 CAA12951 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 02:11:42 +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 MAA28328 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21511; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:11:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 12:11:36 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706181611.MAA21511@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Methods X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Most of the essential points have already been made, but let me try to summarize what I take to be the most important: 1. Scoring across at least two sections (24 or more tables) can considerably reduce randomness and is to be encouraged whenever technically possible. (Scoring across more than two sections has little additional effect but doesn't do any harm.) 2. Giving an artificial score (L12C1) instead of assigned score (L12C2) is usually wrong. It should be avoided unless there is no other choice. 3. If there is a missing score, either because of an artificial score or a fouled board or other anomaly, there is no way of calculating results for the remaining pairs that has all the properties one would desire. (As Richard points out, there is simply no way of knowing what the missing table would have done if able to play the board.) The Neuberg formula is a reasonable approach that has many desirable properties. (In statistical terms, it's an estimate of the properties of a population based on a sample.) There are reasonable arguments that other formulas would be better but also reasonable arguments that they would be worse. Those who have considered the question in detail generally but not unanimously prefer Neuberg. It's clearly superior to the old ACBL method (except for needing more laborious calculations.) 4. It's always annoying to lose by a small margin, and when it happens, one can always find an excuse. ("If only xxx had not happened...") That doesn't make the scoring method wrong. I think we should put pressure on the ACBL and other SO's to avoid the problems caused by 1 and 2. I don't think anything can be done about 3 and 4. Finally, one comment on required margin of victory. ACBL dropped the "0.5 matchpoint rule" a few years ago. The thinking at the time was to bring bridge in line with other sports, where any measurable margin is sufficient for victory. In fact, the latest change was a return to an even earlier rule. The 0.5 MP rule only came into being (probably in the late '50's or early '60's) when an ACBL board member lost an event by something under 0.5 MP, or so I remember reading. Can anyone supply details? I thought the new rule was in fact "any measurable margin," not "0.01 matchpoint." Does anyone know for sure? If the former, it seems a clear mistake for ACBLscore to round off to 0.01. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 05:05:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:05:08 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13902 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 05:04:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1124056; 18 Jun 97 19:43 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:38:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: what Im doing here??? In-Reply-To: <199706180839.AA147453146@perth> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote > If people here are interested and I have the time, I might translate >the argumentation of '95-15' into English and post it...... Go for it! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 06:15:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:15:46 +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 GAA14313 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:15:39 +1000 Received: from default (cph31.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.31]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA19663 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:15:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199706182015.WAA19663@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:16:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Conventional bids Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:42:55 +1000 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: Reg Busch > Subject: Conventional bids > Definition of Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a > meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named....., or > high card strength or length (three cards or more) there... > > If one describes a 'natural' bid as one that is not conventional, then one > could say that, to be natural, then the call must (a) convey a willingness > to play in the denomination named > > OR (b) show high card strength or at least three cards in the suit named. > > I would be much more comfortable with this definition if the 'or' was 'and'. Partner opens 2H (weak, 6-card suit). I raise to four hearts with a useful hand and a weak doubleton in hearts. If 'or' was 'and', my raise would be a convention. Surely that would be silly. > > In the area in which I direct, many pairs play a 5 card major version of > Standard or Acol (some expatriate Brits refer to it as 'Colonial Acol') > which opens 1C on as little as Cxx. In most such cases, responder will pass > without normal responding values, and declarer takes his chances in 1C if > passed out. Is the 1C conventional or not? Whilst obviously opener would > prefer not to play in 1C, systemically he is prepared to do so, so he meets > one criterion of being non-conventional (and the way the definition reads, > that is all he needs to meet). So it is clearly not a convention. Sure looks like one to me. > Would the 1C be conventional if responder is required to make a negative 1D > response? I believe it would be. > > Corollaries: If these bids are deemed conventional, then > > (a) when insufficient, partner is barred. This is probably no big deal,as > in any case the correction to 2C would probably be to a conventional bid, > so partner will be barred anyway. > > (b) Lead penalties: if the 1C bid is deemed conventional, then presumably > it does not relate to a specific suit. Or does it still relate to clubs, > despite being conventional? Do we apply 26A or 26B? I don't see "convention" as applicable to L26. So this definition does not help in ruling whether the bid relates to clubs. I would rule that it does after all. They do open 1C with "real" club suits too. Try this: N opens 1H. S bids 4C splinter out of turn, W does not accept, E doubles 1H for take-out, S bids 4H, W tries 4S, and he gets to play there. Surely there is a lead penalty in clubs on the opening lead (L26A2)? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 06:15:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:15:48 +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 GAA14314 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:15:41 +1000 Received: from default (cph31.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.31]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA19667 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:15:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199706182015.WAA19667@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:16:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Yet another contested claim Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 07:06:58 -0400 (EDT) > From: Richard Lighton > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Yet another contested claim > > Q9642 > 9 > -- > -- > A 53 > -- T7 > 876 92 > 52 -- > 7 > -- > 54 > 973 > > Hearts are trumps. Declarer is West. > South has failed to follow to an earlier round of hearts. > > At this point declarer (West) said, > "Ten of hearts," (dropping the C2 on the table) > "Seven of hearts" (dropping the C5 on the table) > "Nine of diamonds, and then my hand is good." (showing his hand). > > At this point, North contested the claim, and called for the > Director. > > West had made the claim on the belief that the lead was in dummy, > when in fact it was in his own hand. West knew perfectly well > that North had one trump left. > > If he had known he was in hand, he obviously would have trumped > a club low in dummy and continued as in his claim. > > However, his method of claiming, dropping a club as he said > "Ten of hearts" led to an ambiguity. > > The director awarded North-South one trick. > > Was he correct, or is this "an irrational line of play" if > Declarer really knows he is in his own hand? On the assumption that the facts about West's knowledge are incontrovertible, I think the TD got it wrong. You have established as a fact that declarer knows all about North's trump and that he thinks he is in dummy. What would have happened if he played on? Either his lead from dummy would have been accepted and his claim would be valid as it stands, or he would have been required to lead from his hand, in which case it is irrational not to ruff a club low in dummy with the facts that you have established. I think that awarding North a trick is only justified if the director rules that the C2 is led and the HT played to that trick. That would be contrary to the facts established (i.e., that W is claiming with a line of play that starts with a lead from dummy), and therefore not applicable. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark - you will need to change "dknot" to "dknet" when replying From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 06:39:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:39:05 +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 GAA14466 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 06:38:58 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27946; 18 Jun 97 13:38 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Yet another contested claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:16:32 PDT." <199706182015.WAA19667@isa.dknet.dk> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:38:22 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9706181338.aa27946@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > > Q9642 > > 9 > > -- > > -- > > A 53 > > -- T7 > > 876 92 > > 52 -- > > 7 > > -- > > 54 > > 973 > > > > Hearts are trumps. Declarer is West. > > South has failed to follow to an earlier round of hearts. > > > > At this point declarer (West) said, > > "Ten of hearts," (dropping the C2 on the table) > > "Seven of hearts" (dropping the C5 on the table) > > "Nine of diamonds, and then my hand is good." (showing his hand). > > > > At this point, North contested the claim, and called for the > > Director. > > > > West had made the claim on the belief that the lead was in dummy, > > when in fact it was in his own hand. West knew perfectly well > > that North had one trump left. > > > > If he had known he was in hand, he obviously would have trumped > > a club low in dummy and continued as in his claim. > > > > However, his method of claiming, dropping a club as he said > > "Ten of hearts" led to an ambiguity. > > > > The director awarded North-South one trick. > > > > Was he correct, or is this "an irrational line of play" if > > Declarer really knows he is in his own hand? > > On the assumption that the facts about West's knowledge are > incontrovertible, I think the TD got it wrong. You have established > as a fact that declarer knows all about North's trump and that he > thinks he is in dummy. What would have happened if he played on? > Either his lead from dummy would have been accepted and his claim > would be valid as it stands, or he would have been required to lead > from his hand, in which case it is irrational not to ruff a club low > in dummy with the facts that you have established. I'm not quite so sure. West might have tried to enter dummy with a diamond, thinking the remaining diamonds are 1-1 or North had them both. Can that play be considered in the "inferior" or "careless" category, rather than irrational? If North had previously shown out of diamonds, I think this play would be irrational. Otherwise, I'm not sure which category the play belongs in; and it probably depends on West's level of expertise. (An expert West would, I think, lead a club even if drunk and half asleep; a poorer player might not see so clearly that a club lead would always work and a diamond might not.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 10:49:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:49:27 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA15966 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:49:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0501448; 19 Jun 97 1:06 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:56:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970617224255.006aa244@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Convention=A0=20 A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than=20 willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last=20 denomination named), or highcard strength or length (three cards or=20 more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make=20 a call a convention. I do not think that this is a very good definition of a Convention. =20 It reminds me of a dyke in the fens with flood waters rising, and holes=20 appearing with water gushing through. People stop up the holes, but the=20 new holes appear and water gushes through them. I am afraid the=20 Lawmakers realised some of the problems with the old definition and=20 tried to mend them, but new problems are appearing. As noted in several posts, this surely cannot mean that a 3S response=20 to 1H showing hearts and a spade void is natural [you can even change=20 response into overcall!] so we must assume that the definition means to=20 say: Convention=A0=20 A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than=20 willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last=20 denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or=20 highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an=20 agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. That's one hole in the dyke! ----------- Reg Busch wrote >If one describes a 'natural' bid as one that is not conventional, then one >could say that, to be natural, then the call must (a) convey a willingness >to play in the denomination named > >OR (b) show high card strength or at least three cards in the suit named. > >I would be much more comfortable with this definition if the 'or' was 'and= '. Yes! I wonder what the Lawmakers intended when they wrote this. =20 Suppose you play CAB: your partner opens 2C, and you show your aces,=20 thus 2H is the heart ace, 2S the spade ace, and so on: are these really=20 natural bids? My guess is that they were thinking of cue bids. 1H - 3H - 3S shows=20 the ace: that is natural. Mind you, if it shows ace or void, then it is=20 conventional. None of this makes much sense. What about the three card suit=20 requirement? That is much more sensible. If the auction goes 1H - 1S -=20 3C playing this as a force to game it might occasionally be made on a=20 3card suit but only as a natural bid. In much of the world, non-forcing=20 minor openings on three cards are common, and not bid as conventions. =20 Canape is a more arguable: perhaps again, the question is whether you=20 are willing to play in the denomination named. If you open 1S on Qxx AKJT987x x x playing [say] Roman Club, because it is forcing and indicates where=20 the fragment is, it really does not look like a natural bid. If you=20 normally have four cards, but might have three in exceptional=20 circumstances, or if partner will freely pass your canape opening, that=20 seems much more natural. If we were to assume that the word "or" is an accident, and meant=20 "and" then that would exclude fragments and ace showing cues, because=20 the player who makes them is presumably expecting to play in the agreed=20 suit, so he is not prepared to play in that denomination. The trouble with this argument is that unlike the first case where we=20 can be sure it is mis-worded, in this case there is no such certainty,=20 so therefore we presumably have to accept the actual wording. In my view, therefore, a natural bid includes any bid which shows=20 strength in the denomination named, such as an opening bid that=20 guarantees 3HCP in the suit bid, though no length. >In the area in which I direct, many pairs play a 5 card major version of >Standard or Acol (some expatriate Brits refer to it as 'Colonial Acol') >which opens 1C on as little as Cxx. In most such cases, responder will pass >without normal responding values, and declarer takes his chances in 1C if >passed out. Is the 1C conventional or not? Whilst obviously opener would >prefer not to play in 1C, systemically he is prepared to do so, so he meets >one criterion of being non-conventional (and the way the definition reads, >that is all he needs to meet). I believe that the way that the definition reads this might be=20 natural, but it is certainly arguable. Basically, does the fact that=20 partner might drop you out of dislike mean that you are prepared to play=20 in that denomination? Since it is not clear, let us make an=20 interpretation, and it would seem to follow the spirit of the definition=20 to exclude two card suits. So let us say that while such a bid is=20 prepared to play in clubs, there is no willingness, so this call remains=20 conventional. Convention=A0=20 A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than=20 willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last=20 denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or=20 highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an=20 agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. =20 Willingness is stronger than being prepared to play there if necessary. >Would the 1C be conventional if responder is required to make a negative 1D >response? Now it is clearer. >Corollaries: If these bids are deemed conventional, then > >(a) when insufficient, partner is barred. This is probably no big deal,as >in any case the correction to 2C would probably be to a conventional bid, >so partner will be barred anyway. Pardon? If RHO opens 1S, it is not normal to play a 2C bid as=20 conventional, is it? Anyway, we have to struggle for another 10 years=20 with the idea of conventional insufficient bids, so if it is=20 conventional, partner is barred. >(b) Lead penalties: if the 1C bid is deemed conventional, then presumably >it does not relate to a specific suit. Or does it still relate to clubs, >despite being conventional? Do we apply 26A or 26B? L26A: "relate to" means what it says, and does not require to be=20 natural. ----------- Note that I am assuming throughout that conventional and natural are=20 oposites: I think that is ok because we have no definition of natural,=20 so it is reasonable to read it as natural=3Dnon-conventional. ----------- Jens wrote >By the way, would you rule that a pass by dealer showing any >distribution and 8-12 balanced high card points is a convention? It >shows willingness to pass the hand out (if partner is weak), it shows >exactly the same distribution as a standard 1NT opening, and the >agreement as to overall strength does not seem to make it a >convention ... A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than=20 willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last=20 denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or ... There is no denomination named, so the willingness to pass the hand=20 out is irrelevant. C. =A0When Pass Is a Convention=20 When the pass out of rotation is a convention, Law 31 , not this Law,=20 will apply. A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises=20 more than a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises=20 or denies values other than in the last suit named.=20 It is clearly conventional according to this. ----------- Jesper Dybdal wrote >Jens wrote >>Hint for trick question about pass showing 8-12: >> >>Why is there no reference to L30C in the definition of "convention"? >Probably because the authors were not aware of both definitions >of a conventional pass at the same time; if they had been aware >that there were two definitions, those definitions would have >been consistent. The new Law book has been written in nearly every situation by=20 updating the old Law book, which includes the reference to L30C. I=20 cannot believe they deleted a reference without realising the reference=20 was there. >Considering that the two definitions are inconsistent, it could >be argued that we should consider the L30C definition valid only >for passes out of rotation, using the other one in all other >situations. Sounds correct to me! However I just do not think that the definition=20 we have of Convention has any sensible meaning whatever when applied to=20 a pass before anyone else has bid. So I am prepared to fill this hole=20 in the dyke by using L30C anyway. >On the other hand (being one of the Danish makers of systems >regulations) I can certainly see the advantage of considering all >value-showing initial passes conventional... Exactly. ----------- Eric Landau wrote >I don't read these two definitions as inconsistent. Chapter I says "an >agreement as to overall strength does not make a call convention". In the >case of a strength-showing pass, the nature of the agreement does not make >the pass conventional; something else is required to do that. That >"something else" is the explicit wording of L30C. > >An agreement as to overall strength does not preclude a call being a >convention, if it qualifies based on some other criterion in the Laws, such >as the preceding sentence in the Chapter I definition, or L30C. That's an alternative way of stopping the hole. It does not answer=20 why they removed the reference. Anyway, let's go with this. Convention=A0=20 A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than=20 willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last=20 denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or=20 highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an=20 agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. =20 Willingness is stronger than being prepared to play there if necessary. =20 See also Law 30C. ----------- Eric Landau wrote >I think this is a misreading; the correct interpretation is "or (, if no >denomination is named, then) the last denomination (previously) named". In >other words, the phrase has no effect on the definition of a conventional >bid. What it does is incorporate into the definition of "convention" a >natural and intuitive definition of conventional passes, doubles and >redoubles (they're conventional if they don't convey a willingness to play >in the last-named denomination), which were problematic under the old >definition. > >By this reading, all bids that show shortness in the bid suit are >conventions, as we would expect. I do not see how the second paragraph follows from the first. ----------- Gordon Bower wrote >2. Another issue that comes up frequently is whether a meaning in ADDITION >to willingness to play blah blah blah counts as a meaning OTHER THAN blah >blah blah. As I recall, the usual interpretation is that it does: For >instance, a weak jump shift is not a convention but a fit-showing jump, >despite being "natural" in that it shows values and length in the bid >suit, is a convention since it also shows a fit. There seems to be a very >fine line between "convention that also conveys information about the bid >suit" and "natural bid that by inference conveys information about another >suit." For instance, before everyone played splinters a lot of people >played 'fragment bids' -- singleton-showing bids for all practical >purposes, but purely natural, too; naturally showing length in three >suits was the same as artifically showing shortness in the fourth. >Have those who devote a lot of time to thinking about these issues found a >way to handle this fine line? I do not think fit-jumps are a problem: they are clearly natural so=20 long as they either guarantee an honour or three cards. This leads me on to a new idea: Ghestem . It's natural, isn't=20 it, if a 3C overcall shows clubs and spades? Hmmmmm: perhaps it is time we looked at Gordon's idea a bit further=20 before the nightmares start [playing RKCB with spades agreed a 5S=20 response is natural because it shows strength {the queen} in the=20 denomination named ]: is a meaning "in addition"=20 the same as a meaning "other than"? Consider Ghestem: 3C, showing clubs and spades, is willing to play in=20 clubs. It conveys an additional meaning [got spades]: is this a meaning=20 other than willingness to play in clubs? I do not think that the answer=20 is unambiguously yes or no on semantic grounds, so let us make an=20 interpretation, and that will be yes because it fits in with our ideas=20 of what the Law intends to say. Convention=A0=20 A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than (or=20 in addition to) willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the=20 last denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or=20 highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an=20 agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. =20 Willingness is stronger than being prepared to play there if necessary. =20 See also Law 30C. That's interesting. All bids that agree another suit like fragments=20 are now conventions. So is Ghestem, as is RKCB [phew]. Is this interpretation of Convention acceptable? ----------- I see that Steve has dug out the old BLML definition of a Convention=20 [repeated for convenience]. It still looks better to me than the above=20 one, even if we accept the interpretations. Perhaps we should offer it=20 in 2007. A convention is a call that, by agreement: directly suggests that the final contract be in a denomination other than the current one; or, for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the suit named or directly shows length, strength, or values in another specified suit; or=20 for a notrump bid, does not directly suggest notrumps as a final denomination and may show an unbalanced hand; or for a pass, promises more than a specified amount of strength. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 12:13:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:13:51 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16393 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:13:45 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-30.ime.net [207.242.17.39]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA05823; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970618221301.32d7ea3a@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:56 AM 6/19/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Convention=A0=20 > >A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than (or=20 >in addition to) willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the=20 >last denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or=20 >highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an=20 >agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. =20 >Willingness is stronger than being prepared to play there if necessary. =20 >See also Law 30C. > > That's interesting. All bids that agree another suit like fragments=20 >are now conventions. So is Ghestem, as is RKCB [phew]. > > Is this interpretation of Convention acceptable? > Here is an excerpt, discussing 1M overcalls of opponents' 1m openings when the opponents play a 5cM system, from the system notes of one of my partnerships: **** One of a major over one of a minor, then, does not necessarily represent high seriousness of purpose. The hand may be weaker than a "normal" one-level overcall, and the suit may be shorter. In fact, I am not above saying that when you are not vulnerable, you should overcall from time to time in a non-existent major suit. Something like S:QJ3 H:JT5 D:53 C:J8642 (on which Adam Meredith bid one spade in second position, not vulnerable, against a vulnerable one-club opening bid on his right=97deal 47 of the 1955 World Championship match between England and the United States). =20 There is nothing "conventional" about this, but the opponents are certainly entitled to know about the style. Tell them something like: "When you open one club or one diamond, our one-of-a-major overcall may be very light; if we are not vulnerable, it may even be a two- or three-card suit. There are no conventional controls on this, but our advancer will tread lightly in this situation." If they want to know why we are doing this, I will be happy to tell them that we are being obstructive, and that sometimes we are trying to pick off the major suit that they have declined to open. **** I am suspect of the author's claim that this is not conventional, but under David's definition I think it is a valid claim -- we are certainly more than willing to play in 1M, even if it is a non-suit. But, under the old BLML definition which follows, the agreement would be considered conventional. Tim > I see that Steve has dug out the old BLML definition of a Convention=20 >[repeated for convenience]. It still looks better to me than the above=20 >one, even if we accept the interpretations. Perhaps we should offer it=20 >in 2007. > >A convention is a call that, by agreement: >directly suggests that the final contract be in a denomination other >than the current one; or, >for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the suit >named or directly shows length, strength, or values in another >specified suit; or=20 >for a notrump bid, does not directly suggest notrumps as a final >denomination and may show an unbalanced hand; or >for a pass, promises more than a specified amount of strength. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 15:40:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:40:26 +1000 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA17444 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:40:20 +1000 From: DBlizzard@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA03751 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970619013918_-25997102@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Methods Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-06-18 18:29:02 EDT, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes: << I thought the new rule was in fact "any measurable margin," not "0.01 matchpoint." Does anyone know for sure? If the former, it seems a clear mistake for ACBLscore to round off to 0.01. >> I distinctly remember the announcement reading '0.01 matchpoint' (perhaps in the Board Minutes in the ACBL Bulletin), however, it is possible the the actual wording of the rule is different from the published announcement. David A. Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 19 23:47:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:47:18 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19190 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:47:12 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA22774 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970619094820.006b95b0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:48:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional bids Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday I wrote: >At 10:42 PM 6/17/97 +1000, Reg wrote: > >>Definition of Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a >>meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named....., or >>high card strength or length (three cards or more) there... >> >>If one describes a 'natural' bid as one that is not conventional, then one >>could say that, to be natural, then the call must (a) convey a willingness >>to play in the denomination named >> >>OR (b) show high card strength or at least three cards in the suit named. >> >>I would be much more comfortable with this definition if the 'or' was 'and'. >> >>In the area in which I direct, many pairs play a 5 card major version of >>Standard or Acol (some expatriate Brits refer to it as 'Colonial Acol') >>which opens 1C on as little as Cxx. In most such cases, responder will pass >>without normal responding values, and declarer takes his chances in 1C if >>passed out. Is the 1C conventional or not? Whilst obviously opener would >>prefer not to play in 1C, systemically he is prepared to do so, so he meets >>one criterion of being non-conventional (and the way the definition reads, >>that is all he needs to meet). > >If the 1C opening guarantees at least three clubs, it is not conventional. > >>Would the 1C be conventional if responder is required to make a negative 1D >>response? > >No. The second sentence of the definition (omitted above) tells us that the fact that it is unlimited in strength, and therefore forcing, does not make it conventional. (The 1D response, of course, is conventional.) > >This is an excellent example of a case where the old definition would have left us floundering, but the new definition clears things up nicely. This was a mistake on my part. In my over-hasty reading of Reg's message I mistook "Cxx" for a three-card suit. On re-reading, I would take the agreements about 1C openings as described above as conventional. I expect that the greatest source of problems with the definition as written will be the word "willingness". Consider that before the auction starts a player holding any hand whatsoever will be "willing" to play in any denomination if partner holds the appropriate hand (such as, trivially, the rest of any suit, or sufficient high cards for 7NT to be cold). If we take this view, no opening bid, and very few other bids, will be considered conventional. Luckily, the dictionary saves us. The primary definition of "willing" (from Webster's New Collegiate, and other dictionaries similarly) is "inclined or favorably disposed in mind". So we can take "willingness to play in the denomination named" to mean "an inclination or favorable dispostion to play in the denomination named". From the meaning of "inclined or favorably disposed" this indicates a preference for "the denomination named" over its alternatives. So without TOO much of a stretch I think we can read "willingness to play in the denomination named" as meaing "greater willingness to play in the denomination named than in some other denomination". That would allow us to treat bids that show two suits including the bid suit as conventional (although perhaps not entirely; a 2S opening that shows five or more spades and exactly four clubs, for instance, might arguably be non-conventional). It would allow canape openings to be treated as conventional (which will please the ACBL). It's not a perfect solution, but I think it helps. 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 Jun 20 00:38:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:38:16 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA21689 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:38:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1115571; 19 Jun 97 11:13 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:53:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970618221301.32d7ea3a@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote >At 12:56 AM 6/19/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Convention=A0=20 >> >>A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than (or=20 >>in addition to) willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the= =20 >>last denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or=20 >>highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an=20 >>agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. =20 >>Willingness is stronger than being prepared to play there if necessary. = =20 >>See also Law 30C. >> >> That's interesting. All bids that agree another suit like fragments=20 >>are now conventions. So is Ghestem, as is RKCB [phew]. >> >> Is this interpretation of Convention acceptable? >> > >Here is an excerpt, discussing 1M overcalls of opponents' 1m openings when >the opponents play a 5cM system, from the system notes of one of my >partnerships: > >**** >One of a major over one of a minor, then, does not necessarily represent >high seriousness of purpose. The hand may be weaker than a "normal" >one-level overcall, and the suit may be shorter. In fact, I am not above >saying that when you are not vulnerable, you should overcall from time to >time in a non-existent major suit. Something like S:QJ3 H:JT5 D:53 C:J8642 >(on which Adam Meredith bid one spade in second position, not vulnerable, >against a vulnerable one-club opening bid on his right=97deal 47 of the 19= 55 >World Championship match between England and the United States). >=20 >There is nothing "conventional" about this, but the opponents are certainly >entitled to know about the style. Tell them something like: "When you open >one club or one diamond, our one-of-a-major overcall may be very light; if >we are not vulnerable, it may even be a two- or three-card suit. There are >no conventional controls on this, but our advancer will tread lightly in >this situation." If they want to know why we are doing this, I will be >happy to tell them that we are being obstructive, and that sometimes we are >trying to pick off the major suit that they have declined to open. >**** > >I am suspect of the author's claim that this is not conventional, but under >David's definition I think it is a valid claim -- we are certainly more th= an >willing to play in 1M, even if it is a non-suit. > >But, under the old BLML definition which follows, the agreement would be >considered conventional. I now think that there is a lot of difference between the agreement to=20 bid a 3card suit and a 2card suit: that is one thing I agree with about=20 the new definition. >> I see that Steve has dug out the old BLML definition of a Convention=20 >>[repeated for convenience]. It still looks better to me than the above=20 >>one, even if we accept the interpretations. Perhaps we should offer it=20 >>in 2007. >> >>A convention is a call that, by agreement: >>directly suggests that the final contract be in a denomination other >>than the current one; or, >>for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the suit >>named or directly shows length, strength, or values in another >>specified suit; or=20 >>for a notrump bid, does not directly suggest notrumps as a final >>denomination and may show an unbalanced hand; or >>for a pass, promises more than a specified amount of strength. So, perhaps we should adjust this to indicate that length means=20 3+cards? --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 00:49:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:49:24 +1000 Received: from cinna.ultra.net (cinna.ultra.net [199.232.56.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA21739 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:49:18 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by cinna.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.04) with SMTP id KAA04919 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Jun19.224200.1189.108312; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:45:58 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jun19.224200.1189.108312@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:45:58 -0600 Subject: FW: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >we can take "willingness to play in the denomination named" to mean "an inclination or favorable >dispostion to play in the denomination named". From the meaning of >"inclined or favorably disposed" this indicates a preference for "the >denomination named" over its alternatives. So without TOO much of a >stretch I think we can read "willingness to play in the denomination named" >as meanng "greater willingness to play in the denomination named than in >some other denomination". >That would allow us to treat bids that show two suits including the bid >suit as conventional (although perhaps not entirely; a 2S opening that >shows five or more spades and exactly four clubs, for instance, might >arguably be non-conventional). It would allow canape openings to be >treated as conventional (which will please the ACBL). It's not a perfect >solution, but I think it helps. This point might be much semantic, however, I'm not sure whether this definition should lead to canape opening bids being treated as conventions. For example, I open 1S canape with 4 spades and five diamonds, Assuming that partner has equal length support for my suits, I might very well prefer to play in 4-3 spade fit rather than a 5-3 diamond fit due to the scoring advantages inherent in playing in a major suit contract. If this definition were to be used to regulate canape opening as conventions, I think that we would need a mechanism to distinguish between reversing and non-reversing sequences. In addition, limited, forcing canape openings such as are used by Roman Club would (and should) be treated differently than Blue Team style 1M openings. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 01:49:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:49:55 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA21921 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:49:47 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-15.ime.net [207.242.17.24]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00127; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:49:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970619114901.3787c9d6@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:48 AM 6/19/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Luckily, the dictionary saves us. The primary definition of "willing" >(from Webster's New Collegiate, and other dictionaries similarly) is >"inclined or favorably disposed in mind". So we can take "willingness to >play in the denomination named" to mean "an inclination or favorable >dispostion to play in the denomination named". From the meaning of >"inclined or favorably disposed" this indicates a preference for "the >denomination named" over its alternatives. So without TOO much of a >stretch I think we can read "willingness to play in the denomination named" >as meaing "greater willingness to play in the denomination named than in >some other denomination". > >That would allow us to treat bids that show two suits including the bid >suit as conventional (although perhaps not entirely; a 2S opening that >shows five or more spades and exactly four clubs, for instance, might >arguably be non-conventional). It would allow canape openings to be >treated as conventional (which will please the ACBL). It's not a perfect >solution, but I think it helps. Wouldn't it also put 1m openings than might be 3-cards in the conventional catagory? (Which will NOT please the ACBL.) Tim > >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 Jun 20 01:54:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:54:04 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA21941 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:53:58 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-15.ime.net [207.242.17.24]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00534; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970619115310.4ccf3590@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:53 AM 6/19/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > So, perhaps we should adjust this to indicate that length means >3+cards? If you define a natural call as 3+ AND willing to play in the named suit, you make a raise of a preempt on a doubleton conventional, if you define a natural call as 3+ OR willing to play in the named suit, thus eliminating the length requirement if someone is willing to play in a non-suit, you open yourself to a different problem. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 02:00:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:00:55 +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 CAA22128 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:00:49 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id MAA02583 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970619120153.006b9740@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:01:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970617224255.006aa244@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:56 AM 6/19/97 +0100, David wrote: > Yes! I wonder what the Lawmakers intended when they wrote this. =20 >Suppose you play CAB: your partner opens 2C, and you show your aces,=20 >thus 2H is the heart ace, 2S the spade ace, and so on: are these really=20 >natural bids? > > My guess is that they were thinking of cue bids. 1H - 3H - 3S shows=20 >the ace: that is natural. Mind you, if it shows ace or void, then it is=20 >conventional. > > None of this makes much sense. What about the three card suit=20 >requirement? That is much more sensible. If the auction goes 1H - 1S -=20 >3C playing this as a force to game it might occasionally be made on a=20 >3card suit but only as a natural bid. In much of the world, non-forcing=20 >minor openings on three cards are common, and not bid as conventions. =20 >Canape is a more arguable: perhaps again, the question is whether you=20 >are willing to play in the denomination named. > > If you open 1S on Qxx > AKJT987x > x > x > > playing [say] Roman Club, because it is forcing and indicates where=20 >the fragment is, it really does not look like a natural bid. If you=20 >normally have four cards, but might have three in exceptional=20 >circumstances, or if partner will freely pass your canape opening, that=20 >seems much more natural. > > If we were to assume that the word "or" is an accident, and meant=20 >"and" then that would exclude fragments and ace showing cues, because=20 >the player who makes them is presumably expecting to play in the agreed=20 >suit, so he is not prepared to play in that denomination. But if we substituted "and" for "or", it would mean that any bid that can be made on less than a three-card suit is conventional. I cannot believe that anyone intended a 2S bid with Kx/Kxxx/Qxxx/xxx on 1S-P-1NT-P-2C-P-? to be taken as anything other than a natural bid. We can solve some problems by interpreting "meaning... high-card strength" to mean showing general high-card strength rather than specific high-card holdings. This would make CAB responses to 2C, which show specifically the ace, conventional -- if your agreement were "responses to 2C show high-card strength", you would bid 2S rather than 2H on KQJx/Axxx/xxx/xx; that would be natural. Of course, so would 2S on KQx/xxxxx/Ax/xxx, or KQ/xxxxx/Qxxx/xx, as with an agreement that positive responses promise concentration of strength without regard to length. This also solves... > Hmmmmm: perhaps it is time we looked at Gordon's idea a bit further=20 >before the nightmares start [playing RKCB with spades agreed a 5S=20 >response is natural because it shows strength {the queen} in the=20 >denomination named ]... For a suggestion on how to deal with 1S on David's 3-8-1-1 example, see my earlier message on "willingness". -------------------- > In my view, therefore, a natural bid includes any bid which shows=20 >strength in the denomination named, such as an opening bid that=20 >guarantees 3HCP in the suit bid, though no length. We may be able to deal with this in a manner analogous to what I suggested for "willingness", although I can't come up with a clean formulation off the top of my head. Intuitively, though, I think we can find a way to distinguish the following cases: With a hand that meets whatever requirements for opening one of some suit: (a) Always open 1S with 3 or more HCP in spades, regardless of the rest of the hand - conventional. (b) Open the bidding in the suit with the most HCP, regardless of suit lengths (break ties in favor of the higher-ranking suit) - natural. -------------------- >Eric Landau wrote > >>I think this is a misreading; the correct interpretation is "or (, if no >>denomination is named, then) the last denomination (previously) named". = In >>other words, the phrase has no effect on the definition of a conventional >>bid. What it does is incorporate into the definition of "convention" a >>natural and intuitive definition of conventional passes, doubles and >>redoubles (they're conventional if they don't convey a willingness to play >>in the last-named denomination), which were problematic under the old >>definition. >> >>By this reading, all bids that show shortness in the bid suit are >>conventions, as we would expect. > > I do not see how the second paragraph follows from the first. Premise: By any meaningful definition of "willingness", showing shortness in a suit is incompatible with showing willingness to play in that suit. Premise: "The last denomination named", for a bid, is the denomination named in that bid (NOT the denomination named in the immediately preceding bid). Conclusion: A bid that shows shortness in the bid suit does not show willingness to play in "the last denomination named". -------------------- > I do not think fit-jumps are a problem: they are clearly natural so=20 >long as they either guarantee an honour or three cards. > > This leads me on to a new idea: Ghestem . It's natural, isn't=20 >it, if a 3C overcall shows clubs and spades? [...] > > Consider Ghestem: 3C, showing clubs and spades, is willing to play in=20 >clubs. It conveys an additional meaning [got spades]: is this a meaning=20 >other than willingness to play in clubs? I do not think that the answer=20 >is unambiguously yes or no on semantic grounds, so let us make an=20 >interpretation, and that will be yes because it fits in with our ideas=20 >of what the Law intends to say. Again, refer to my previous message on "willingness". Ghestem 3C does not indicate that the bidder is "inclined or favorably disposed" to play in clubs over spades. Ditto for, say, 1S-2H-4C fit-showing. So I think we can get away with calling both of these conventional. >Convention=A0=20 > >A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than (or=20 >in addition to)... I don't like this, as ACBL experience has proven that "in addition to" leads us down the road to madness. I've seen too many committee adjudications in "failure to alert" cases brought because of some purely natural bid that carried some subtle inference, along the lines of, "Partner would have to be insane to make that (natural) bid on this auction unless he had some tolerance for my suit." I think we're better off avoiding those particular words. 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 Jun 20 02:26:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:26:16 +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 CAA22207 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:26:10 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02097; 19 Jun 97 9:25 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:53:42 PDT." <1.5.4.16.19970619115310.4ccf3590@ime.net> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:25:32 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9706190925.aa02097@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 10:53 AM 6/19/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > So, perhaps we should adjust this to indicate that length means > >3+cards? > > If you define a natural call as 3+ AND willing to play in the named suit, > you make a raise of a preempt on a doubleton conventional It seems to me that this sort of problem can be resolved by saying the length requirement does not apply when bidding a suit, to play, that partner has shown, or has potentially shown. The last phrase is there to take care of cases where opener opens 2D showing a weak-2 in *either* major and responder bids 2H to play if opener's suit is hearts; or cases where opener opens 1NT, responder bids 2D, normally showing hearts, but in rare cases showing a very different kind of hand (Walsh relay), and opener rebids 2H to play. I don't think 2H is a convention in either case. I'm sure the ACBL only intended their definition to apply to the first time a suit is mentioned (explicitly or implicitly) by the partnership, but this wasn't included in the wording. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 03:21:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 03:21:16 +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 DAA22399 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 03:21:07 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id NAA05816 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970619132215.006b582c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:22:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970618221301.32d7ea3a@ime.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:13 PM 6/18/97 -0400, Tim wrote: >At 12:56 AM 6/19/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Convention=A0=20 >> >>A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than (or=20 >>in addition to) willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the= =20 >>last denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or=20 >>highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an=20 >>agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. =20 >>Willingness is stronger than being prepared to play there if necessary. = =20 >>See also Law 30C. >> >> That's interesting. All bids that agree another suit like fragments=20 >>are now conventions. So is Ghestem, as is RKCB [phew]. >> >> Is this interpretation of Convention acceptable? >> > >Here is an excerpt, discussing 1M overcalls of opponents' 1m openings when >the opponents play a 5cM system, from the system notes of one of my >partnerships: > >**** >One of a major over one of a minor, then, does not necessarily represent >high seriousness of purpose. The hand may be weaker than a "normal" >one-level overcall, and the suit may be shorter. In fact, I am not above >saying that when you are not vulnerable, you should overcall from time to >time in a non-existent major suit. Something like S:QJ3 H:JT5 D:53 C:J8642 >(on which Adam Meredith bid one spade in second position, not vulnerable, >against a vulnerable one-club opening bid on his right=97deal 47 of the= 1955 >World Championship match between England and the United States). >=20 >There is nothing "conventional" about this, but the opponents are certainly >entitled to know about the style. Tell them something like: "When you open >one club or one diamond, our one-of-a-major overcall may be very light; if >we are not vulnerable, it may even be a two- or three-card suit. There are >no conventional controls on this, but our advancer will tread lightly in >this situation." If they want to know why we are doing this, I will be >happy to tell them that we are being obstructive, and that sometimes we are >trying to pick off the major suit that they have declined to open. >**** > >I am suspect of the author's claim that this is not conventional, but under >David's definition I think it is a valid claim -- we are certainly more= than >willing to play in 1M, even if it is a non-suit. > >But, under the old BLML definition which follows, the agreement would be >considered conventional. I'd consider it conventional under the new official definition as well, unless the agreement (not stated) is that the overcall is made only with some strength in the suit (i.e. "lead-directional value"). OTOH, if the requirements were changed to require a minimum of three cards in the overcall suit, now it would clearly be non-conventional. 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 Jun 20 03:26:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 03:26:27 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA22426 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 03:26:20 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-15.ime.net [207.242.17.24]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA11890; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:26:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970619132536.4ccf48e2@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Conventional bids Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:25 AM 6/19/97 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> At 10:53 AM 6/19/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > So, perhaps we should adjust this to indicate that length means >> >3+cards? >> >> If you define a natural call as 3+ AND willing to play in the named suit, >> you make a raise of a preempt on a doubleton conventional > >It seems to me that this sort of problem can be resolved by saying the >length requirement does not apply when bidding a suit, to play, that >partner has shown, or has potentially shown. > >The last phrase is there to take care of cases where opener opens 2D >showing a weak-2 in *either* major and responder bids 2H to play if >opener's suit is hearts; or cases where opener opens 1NT, responder >bids 2D, normally showing hearts, but in rare cases showing a very >different kind of hand (Walsh relay), and opener rebids 2H to play. I >don't think 2H is a convention in either case. > >I'm sure the ACBL only intended their definition to apply to the first >time a suit is mentioned (explicitly or implicitly) by the >partnership, but this wasn't included in the wording. Well, talking about what the ACBL intended is a bit different from talking about Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, which is what I thought we were talking about here. ACBL defines natural as 3 card minor or 4 card major. Which, to me, is simply wrong -- whats good for the minors should be good for the majors. I think defining natural depending on the situation (responder, opener, overcaller, etc.) is similar, and wrong. Natural should be natural. Though I admittedly see the difference between introducing a 3-card major with an overcall and raising partner's major with 3-card support. If these situations are going to be distinguished from one another in the definition of natural, I don't think it should be because one bid is made by responder and one by overcaller. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 03:58:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 03:58:10 +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 DAA22490 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 03:58:04 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa05767; 19 Jun 97 10:57 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:26:01 PDT." <1.5.4.16.19970619132536.4ccf48e2@ime.net> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:57:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9706191057.aa05767@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Well, talking about what the ACBL intended is a bit different from talking > about Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, which is what I thought we were > talking about here. Sorry about that. Although I saw the original post on this thread, I somehow missed the fact that a clause about "three cards" had been inserted into the definition. The old Laws said nothing about suit length. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 04:31:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 04:31:50 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22679 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 04:31:44 +1000 Received: from default (pm3-20.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.210]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA04245; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33A97CFF.42F0@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:39:59 -0400 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SANDHILLS (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Barbara B. Odlin" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barbara B. Odlin wrote: > > We had a friend lose the Regional Open Pairs event at Denver recently as > a result of the ACBL factoring method. The winners had 420.96, and our > friend was second with 420.88, in a two-session play-through event. The > reason was that a director determined that one pair playing a certain > board would have to get ave+ and ave- on the board, and it affected all the > other contestants' other scores on that board. Under the ACBL method, the > pair that won was awarded 11.96 for having the top score NS. The pair that > came in second was unfortunate enough to have been EW in the same section, > and was awarded 10.88 for the second highest score their way on that board. > They outscored the winners on the other 52 boards by one matchpoint, so lost > the event by the slim margin of 0.08ths of a matchpoint!! > > This just doesn't seem to be a fair result! Why should the winner of an > event be determined by a happenstance at another table which did not permit > the entering of a normal result on a board? If the second-place team had > happened to be in the other section with the second-best score on the same > duplicated board, they would have got an 11, and would then have won the > event by 0.04ths of a matchpoint!! Actually the score they did get would > have been a 12 in the other section, so they might have won by more than one > matchpoint!! > > Another interesting facet of this affair is that the total matchpoints to > the NS and EW sides were different on the board, with NS being slightly > higher. If one figured the percentage for their respective totals, adding > in 312 for the first session, the EW pair that came in second had a slightly > higher percentage game than did the winners who were NS on the board in > question!! NO FAIR!!! > > It used to be the case that the ACBL had a rule that you had to win an event > by more than one-half a point or it was a tie. It would seem that in this > case, that would have been a reasonable result for this particular > tournament event. But some time back, this was changed by Board edict, I > think, and an .01 was thereafter deemed a winning margin. > > In the case of multiple-session events where there is factoring of scores > down after a session to allow there to be no more than a two-board margin > between the top and bottom qualifiers, or in case of certain long team > events, I can see where this could be deemed a reasonable answer. But in > the present case, where the second place team would have tied for first if > the ave+- table had been able to record any kind of normal result, it seems > unusually cruel to have the ACBL-mandated method for determining matchpoints > on a board with an average in it end up determining who is the winner and > who loses!! > > It used to be also [didn't it?] that in a case like this, every other pair > was give one-half a matchpoint over their raw score matchpointed on an 11 > top, to compensate for the one-less play, which would have also produced a > tie in the Denver event. > > I guess the question is, is the ACBL method an equitable one? Is it proper? > Is it fair, and is it right; or are there better methods and better ways to > handle these ave+- situations? And if so, what are the details so we can > petition the ACBL for a change which would stop this kind of ugly anomoly > from happening again in the future? > > Richard B. Odlin I am rather new at all this but in reading your letters about factoring, etc and looking at the printout of the player who felt cheated beacuse he lost with a 10.88 for a second on a board, yu should notice that when he received a 2nd bottom on the board, his score was 1.13 which is the return of his .12 plus a .01 as a kindness(?). When he gets a top he receives a 11.96 but he gains it back if he score a bottom which is .04. As you look over his socre on the board it all comes out ok except for the .01 which is given as an extra for a second top!!! N. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 04:53:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 04:53:39 +1000 Received: from ipac.net (ipac.net [204.51.1.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22775 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 04:53:34 +1000 Received: from d2.ikos.com (d2.ikos.com [149.172.200.202]) by ipac.net (8.6.12/smh-1.1/IPAC) with ESMTP id LAA23435 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:55:34 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA00946; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199706191853.LAA00946@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventional Bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This thread about conventional bids has been a bit hard to follow because the writers' motivations have often been unclear -- sometimes it seems as if writers are trying to fix the definition of conventional bids so that alerts are heard at appropriate times. Correct me if I have this wrong, but it was my understanding that the essential purpose for getting the definition right is so that the remedial procedures for insufficient bids will be appropriate, because correcting an insufficient bid which would have been conventional, or for which the least sufficient bid in that denomination would be conventional, requires special consideration. For example, in the auction (1NT) 1C, where 2C would be DONT showing another unspecified suit (or two), is it appropriate to allow the 1C bid to be made sufficient without further penalty, since 1C would not have carried the same kind of secondary meaning? Or, again for (1NT) 1C, suppose 2C would be natural but that offender's agreements include commonly opening 1C on a two-card suit. Is it still appropriate to allow the 1C bid to be made sufficient without further ado? (I think that the issue of what bids organizations ought to be allowed to regulate is surely a secondary concern. As for alerts, I think that the obvious correlation is irrelevant -- that the question of which bids should be alertable should be a completely separate topic.) So, am I missing something, or shouldn't we all be keeping concerns about insufficient bid auctions at the forefront in this thread? Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 05:01:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 05:01:30 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22812 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 05:01:24 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id PAA10694 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970619150237.006be024@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:02:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: FW: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <1997Jun19.224200.1189.108312@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:45 AM 6/19/97 -0600, Richard wrote: >This point might be much semantic, however, I'm not sure whether this >definition should lead to canape opening bids being treated as >conventions. For example, I open 1S canape with 4 spades and five >diamonds, Assuming that partner has equal length support for my suits, I >might very well prefer to play in 4-3 spade fit rather than a 5-3 diamond >fit due to the scoring advantages inherent in playing in a major suit >contract. > >If this definition were to be used to regulate canape opening as >conventions, I think that we would need a mechanism to distinguish >between reversing and non-reversing sequences. In addition, limited, >forcing canape openings such as are used by Roman Club would (and should) >be treated differently than Blue Team style 1M openings. I'm not all that conversant with canape methods, and am not familiar with the distinctions between reversing and non-reversing sequences or between Roman Club and Blue Team styles. My understanding of the meaning of "canape" is that a second-round bid of a new suit promises equal or greater length in the bid suit than in the suit bid on the first round. My suggested "strong" definition of "willingness" would make the first bid conventional, whether it would start a canape sequence for any second-round new suit bid or only for specific suits and/or depending on the intervening calls. (But I may be influenced by the ACBL's attitude and propaganda, and intend to reserve final judgment on the "conventionalness" of canape openings until we've had the rest of this discussion.) Richard's point about equal-length preferences is a good one. Certainly, an agreement to open, say, 1S rather than 1D with four spades and five diamonds only when one's suits are such that, due to the scoring advantage of playing in a major, one would prefer to play spades rather than diamonds when partner holds xxx in both is NOT conventional. 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 Jun 20 06:41:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:41:22 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23276 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:41:15 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id QAA27228 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Jun20.043400.1189.108472; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:37:54 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jun20.043400.1189.108472@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:37:54 -0600 Subject: FW: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a previous posting, Eric Landau said >I'm not all that conversant with canape methods, and am not familiar with >the distinctions between reversing and non-reversing sequences or between >Roman Club and Blue Team styles. My understanding of the meaning of >"canape" is that a second-round bid of a new suit promises equal or greater >length in the bid suit than in the suit bid on the first round. My >suggested "strong" definition of "willingness" would make the first bid >conventional, whether it would start a canape sequence for any second-round >new suit bid or only for specific suits and/or depending on the intervening >calls. I'm no great expert on Bridge Law, but I do play a couple of different styles of canape' in various partnerships, and while I don't claim to be an expert in this field either, I can describe different type of canape opening structures. (please note, I am restricting this discussion to Canape opening structures, not Canape response sequences) First, while there are a number of different Canape systems in existence, the best known system is the bidding style used by the Garozzo and Forquet while playing for the Italian Blue Team and currently used by Hamman/Wolff. The distinguishing feature of this opening style is the non-forcing nature of the limited opening. For example, Garozzo's books on Blue Club states passing a Canape 1M opening with <6 HCP, and in some cases with a bad 6-7. The following example hands are given as representing maximum "passes" over a Canape 1H opening. Jx xxx Qxxx Kxxx Qx Jxx Kxxx Jxxx In this style of canape, a reverse sequence typically shows a strong opening hand (14+ to 17- HCP), with the second suit bid being stronger than the first. For instance, with xxx AKQxx KQJx x I would open 1D and rebid 2H if I had the opportunity. To go back and examine the nomenclature which Eric was introducing >So without TOO much of a stretch I think we can read "willingness to play in the denomination >named" as meaning "greater willingness to play in the denomination named than in >some other denomination". In the case of a non-reverse sequence, there could clearly be cases where a Canape player might have a greater willingness to play in the denomination named than in some other denomination. For example, as I mentioned earlier, the structure of major suit versus minor suit score strongly suggests playing in a major suit whenever possible. However, I am having a great deal of difficulty constructing a realistic Canape reverse sequence where opener would rather play in his shorter suit against identical support for his two suits. (I'm sure some elaborate trump coup could be concocted, but I'm not going to bother) In contrast, in the Roman Club Canape style used by Belladonna and Averelli, opening bids of 1 Diamond, 1 Heart, and 1S are all forcing. Opener's initial bid is often used to temporize before showing his true colors. The best example which I can come up with is AKxxx Kxx Ax Qxx In Roman Club, this is a clear 1 Heart opening, preparing for a reverse into Two Spades. My gut feeling is that the first of these Canape styles seems to be much more "natural" than the second. As a related point. Any regulation which applies to a Canape style 1M opening, need also apply to the Precision 1D opening, which can in many cases conceal a better club suit. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 06:54:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:54:17 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23378 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:54:11 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-24.ime.net [207.242.17.33]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA09670; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970619165328.0b1725ec@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Everett Boyer , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:53 AM 6/19/97 -0700, Everett Boyer wrote: > >This thread about conventional bids has been a bit hard >to follow because the writers' motivations have often been >unclear -- sometimes it seems as if writers are trying >to fix the definition of conventional bids so that alerts >are heard at appropriate times. Correct me if I have this >wrong, but it was my understanding that the essential >purpose for getting the definition right is so that >the remedial procedures for insufficient bids will be >appropriate, because correcting an insufficient bid >which would have been conventional, or for which the >least sufficient bid in that denomination would be >conventional, requires special consideration. ... ... >(I think that the issue of what bids organizations ought >to be allowed to regulate is surely a secondary concern. >As for alerts, I think that the obvious correlation >is irrelevant -- that the question of which bids should >be alertable should be a completely separate topic.) > >So, am I missing something, or shouldn't we all be keeping >concerns about insufficient bid auctions at the forefront >in this thread? > >Everett Boyer I just recently subscribed to the mailing list, so I did not get in on the original purpose of the thread. But, it seems to me that in order to answer the question about insufficient bids, one must first be able to clearly define when a bid is natural and when it is conventional. If the subject of defining a bid as natural or conventional is of interest, what does it matter whether those discussing it are motivated by regualtions by sponsoring organizations, or proper alert procedure or insufficient bids? If the discussion gets to the definition of natural and conventional calls, then it is getting closer to answering the original problem. I personally could care less about the proper procedure following an insufficient bid that may have been conventional. But, I am quite interested in what bids a sponsoring organization may regulate. If my motivation for discussing the issue is out of line, consider this the official start of a new thread which discusses the "definitions of natural and conventional calls as regarding the regulation of such calls by sponsoring organizations." Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 07:09:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:09:06 +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 HAA23503 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:08:58 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id RAA16404 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970619171009.006aef98@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:10:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional Bids In-Reply-To: <199706191853.LAA00946@d2.ikos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:53 AM 6/19/97 -0700, Everett wrote: >This thread about conventional bids has been a bit hard >to follow because the writers' motivations have often been >unclear -- sometimes it seems as if writers are trying >to fix the definition of conventional bids so that alerts >are heard at appropriate times. Correct me if I have this >wrong, but it was my understanding that the essential >purpose for getting the definition right is so that >the remedial procedures for insufficient bids will be >appropriate, because correcting an insufficient bid >which would have been conventional, or for which the >least sufficient bid in that denomination would be >conventional, requires special consideration. This thread has nothing at all to do with concerns about alerts. SOs are free to not require alerts to conventional bids, or to require alerts to non-conventional bids. What's conventional and what's alertable are totally unrelated as far as the Laws are concerned. >For example, in the auction (1NT) 1C, where 2C would >be DONT showing another unspecified suit (or two), >is it appropriate to allow the 1C bid to be made sufficient >without further penalty, since 1C would not have carried >the same kind of secondary meaning? That would have been true under the old Laws, but is no longer the case. The new Laws do not allow 2C without penalty based purely on the conventional nature of 2C, whatever the presumed meaning of 1C. >Or, again for (1NT) 1C, suppose 2C would be natural >but that offender's agreements include commonly opening >1C on a two-card suit. Is it still appropriate to allow >the 1C bid to be made sufficient without further ado? That's a tough question, which this group has discussed in the past, and has not come to any consensus about. Why should we assume that the insufficient bidder here was "trying" to open 1C -- perhaps he just was confused and thought that clubs outrank NT? This is clearer if we make the auction 1D-1NT; assume that a 1D opening is conventional, but a 1D overcall of either 1C or 1NT is natural. Now we can't possibly assume that the 1D bidder was trying to open 1D (conventionally) rather than trying to overcall 1C with 1D (natural). And unless we know that the insufficient bidder mistook LHO's 1NT bid for Pass rather than for 1C, the meaning of a 1D opening bid is irrelevant. My personal view is that unless a partnership has made a specific agreement about the meaning of an insufficient bid (which is illegal in the ACBL), we can never presume that an insufficient bid was intended as conventional, so I would allow a correction to 2C in Everett's example without penalty. Others would not agree with me. >(I think that the issue of what bids organizations ought >to be allowed to regulate is surely a secondary concern. >As for alerts, I think that the obvious correlation >is irrelevant -- that the question of which bids should >be alertable should be a completely separate topic.) > >So, am I missing something, or shouldn't we all be keeping >concerns about insufficient bid auctions at the forefront >in this thread? I think Everett is indeed missing something. I think the really significant impact of the redefinition of "convention", and the "essential purpose" of our concern, relates directly to the use of the word "conventions" in L40D. In other words, our real motivation for coming up with a clear definition of "convention" is to determine what SOs may or may not regulate (i.e. prohibit), and it's insufficient bids that are "surely a secondary concern". 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 Jun 20 07:18:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:18:18 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23575 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:18:12 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA27467 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:17:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca3-05.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.101) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma027450; Thu Jun 19 16:17:03 1997 Message-ID: <33A9A151.5DA@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:14:57 -0700 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix23.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls References: <1.5.4.16.19970619165328.0b1725ec@ime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > I just recently subscribed to the mailing list, so I did not get in on the > original purpose of the thread. But, it seems to me that in order to answer > the question about insufficient bids, one must first be able to clearly > define when a bid is natural and when it is conventional. If the subject of > defining a bid as natural or conventional is of interest, what does it > matter whether those discussing it are motivated by regualtions by > sponsoring organizations, or proper alert procedure or insufficient bids? > If the discussion gets to the definition of natural and conventional calls, > then it is getting closer to answering the original problem. > > I personally could care less about the proper procedure following an > insufficient bid that may have been conventional. But, I am quite > interested in what bids a sponsoring organization may regulate. If my > motivation for discussing the issue is out of line, consider this the > official start of a new thread which discusses the "definitions of natural > and conventional calls as regarding the regulation of such calls by > sponsoring organizations." My interest in this thread aligns with Tim's. Missing from the discussion is the concept of "treatment." A treatment seems to be a hybrid between something clearly natural and a convention. For example, a Flannery 2D opening would be conventional under any reasonable definition, but a Flannery 2H opening has been classed (within the ACBL) as a treatment. Obviously, the Flannery 2H opening is not wholely natural since conveys a message unrelated to the heart suit. The Laws do not allow sponsoring organizations to regulate treatments. Notwithstanding, when the ACBL has concluded it is in their best interests to do so, it has adopted the approach of prohibiting conventional responses and rebids in the subsequent auction. I'm convinced that the tactic contravenes the spirit of the Laws. Has anyone an idea of how the "treatment" concept interrelates with natural and conventional bids under the current definitions? Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 07:53:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:53:40 +1000 Received: from ipac.net (ipac.net [204.51.1.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23712 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 07:53:34 +1000 Received: from d2.ikos.com (d2.ikos.com [149.172.200.202]) by ipac.net (8.6.12/smh-1.1/IPAC) with ESMTP id OAA23949; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:55:32 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA05557; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:53:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199706192153.OAA05557@d2.ikos.com> To: timg@ime.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventional Bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk my apologies, Tim, i stand corrected; the answer to my question was just that yes, i was missing something -- i didn't realize that what bids a sponsoring org may regulate was such a concern; i didn't want anyone to feel unwelcome in this thread; i just wanted to have some basis to believe that the discussion was about conventions without some undercurrent regarding alerts, or else to have someone kindly explain how the definition of a convention impacts proper alert procedures; likely that's what i should've said :} so, what kind of agreements are such a problem regarding regulation? is your interest something like whether the choice to play canape' ought not be something a sponsoring org can prohibit? how much noise are such orgs making about such regulations? > From timg@ime.net Thu Jun 19 13:54 PDT 1997 > > [...] If the subject of > defining a bid as natural or conventional is of interest, what does it > matter whether those discussing it are motivated by regualtions by > sponsoring organizations, or proper alert procedure or insufficient bids? well i don't know about you, but some examples or context would help me in understanding why a writer has the opinion he expresses. my objective is to understand how the opinions regarding the definition of a convention fit the various objectives of having an accurate definition. whether a writer's intent is to achieve an aesthetically pleasing definition, or whatever, i welcome the opinions; i just want to understand the intent. Everett From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 08:04:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:04:55 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA23810 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:04:49 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-24.ime.net [207.242.17.33]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA19078; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970619180406.0b17f270@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Everett Boyer , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Conventional Bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:53 PM 6/19/97 -0700, Everett Boyer wrote: >so, what kind of agreements are such a problem regarding regulation? >is your interest something like whether the choice to play canape' >ought not be something a sponsoring org can prohibit? how much >noise are such orgs making about such regulations? A particular sticking point for me is the ACBL's definition of natural meaning at least 4 cards for a major, but at least 3 cards for a minor. It does not seem right to me that the definition of natural should depend on whether a suit is a major or a minor (or pointed or rounded, or red or= black). This is of specific interest to me because of a method I would like to employ, but which I feel the ACBL will define as a convention (and thus they can regulate it). Here is the portion of the system notes that discusses what I want to be able to play (I included it in an earlier post): **** One of a major over one of a minor, then, does not necessarily represent high seriousness of purpose. The hand may be weaker than a "normal" one-level overcall, and the suit may be shorter. In fact, I am not above saying that when you are not vulnerable, you should overcall from time to time in a non-existent major suit. Something like S:QJ3 H:JT5 D:53 C:J8642 (on which Adam Meredith bid one spade in second position, not vulnerable, against a vulnerable one-club opening bid on his right=97deal 47 of the 1955 World Championship match between England and the United States). =20 There is nothing "conventional" about this, but the opponents are certainly entitled to know about the style. Tell them something like: "When you open one club or one diamond, our one-of-a-major overcall may be very light; if we are not vulnerable, it may even be a two- or three-card suit. There are no conventional controls on this, but our advancer will tread lightly in this situation." If they want to know why we are doing this, I will be happy to tell them that we are being obstructive, and that sometimes we are trying to pick off the major suit that they have declined to open. **** Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 08:17:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:17:32 +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 IAA23889 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:17:27 +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 SAA10773 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA22297; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:17:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:17:28 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706192217.SAA22297@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Sillyness X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I haven't seen any reply, so I'll offer an answer. I don't think the question is especially hard or controversial. > From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) > A variety of information was passed by the bidding irregularity > [an unusually quick bid]. The > speed of partner's bid certainly suggests that he had a clear cut bid > over the 3C preempt. > First. > Is the fact that there was a director's call authorized information? Not in itself (L16), but see below. > Can > I use the fact that the opposition can appeal any good result we get in > making bidding decisions? The point is not whether the opponents can appeal or not but rather whether or not you are under any legal restrictions as a result of L16A. You most certainly are, and those legal restrictions are AI for everyone. The only effect of the director call is that everyone ought now to be aware of the restrictions. You would be under the same restrictions after the UI even if no one bothered to call the TD then. In this case, it appears that both 4D and pass are logical alternatives, and 4D was suggested by the UI. If so, 4D is illegal, and you can certainly expect an adjusted score if you bid it and it works well. Your best bet is to pass and hope that turns out OK. This is a good example of a case in which the simple-minded rule "If partner gives UI, you must pass." is simply wrong. > If the Director's call is NOT authorized information, could I ever be > forced to make an invitational bid under the assumption that my knowledge > of the option of an appeal of our good result might cause me to be > unusually conservative in valuing my hand. All you have to do is follow L16A. No need to make a simple situation difficult. If more than one LA exists, and you have UI that suggests one or more over some others, pick one of the ones not suggested by the UI. It may work well or badly, but you keep your score. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 09:23:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:23:04 +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 JAA24164 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:22:58 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA16159 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA22364; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:23:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:23:01 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706192323.TAA22364@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: B&S > Has anyone an idea of how the "treatment" concept interrelates with > natural and conventional bids under the current definitions? As I understand it, "treatment" simply means any specific agreement that is not a convention. For example, whether an opening bid of 1 NT shows 12-14 or 15-17 or some other range of HCP is a treatment. If it were to show, say, clubs, that would be a convention. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 09:38:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:38:59 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA24230 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:38:52 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA01125 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:38:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca3-04.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.100) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma001111; Thu Jun 19 18:37:45 1997 Message-ID: <33A9C24B.1E89@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:35:39 -0700 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix10.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: New Law 83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If new Law 83 has been discussed previously, I missed it. My apologies if this is repetitive. Nonetheless, I wish to vent about it, and BLML has graciously provided me a forum. ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss wrote, in an article for general membership consumption: "The change in Law 83 empowers the director to go forward with an appeal even if the appellant wished to withdraw the appeal. This change could result in the alteration of the victor in knockout and Swiss matches. "In the past, appeals often have been filed during a KO or Swiss matrch on the theory that "we'll go forward with this if we lose, but we'll withdraw it if we win." Now a director can insist that an appeal, one which the director feels has no inherent worth, go before an appeals committee. If the committee agrees with the director, the committee could assess a disciplinary penalty against the appellants. Such a penalty conceivably could convert a tight victory into a loss." My impression of the revision is completely negative. While I understand the rationale on an intellectual level, the practical application would be counterproductive to the committee process. I certainly do not want to ask volunteers to donate their time to hear a moot issue on the possibility that it might result in a procedural penalty for frivololity. Committee members are assets that need protection from such profligacy. It's difficult enough to get competent, willing committee members for cases with substantive issues; let's not squander their efforts on procedural possibility issues. Some players file appeals in a fit of pique, then calm down and recognize on a dispassionate level that their case is groundless. These players should have the option to withdraw their appeal without the threat of a director insisting on its presentation. Players should be encouraged to withdraw their appeals, not penalized for the attempt. I suspect that this provision of new Law 83 will not be utilized. I will surely be reluctant to empanel a committee for such purposes. Jon Brissman ACBL National Appeals Committee Co-Chairman From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 09:45:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:45:12 +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 JAA24274 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:45:07 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23396; 19 Jun 97 16:44 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:14:57 PDT." <33A9A151.5DA@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:44:32 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9706191644.aa23396@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon Brissman wrote: > Missing from the discussion is the concept of "treatment." A treatment > seems to be a hybrid between something clearly natural and a > convention. For example, a Flannery 2D opening would be conventional > under any reasonable definition, but a Flannery 2H opening has been > classed (within the ACBL) as a treatment. . . . This last seems bizarre. I was under the impression that an opening bid that promises a 2-suiter is a convention, regardless of whether one of the suits happens to be the bid suit. ACBL's General Convention Chart lists the following as an allowable convention: 6. OPENING SUIT BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating the bid suit, another known suit, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits. According to their definition, a suit bid like this is a treatment, not a convention, so therefore (a) this paragraph really shouldn't be on the chart and (b) if I wanted to adopt a bid like this with a minimum of 4 HCP, or adopt a bid showing the bid suit and another *unknown* suit, they couldn't stop me because it's not a convention. I'm not sure who decided to class Flannery 2H as a treatment but this seems clearly wrong. (Note that I'm not criticizing Mr. Brissman, but rather some unidentified ACBL weenie.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 12:03:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:03:08 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA24767 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:03:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1112950; 20 Jun 97 2:29 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:50:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional Bids In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970619171009.006aef98@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote >At 11:53 AM 6/19/97 -0700, Everett wrote: >>So, am I missing something, or shouldn't we all be keeping >>concerns about insufficient bid auctions at the forefront >>in this thread? >I think Everett is indeed missing something. I think the really >significant impact of the redefinition of "convention", and the "essential >purpose" of our concern, relates directly to the use of the word >"conventions" in L40D. In other words, our real motivation for coming up >with a clear definition of "convention" is to determine what SOs may or may >not regulate (i.e. prohibit), and it's insufficient bids that are "surely a >secondary concern". When we discuss the meaning of convention surely the reason is so that we can understand it for any purpose that it is used. I can see no reason why there should be a primary purpose. We have a fairly difficult interpretation to make of a Definition. We need that definition for Insufficient Bids, and regulation of Conventions under L40D. Alerts might be affected in a secondary way: if a SO decides to define Conventions [with or without exceptions] as alertable then we need the interpretation for that. Why should we concentrate on anything? We have enough trouble working out the interpretation anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 13:48:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:48:27 +1000 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA25042 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:48:21 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbac1.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.129]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA11643 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:48:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706200348.XAA11643@brickbat8.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Committee Meeting Night Before Last Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 23:44:51 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following odd situation (might have) occurred at the local duplicate the other night. The hand: KQx N E S W AJx 1N P 2H* P AJT 2S P 2N P J8xx 3N P P P Jxxx T9x xx Kxx *Alerted as transfer to spades Qxx Kxxxx AKxx T9 Result: N/S +400 on a diamond lead Axx QTxxx xx Qxx When the dummy hit, E/W called the cops, complaining that S had obviously forgotten his methods until reminded by his partner's explanation, and should be forced to play in some unmanageable spade contract (doubled, of course), or at least in the failing heart game. The director was at least somewhat favorably disposed to this argument, except that S stoutly maintained that he had NOT after all forgotten the transfer agreement, but had actually made a deliberate psych of the transfer. As improbable as this sounded, the Director could find no basis in the Laws to rule against N/S. Comments? (With apologies to the original poster) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 15:09:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA25269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:09:06 +1000 Received: from freya.van.hookup.net (root@freya.van.hookup.net [207.102.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA25264 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:09:00 +1000 Received: from wphnvffu (100mile-20.netshop.net [204.174.70.115]) by freya.van.hookup.net (8.8.5/1.25) with ESMTP id WAA09271; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199706200508.WAA09271@freya.van.hookup.net> From: "sund" To: "Michael S. Dennis" , Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:06:22 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This seems an excellent example of the delicate balance that needs to be maintained between accusing an honest player of being a liar, and catching a scoundrel taking blatant advantage of UI. South has done nothing that does not agree 100% with his explanation of what he was doing. a) His psychic transfer was perfect in that it would prevent the lead that would remove the late entry to his heart suit. b) His 2Nt was a reasonable evaluation of his hand. c)His holding of Axx of Spades is some protection against opener insisting on playing a spade contract ( the 4-3 may be very playable). The only basis for any action is to flatly accuse South of lying. Notice how different this is from our normal UI situation. There, south usually comments " I never noticed the hesitation" , or " I was always going to bid xyz". In those instances we don't have to make a moral judgment on South (or so we're assured) because the Laws are based on 'could have been based on the ui' wording. Openers explaining the system to the opponents cannot be UI of itself or we'd be in trouble even in normal transfer situations. So if south is believed ( and there is no evidence that he lied ), there is no problem. Perhaps South is a creative scoundrel, but surely the greater evil would be to accuse an honest player of being a liar. If South is a scoundrel, let's wait til we catch him with the goods before we find him guilty. I once bid 2C stayman on this hand opp a weak nt. Axx Jx AK10x Jxxx with the intent of bidding 3NT over 2 of either M. of course, I was hoping for a 2S answer (denying hts) and follow that with 3NT (promising hts). If, after a 2Ht rebid, opener insisted on Spades with 44 majors, I could well be the best spot. Could opener explaining my 2C correctly as 'NF stayman' have removed my right to continue on my planned way? jerry sund sund@netshop.net ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Committee Meeting Night Before Last > Date: Thursday, June 19, 1997 8:44 PM > > The following odd situation (might have) occurred at the local duplicate > the other night. The hand: > > KQx N E S W > AJx 1N P 2H* P > AJT 2S P 2N P > J8xx 3N P P P > Jxxx T9x > xx Kxx *Alerted as transfer to spades > Qxx Kxxxx > AKxx T9 Result: N/S +400 on a diamond lead > Axx > QTxxx > xx > Qxx > > When the dummy hit, E/W called the cops, complaining that S had obviously > forgotten his methods until reminded by his partner's explanation, and > should be forced to play in some unmanageable spade contract (doubled, of > course), or at least in the failing heart game. The director was at least > somewhat favorably disposed to this argument, except that S stoutly > maintained that he had NOT after all forgotten the transfer agreement, but > had actually made a deliberate psych of the transfer. As improbable as this > sounded, the Director could find no basis in the Laws to rule against N/S. > > Comments? > > (With apologies to the original poster) > > Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 17:15:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA25556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:15:01 +1000 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA25551 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:14:51 +1000 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA28321 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:13:27 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: ccnet3.ccnet.com: pisarra owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:13:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last In-Reply-To: <199706200508.WAA09271@freya.van.hookup.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why is the focus on South? Shouldn't the question be "Why didn't North bid 4S? Isn't that at least a LA, condsidering he holds the KQx? What was going on at the table to make him choose the NT rebid?" Whether or not South mis-bid and was woken up or genuinely meant to psych, I have much more problem with North's bidding. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 19:02:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:02:22 +1000 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA25792 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:02:11 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip [193.125.70.58]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id MAA03192 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:59:35 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199706200859.MAA03192@adm.sci-nnov.ru> From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D1=E5=F0=E3=E5=E9_=CB=E8=F2=E2=E0=EA?=" To: "bridge laws list" Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:58:55 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Chris Pisarra wrotes > > Why is the focus on South? Shouldn't the question be "Why didn't > North bid 4S? Isn't that at least a LA, condsidering he holds the KQx? > What was going on at the table to make him choose the NT rebid?" > > Whether or not South mis-bid and was woken up or genuinely meant > to psych, I have much more problem with North's bidding. > > Chris > > Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com The original hand > KQx N E S W > AJx 1N P 2H* P > AJT 2S P 2N P > J8xx 3N P P P >Jxxx T9x >xx Kxx *Alerted as transfer to spades >Qxx Kxxxx >AKxx T9 Result: N/S +400 on a diamond lead > Axx > QTxxx > xx > Qxx > Let's imagine you have N's hand. If 2H shows 5-card spades, than after 2NT S has sth like 5332 distribution and invitational values. Are you supposed to ruff sth in 4 Spades? The only question is to pass or to bid 3NT. That's why everything in this story is OK. Sergei Litvak. RBL Chief TD. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 21:55:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA26353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 21:55:35 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA26348 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 21:55:26 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0619750; 20 Jun 97 10:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:22:21 +0100 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last In-Reply-To: <199706200348.XAA11643@brickbat8.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199706200348.XAA11643@brickbat8.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >The following odd situation (might have) occurred at the local duplicate >the other night. The hand: > > KQx N E S W > AJx 1N P 2H* P > AJT 2S P 2N P > J8xx 3N P P P >Jxxx T9x >xx Kxx *Alerted as transfer to spades >Qxx Kxxxx >AKxx T9 Result: N/S +400 on a diamond lead > Axx > QTxxx > xx > Qxx > >When the dummy hit, E/W called the cops, complaining that S had obviously >forgotten his methods until reminded by his partner's explanation, and >should be forced to play in some unmanageable spade contract (doubled, of >course), or at least in the failing heart game. The director was at least >somewhat favorably disposed to this argument, except that S stoutly >maintained that he had NOT after all forgotten the transfer agreement, but >had actually made a deliberate psych of the transfer. As improbable as this >sounded, the Director could find no basis in the Laws to rule against N/S. > >Comments? > >(With apologies to the original poster) > >Mike Dennis This is the type of situation where we need to keep our eye on the ball Imagine screens Part opens 1 NT (presumably 14-16 or 15-17) As South we make a weakness t/o to 2H The board comes back "SH......T" part has bid 2S - we are playing transfers UI does not tell us this - the auction does We'll try to scramble 2NT Part bids 3NT "Whew, lucky or what" South has comitted no bridge infraction - he has misbid - and shown 5 spades when he has 5 hearts We need to's consider N's actions - he bid 3NT with 3 card Spade support when some players might consider 4S an alternative - but he is 4333 and doubtless will tell us that he thought 3NT the best action and I am sure he has a strong case Result stands (However ..... I don't believe South's "psychic" story - and this player would definitely feature in my little black book of bridge players who need watching in future) MIKE -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 22:01:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:01:58 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA26376 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:01:49 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0624107; 20 Jun 97 11:08 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC7D6A.39B80D60@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:08:04 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:08:02 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 41 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Depending on what happened on all of the boards, the result of this competition could have been different if it had taken place in EBUland as we calculate to the nearest 0.1 MP and round 0.05s towards average. This latter practice ensures that, excluding any Art AS (even I am catching this jargon thing!), the control totals for NS and EW will always balance exaclty, unlike the ACBL example where 0.005 is always rounded upwards adding rounding errors into the control total. As Art ASs are independent of the actual matchpoints awarded, the NS and EW control totals will often not balance when the Art ASs are included. When calculating a pairs overall %, the control total should not be used but instead the sum, for all boards played by the pair, of the theoretical tops if no Art ASs had been awarded. Finally, Av- and Av+ are often calculated in the same way as the ACBL example, ie. as 40% and 60% respectively of the theoretical top if the board had been fully played. It may be a fine point but Law 12C1 uses the phrase "of the *available* matchpoints" and so I would suggest that Av- and Av+ should be calculated as 40% and 60% of the raw top without factoring that was *available* to those who actually played the board and then factored up along with all of the other scores using the Neuberg formula. For a board with only one Art AS the effect is very small and may even disappear with the EBU's rounding policy but, when a board has several Art ASs, the effect becomes more significant. To me, this seems fairer as it gives to each pair awarded an Art AS of X% exactly the number of matchpoints that they would have obtained if they had actually played the board and beaten exactly X% of the other real players. The approach used by many, including the ACBL in this example, to calculate Art ASs has the disadvantage that the factoring moves all of the real scores towards average as though they had been scored on a reduced scale but leaves the artificial scores as percentages of the original full range scale that is unavailable to the real players. Thus, A- becomes too harsh, ie. less MPs than what you would have got by playing the board and beating 40% of the real players and A+ too generous, ie. more MPs than you would have got by beating 60% of the real players. Also, this effect becomes more pronounced as the number of Art ASs on a board increases. > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 20 22:49:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:49:15 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26505 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:49:10 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-22.ime.net [207.242.17.31]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA27362; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970620084840.37cf5da2@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Chris Pisarra , bridge laws list From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:13 AM 6/20/97 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: > > Why is the focus on South? Shouldn't the question be "Why didn't >North bid 4S? Isn't that at least a LA, condsidering he holds the KQx? >What was going on at the table to make him choose the NT rebid?" > > Whether or not South mis-bid and was woken up or genuinely meant >to psych, I have much more problem with North's bidding. I would bid 3NT and not consider it very close. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 21 00:44:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:44:16 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA29053 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:44:09 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-22.ime.net [207.242.17.31]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA10761; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970620104312.56e77694@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:56 AM 6/19/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > ----------- > > Note that I am assuming throughout that conventional and natural are >oposites: I think that is ok because we have no definition of natural, >so it is reasonable to read it as natural=non-conventional. > > ----------- It has been pointed out to me that this may not be a valid assumption. Take an opening bid of 2S which shows 5+ spades and 5+ clubs and 10-12 HCP. (I don't know if anyone actually plays this, but.) It is easy to argue that the 2S opening is natural -- it shows a long suit and a willingness to play in spades. It is also easy to argue that it is conventional -- it says something rather specific about clubs. Another example is fit showing jumps, which I think have already been discussed, but which could also be considered natural and conventional. Can a call be neither natural not conventional? A case can probably be made for a cue-bid. Consider 1S-3S; 4C where 4C is a cue-bid after spades have been established as trumps. The 4C bid shows a control in clubs -- not necessarily length or high-cards, the control may be shortness. I would suggest that the cue-bid is not natural because it doesn't promise length or high-cards in the suit. I would also suggest that it is not conventional because it says something specific about control of the suit bid, although I'm unprepared to support this position vigorously. Maybe a better case can be made for bidding partner's suit without real support. Suppose the auction starts 2C-2H; 3S, where 2C is an artificial game force, 2H is natural and shows values and 3S shows a completely solid suit. Responder might well as some point place the contract in spades, but also might have a spade void. Placing the contract doesn't seem to me to be conventional, nor does bidding a void seem natural. I don't think it is enough to say that a call is natural to make it not subject to regulation by a sponsoring organization, rather the call has to be non-conventional. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 21 01:04:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:04:33 +1000 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [205.252.116.103]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29136 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:04:05 +1000 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil ([131.158.13.27]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA06671 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:03:55 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970620105930.0068afb4@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:59:30 -0400 To: bridge laws list From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last In-Reply-To: References: <199706200508.WAA09271@freya.van.hookup.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:13 AM 6/20/97 -0700, Chris Pisarra wrote: > > Why is the focus on South? Shouldn't the question be "Why didn't >North bid 4S? Isn't that at least a LA, condsidering he holds the KQx? >What was going on at the table to make him choose the NT rebid?" > > Whether or not South mis-bid and was woken up or genuinely meant >to psych, I have much more problem with North's bidding. > > Chris > >Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com > You may disagree with North's bid, but there is no possible infraction there, as North was not in possession of UI. As far as N is concerned, his partner has shown an invitational hand with 5 spades, and he made a bridge judgement. No UI was available to N (at least none was presented in the original post), so why should there be any focus on him? The focus is quite properly on South, who was in possession of possible UI at the time of the 2 NT bid. The possibilities are: 1) S has psyched the transfer as claimed. 2) S misbid the transer, did not correct in time, and was awakened by the alert and/or the 2S bid. 3) S intended to drop dead in hearts, but was awakened by the alert and/or the 2S bid. 4) N-S were playing agreements we weren't told about (there is no point in considering this without more info). Cases 2 and 3 are problematic from a UI standpoint. I would tend to eliminate case 3 as a serious possibility, simply because the S hand is too good to drop dead (assuming South is a competent player), so we are left with cases 1 and 2 to consider. In case 2, South intended to invite in hearts, probably by transferring (2D) and then bidding NT. He calls, partner alerts and then bids 2S, and he realizes that he bid 2H instead of 2D. The alert is UI, but the 2S call is not. If S intended to transfer to hearts, the 2S bid is a very loud and unmistakeable wake-up call that is AI, so S can be allowed to act on it, in which case there is no problem with the 2NT call. If we don't accept 2S as a legal wake-up call, we can also focus on South's alternatives at 2S. S can pass (not logical with invitational values), S can rebid hearts (misstating heart length, or possible showing a two suited hand, depending on what system S thought he was playing. Neither option is particularly logical here), S can bid NT, continuing the original plan, even though partner thinks he has a different major. Finally S can raise spades (it's hard to force him to support a known Mosyian, though). On thinking about the problem, I can't think of an alternative call for S, so I would allow the 2NT on the basis that it's the only logical alternative at that point. The case for believing the S claim that he intended to psych has been articulated well by other writers, and I won't repeat it (I do agree that accepting Case 1 is the best action). However, I do believe that even if we do not accept the S statement, there are still no grounds for a score adjustment. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 21 01:21:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:21:59 +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 BAA29227 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 01:21:53 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA21068 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:20:52 +0200 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:20:51 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, David Martin wrote: > Thus, A- becomes too harsh, ie. less MPs than what you would have got by > playing the board and beating 40% of the real players and A+ too > generous, ie. more MPs than you would have got by beating 60% of the > real players. Also, this effect becomes more pronounced as the number > of Art ASs on a board increases. Am I missing something here? If I beat 60% of the players in a 11 table section, then I get 6 matchpoints or 60% of the top. If I do the same thing in a 21 table section, then I get 12 matchpoints, or 60% of the top, not the 59.5% that I get from applying Neuberg to the 6 matchpoints. L12C1 IMHO says that it is assumed that you will beat 60% of the other pairs, so you deserve 60%. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 21 03:53:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 03:53:49 +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 DAA00231 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 03:53:42 +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 NAA26930 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA22682; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:53:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:53:47 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706201753.NAA22682@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [1NT-2H!-2S-2NT-3NT-P; South holds Axx QTxxx xx Qxx.] > From: "sund" > The only basis for any action is to flatly accuse South of lying. Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. We are presented with a score adjustment question. If we have reason to believe South is lying, we need to take conduct action. South's beliefs and intent are _irrelevant_ to the score adjustment. > Notice how different this is from our normal UI situation. Not at all! It's just a boring L16A case. Did South choose from among LA's one that...? We go through the usual exercise of deciding what are South's LA's and which one(s) are suggested by North's explanation. If South chose an illegal alternative (and it caused damage), we adjust the score. South's state of mind or motives when the 2H bid was made are irrelevant. Psychic bids carry all sorts of risks. One of them is that a later explanation from partner may place the psycher under legal restrictions. So it goes. This is yet another reason for screens. > Openers explaining the system to the opponents cannot be UI of itself or > we'd be in trouble even in normal transfer situations. Of course the explanation is UI. L16A specifically mentions "a reply to a question." The 1975 Laws distinguished between this sort of UI -- a legal and correct explanation -- and invidious UI of various sorts, but the current Laws do not. That means partnerships may be under legal restrictions even in perfectly ordinary circumstances. I don't like this, but it's what the Laws say. > From: Chris Pisarra > Why is the focus on South? Shouldn't the question be "Why didn't > North bid 4S? As far as we know, North didn't have any UI. Is North's bidding so strange as to be incomprehensible without UI? If so, we may deem UI present even without other evidence. Or if there is evidence, we can take it into account. So far, I don't think we have seen any. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 21 07:46:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 07:46:49 +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 HAA01255 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 07:46:43 +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 RAA05831 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22850; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:46:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:46:45 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199706202146.RAA22850@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New Law 83 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: B&S > ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss wrote, in an article for > general membership consumption: > ... Now a director can insist that an appeal, one > which the director feels has no inherent worth, go before an appeals > committee. We did have a brief discussion. Our thinking -- at least everyone who posted, as far as I can remember -- was that the new law was for cases where a TD believed an appeal had merit but where the potentially appealing side declined (for whatever reason) to bring the appeal. For example, a TD might rule for the NO's in a UI case but be doubtful of his own bridge judgment. If the offenders are having a bad session, they won't appeal, and the NO's get a possibly undeserved good score. (The NO's certainly won't appeal!) Now the TD can sponsor the appeal. Nobody expects these sorts of appeals to be common, but they give the TD an option if an appropriate case arises. I was astonished at what GB wrote. I'd have thought the proper remedy for frivolous appeals would be to treat them as a conduct offense. (Of course I'd have thought the same about rudeness at the table, and we all know how that's treated.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 21 16:42:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:42:57 +1000 Received: from freya.van.hookup.net (root@freya.van.hookup.net [207.102.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA02631 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:42:52 +1000 Received: from wphnvffu (100mile-11.netshop.net [204.174.70.106]) by freya.van.hookup.net (8.8.5/1.25) with ESMTP id XAA24287 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199706210642.XAA24287@freya.van.hookup.net> From: "sund" To: Subject: UI from partner explanation Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:40:10 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Did this issue ever reach consensus in this group? With 40% of my partners i play transfers, with the rest 2-way stayman. i hold xx AKxxx Kxx Jxx Playing with a Transfer partner, we bid : 1NT - 2Di When asked partner says "Transfer". Do I now have to bid as if we are playing 2way stayman because I can't chose from LA the one demonstrably suggested by this alleged UI? "Of course the explanation is UI. L16A specifically mentions 'a reply to a question.' ... It's just a boring L16A case. Did South choose from among LA's one that...? We go through the usual exercise of deciding what are South's LA's and which one(s) are suggested by North's explanation. If South chose an illegal alternative (and it caused damage), we adjust the score." These recent comments on this list by Steve Willner made me think that the 'dark side' (all bridge players are scoundrels) had won this debate while I was away. Steve contends that UI is UI and my intentions when bidding 2Di "are irrelevant" . I have no way of proving that I wasn't intending to use forcing stayman so ... ... ??? Well, do I bid 3Ht or 3NT? Surely, 3NT would be taking advantage of the alleged UI. If Steve is right, then surely the law must not be being applied correctly. We all play a variety of agreements with different partners. If we're not allowed to remember them just because partner explains them correctly then the game is kaput. Sorry for the likely rehash, but I'll be lost following the posts with out a clarification. jerry sund sund@netshop.net From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 22 16:24:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:24:19 +1000 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA07952 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:24:13 +1000 From: DANDEE4727@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id CAA14938; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 02:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 02:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970622022337_-327685452@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventional Bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the case of 1N - P - 1C corrected to 2C: Under the old law ACBL, when called, never did explain it to our satisfaction. I can only believe that they corrected this condition by stating simply enough that if either the bid or the correction is conventional, that the penalty would be applied. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 22 18:05:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:05:49 +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 SAA08100 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:05:45 +1000 Received: from [131.217.107.18] (lab13.law.utas.edu.au [131.217.107.18]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id SAA10273 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:05:42 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:20:37 +1000 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: UI from partner explanation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Did this issue ever reach consensus in this group? > >With 40% of my partners i play transfers, with the rest 2-way stayman. > > i hold xx AKxxx Kxx Jxx > >Playing with a Transfer partner, we bid : 1NT - 2Di >When asked partner says "Transfer". > >Do I now have to bid as if we are playing 2way stayman because I can't >chose from LA the one demonstrably suggested by this alleged UI? Partner's explanation of your agreements can never prevent you from adhering to your agreements. Your posting is vague - was the agreement 1) transfers, 2) two-way Stayman, or 3) forgotten? [Also I presume you bid the 2D as partner is explaining it as a transfer] 1) If your agreement is transfers, once partner accepts the transfer (or super-accepts according to further agreement) then you are free to adhere to your agreements or not. The fact that you know that partner expects you to have a hand suitable for a transfer to hearts is irrelevant; you must always act as if he knows your hand is a transfer to hearts, for that is your agreement. [This would be important if 2D was not alerted, for then you would have the UI that partner may think 2D is natural] Your only LAs are to adhere to your agreements after partner's call. L16A cannot prevent you from adhering to an agreement - in a way it may be your only LA, hence you cannot choose from LAs. L16A does not prevent you from taking an illogical alternative, however, which adds up to not following your agreements 2) If your agreement is two-way Stayman, then you have UI that partner expects your hand to be suitable for a transfer to hearts. You may not choose from LAs one that could be suggested over another by this UI. In practice, you should bid according to the knowledge that partner has whatever hand would be described by the appropriate sequence e.g. 1NT-2D-2H presumably would show 4 hearts. You must bid as if partner has 4 hearts, for without the UI, that is what you would do. Anything else is not a logical alternative. 3) If you have forgotten your agreements then you have more of a problem. You still cannot use the UI that partner expects you to have a heart transfer hand. You must bid as you would if partner had not explained the meaning of your bid. If partner had not explained the meaning of the bid, then you woould have had two options :- a) Presume he thinks it is a transfer, and you raise to game (probably 3NT, but possibly 4H), or bid on by further agreement b) Presume he thinks it is a two-way Stayman, and raise to game (i.e. 4H or possibly 3NT) or bid on by further agreement The two sets of agreements would doubtlessly be different, but would have in common the fact that a raise to 4H would be to play with a suit fit. Even opposite a weak 12-14 notrump, 4H can be expected to have play. I submit that the only bid that makes sense without the UI is a bid of 4H, in which case you should still bid 4H. [If the circumstances had been different, e.g. your hand is AKxx xx QJxx Axx, then it is a lot uglier - you still must bid has if partner had not explained the agreement. The question is thus begged, "If you have forgotten your agreements, why are you trying to use a convention?"] >These recent comments on this list by Steve Willner made me think that the >'dark side' (all bridge players are scoundrels) had won this debate while I >was away. Steve contends that UI is UI and my intentions when bidding 2Di > "are irrelevant" . I have no way of proving that I wasn't intending to >use forcing stayman so ... ... ??? > > Well, do I bid 3Ht or 3NT? Surely, 3NT would be taking advantage of the >alleged UI. I am confused by this - please clarify the original situation. > If we're not allowed to remember them just because partner >explains them correctly then the game is kaput. Clearly if the laws dictate this then something is wrong. I do not think the laws dictate anything of the sort. You must bid as if there had been no UI. If partner's explanation is correct, then you have no LAs that you could not have had without the UI, and you presumably still have plenty of illogical alternatives that L16A does not cover... Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 03:58:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:58:55 +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 DAA11744 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:58:44 +1000 Received: from cph151.ppp.dknet.dk (cph151.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.151]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04489 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:58:39 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:58:39 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33b966f2.23844897@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199706201753.NAA22682@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199706201753.NAA22682@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:53:47 -0400, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >Not at all! It's just a boring L16A case. Did South choose from among >LA's one that...? We go through the usual exercise of deciding what >are South's LA's and which one(s) are suggested by North's >explanation. If South chose an illegal alternative (and it caused >damage), we adjust the score. Only if he had UI. If he also had the same information in an authorized way, it is not UI, and there is no question of adjusting. South himself could hardly be mistaken as to whether he intended his call as a psyche, so we do need to call South a liar if we want to claim that he had UI. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 03:58:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:58:51 +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 DAA11741 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:58:42 +1000 Received: from cph151.ppp.dknet.dk (cph151.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.151]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04483 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:58:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New Law 83 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:58:35 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33ba66ff.23857355@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <33A9C24B.1E89@popd.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <33A9C24B.1E89@popd.ix.netcom.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 Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:35:39 -0700, B&S wrote: [snip] >ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss wrote, in an article for >general membership consumption: > "The change in Law 83 empowers the director to go forward with an >appeal even if the appellant wished to withdraw the appeal. This change >could result in the alteration of the victor in knockout and Swiss >matches. > "In the past, appeals often have been filed during a KO or Swiss matrch >on the theory that "we'll go forward with this if we lose, but we'll >withdraw it if we win." Now a director can insist that an appeal, one >which the director feels has no inherent worth, go before an appeals >committee. If the committee agrees with the director, the committee >could assess a disciplinary penalty against the appellants. Such a >penalty conceivably could convert a tight victory into a loss." There is nothing in the laws about _withdrawing_ appeals. It has always been my impression that once you've appealed, you have no law-given right to withdraw the appeal. It is usual for a TD to accept a participant's wish to withdraw an appeal, but the TD has, IMO, the right to insist that an appeal be considered by the committee. The TD could do so if he felt that the appeal was quite ridiculous and he did not want to waste his time filling out the form unless the player really risks losing his deposit. It is true that we should try to protect AC members from the workload of silly appeals; but we should also try to protect TDs from that workload, and if we can do so by very rarely using the AC to penalize silly appeals, then we also protect the AC itself in the long run. But IMO this has nothing at all to do with L83. The change in L83 means that a TD can appeal his own ruling even when none of the players want to do so. Exactly in which situations the TD is expected to do this is an interesting question. Some reasons could be: (a) The TD has ruled for the non-offenders, but believe that the AC might quite well rule for the offenders; however, the offenders do not want to appeal. (b) The TD is afraid that his ruling is wrong. (c) The TD has made a unusual and controversial ruling because he believes that the usual ruling in that situation is simply wrong (because he considers the tournament regulations to be in conflict with the laws, for instance); he now wants the AC to form an opinion and set a precedent. This probably makes sense only if the matter gets to the national authority - but in Denmark, where the NA is the committee used for all national championships, it could certainly make sense. [snip] >Players should be >encouraged to withdraw their appeals, not penalized for the attempt. I think they should be encouraged to think the matter through before appealing. The time limit given by L92 is usually long enough for players to calm down and realize that appealing is silly. But I do agree that refusing to accept withdrawal of an appeal should be an extremely rare occurrence. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 03:58:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:58:51 +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 DAA11742 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 03:58:43 +1000 Received: from cph151.ppp.dknet.dk (cph151.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.151]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04486 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:58:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: UI from partner explanation Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:58:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33b8663b.23661693@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199706210642.XAA24287@freya.van.hookup.net> In-Reply-To: <199706210642.XAA24287@freya.van.hookup.net> 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 Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:40:10 -0700, "sund" wrote: >Playing with a Transfer partner, we bid : 1NT - 2Di >When asked partner says "Transfer". > >Do I now have to bid as if we are playing 2way stayman because I can't >chose from LA the one demonstrably suggested by this alleged UI? No - unless you originally thought you were bidding 2-way Stayman. >These recent comments on this list by Steve Willner made me think that = the >'dark side' (all bridge players are scoundrels) had won this debate = while I >was away. Steve contends that UI is UI and my intentions when bidding = 2Di > "are irrelevant" . I have no way of proving that I wasn't intending to >use forcing stayman so ... ... ??? I believe Steve is the only to have argued this, and I do not agree with him. Whether "information" is authorized or not depends on the way the information is obtained. The information that your 2D bid is a transfer is available to you in two ways: (a) You've heard partner say so. (b) You knew, before hearing partner saying so, that 2D is a transfer because that is what you and partner has agreed. (a) makes the information unauthorized. (b) makes it authorized. In general, when you have the same information in an authorized and an unauthorized way, the information is AI. There is an exception: assume that you thought that 2D was Stayman, and you then immediately remember that you're playing transfers, _before_ partner tells you so. Since it is generally impossible (not only for the TD, but also for the player himself) to determine reliably exactly at what point a player remembered his system, we usually rule UI when you've forgotten your system and later remembers it and also later gets the information from partner. If you say "I did misbid, but then I remembered my system just before partner explained it", then the TD will not call you a liar, but he will nevertheless rule UI. >We all play a variety of agreements with different >partners. If we're not allowed to remember them just because partner >explains them correctly then the game is kaput. You are allowed to remember them, provided that you also remembered them when you made the call that partner explains. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 06:44:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 06:44:08 +1000 Received: from brickbat9.mindspring.com (brickbat9.mindspring.com [207.69.200.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA12178 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 06:44:01 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbac6.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.134]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA28532 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706222043.QAA28532@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Committee Night Before Last Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:40:34 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last > Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 1:53 PM > > [1NT-2H!-2S-2NT-3NT-P; South holds Axx QTxxx xx Qxx.] > > > From: "sund" > > The only basis for any action is to flatly accuse South of lying. > > Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. We are presented with a score > adjustment question. If we have reason to believe South is lying, > we need to take conduct action. > > South's beliefs and intent are _irrelevant_ to the score adjustment. > > > Notice how different this is from our normal UI situation. > > Not at all! It's just a boring L16A case. Did South choose from among > LA's one that...? We go through the usual exercise of deciding what > are South's LA's and which one(s) are suggested by North's > explanation. If South chose an illegal alternative (and it caused > damage), we adjust the score. Steve, what exactly is the UI in this case? Is it your position that ANY time partner alerts and explains your agreements, Law 16A is in force? Switch the majors in the original S hand. He transfers with 2H, hears the alert and/or explanation, followed by partner's 2S. Are South's options limited somehow by the information provided by partner's actions? Obviously, as has been pointed out by others, this would be an absurd interpretation of the laws. The problem, then, is to define the difference between these two cases that makes the original case a UI situation, consistent with the wording of Law 16A. > South's state of mind or motives when the 2H bid was made are irrelevant. Although I strongly disagree with your end conclusion, I think you've identified what I consider to be the heart of the problem, and the reason I posted this in the first place. It is my understanding that the above principle is basic to the administration of the Laws: we cannot in truth know what was in a player's mind at the time of a particular play or call, and the player himself often is clueless, so we choose to disregard all potentially self-serving comments ("Of course I knew there was a trump left..." " I never even noticed the hesitation..."," I would always bid that way with that hand..."). However, in this case of the "wake-up call", the consensus of this group, as I read it, is that S's report of his motives in making the original call is the key basis for making a decision about the applicability of Law 16A. In response to Irv Kostal's problem about a similar transfer auction ("Committee Last Night"), a clear majority or the respondents were prepared to restrict the options of the hapless S who admitted to forgetting his methods, whereas most of the respondents to my post were prepared to accept S's explanation and allow his actions, even if a few of them had their doubts as to his veracity. > > Psychic bids carry all sorts of risks. One of them is that a later > explanation from partner may place the psycher under legal restrictions. > So it goes. This is yet another reason for screens. > > > Openers explaining the system to the opponents cannot be UI of itself or > > we'd be in trouble even in normal transfer situations. > > Of course the explanation is UI. L16A specifically mentions "a reply > to a question." > > The 1975 Laws distinguished between this sort of UI -- a legal and > correct explanation -- and invidious UI of various sorts, but the > current Laws do not. That means partnerships may be under legal > restrictions even in perfectly ordinary circumstances. I don't like > this, but it's what the Laws say. > > > From: Chris Pisarra > > Why is the focus on South? Shouldn't the question be "Why didn't > > North bid 4S? > > As far as we know, North didn't have any UI. Is North's bidding so > strange as to be incomprehensible without UI? If so, we may deem UI > present even without other evidence. Or if there is evidence, we can > take it into account. So far, I don't think we have seen any. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 06:44:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 06:44:12 +1000 Received: from brickbat9.mindspring.com (brickbat9.mindspring.com [207.69.200.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA12184 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 06:44:06 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbac6.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.134]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA28555 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706222043.QAA28555@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Committee Night Before Last Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 16:40:34 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last > Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 1:53 PM > > [1NT-2H!-2S-2NT-3NT-P; South holds Axx QTxxx xx Qxx.] > > > From: "sund" > > The only basis for any action is to flatly accuse South of lying. > > Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. We are presented with a score > adjustment question. If we have reason to believe South is lying, > we need to take conduct action. > > South's beliefs and intent are _irrelevant_ to the score adjustment. > > > Notice how different this is from our normal UI situation. > > Not at all! It's just a boring L16A case. Did South choose from among > LA's one that...? We go through the usual exercise of deciding what > are South's LA's and which one(s) are suggested by North's > explanation. If South chose an illegal alternative (and it caused > damage), we adjust the score. Steve, what exactly is the UI in this case? Is it your position that ANY time partner alerts and explains your agreements, Law 16A is in force? Switch the majors in the original S hand. He transfers with 2H, hears the alert and/or explanation, followed by partner's 2S. Are South's options limited somehow by the information provided by partner's actions? Obviously, as has been pointed out by others, this would be an absurd interpretation of the laws. The problem, then, is to define the difference between these two cases that makes the original case a UI situation, consistent with the wording of Law 16A. > South's state of mind or motives when the 2H bid was made are irrelevant. Although I strongly disagree with your end conclusion, I think you've identified what I consider to be the heart of the problem, and the reason I posted this in the first place. It is my understanding that the above principle is basic to the administration of the Laws: we cannot in truth know what was in a player's mind at the time of a particular play or call, and the player himself often is clueless, so we choose to disregard all potentially self-serving comments ("Of course I knew there was a trump left..." " I never even noticed the hesitation..."," I would always bid that way with that hand..."). However, in this case of the "wake-up call", the consensus of this group, as I read it, is that S's report of his motives in making the original call is the key basis for making a decision about the applicability of Law 16A. In response to Irv Kostal's problem about a similar transfer auction ("Committee Last Night"), a clear majority or the respondents were prepared to restrict the options of the hapless S who admitted to forgetting his methods, whereas most of the respondents to my post were prepared to accept S's explanation and allow his actions, even if a few of them had their doubts as to his veracity. > > Psychic bids carry all sorts of risks. One of them is that a later > explanation from partner may place the psycher under legal restrictions. > So it goes. This is yet another reason for screens. > > > Openers explaining the system to the opponents cannot be UI of itself or > > we'd be in trouble even in normal transfer situations. > > Of course the explanation is UI. L16A specifically mentions "a reply > to a question." > > The 1975 Laws distinguished between this sort of UI -- a legal and > correct explanation -- and invidious UI of various sorts, but the > current Laws do not. That means partnerships may be under legal > restrictions even in perfectly ordinary circumstances. I don't like > this, but it's what the Laws say. > > > From: Chris Pisarra > > Why is the focus on South? Shouldn't the question be "Why didn't > > North bid 4S? > > As far as we know, North didn't have any UI. Is North's bidding so > strange as to be incomprehensible without UI? If so, we may deem UI > present even without other evidence. Or if there is evidence, we can > take it into account. So far, I don't think we have seen any. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 08:44:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:44:43 +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 IAA12495 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:44:34 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id XAA03148 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 23:44:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 97 23:43 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last 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: <199706201753.NAA22682@cfa183.harvard.edu> willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > > From: "sund" > > The only basis for any action is to flatly accuse South of lying. > > Sorry, but I strongly disagree here. We are presented with a score > adjustment question. If we have reason to believe South is lying, > we need to take conduct action. > > South's beliefs and intent are _irrelevant_ to the score adjustment. > > > Notice how different this is from our normal UI situation. > > Not at all! It's just a boring L16A case. Did South choose from among > LA's one that...? We go through the usual exercise of deciding what > are South's LA's and which one(s) are suggested by North's > explanation. If South chose an illegal alternative (and it caused > damage), we adjust the score. > > South's state of mind or motives when the 2H bid was made are > irrelevant. I really don't see how this can be so. If South psyched 2H (as claimed) then despite the UI of North's expalnation there are no LAs, 2NT is the only sensible bid. BTW, I was among those who thought that an "impossible" 2S bid was a sufficient wake-up to not restrict south in the original problem anyway, although I am intrigued as to exactly how others discriminate between "self-serving" and "accurate" explanations. > > Psychic bids carry all sorts of risks. One of them is that a later > explanation from partner may place the psycher under legal restrictions. > So it goes. This is yet another reason for screens. Yes, that will make a visit to the club an even more convivial experience and enhance the popularity of the game. Surely it is more reasonable to assume innocence but keep an eye out for future transgressions (but isn't this case covered by a prohibition against psyching conventional bids (or is that a figment of my imagination))? > > Openers explaining the system to the opponents cannot be UI of itself > > or > > we'd be in trouble even in normal transfer situations. > > Of course the explanation is UI. L16A specifically mentions "a reply > to a question." > It could be argued, and will be by me, that reference in L16A refers only to "extraneous" information in such a reply, and that any information which is already known to partner does not come in to this category. Ie if it goes 1N-2H(both intended, due to a 5 card suit, and alerted/explained as transfer)-2S-? there is no obligation to believe 2S to be anything other than transfer completion and thus no UI situation. All this means that in the postulated situation the TD is in fact limited to Liar OR no adjustment, no fudging allowed. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 09:00:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:00:33 +1000 Received: from brickbat9.mindspring.com (brickbat9.mindspring.com [207.69.200.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12547 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:00:27 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbacg.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.144]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA03919 for ; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706222300.TAA03919@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Wake-Up Calls Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:56:23 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to all who responded to my post "Committee Night Before Last". It and a previous post by Irv Kostal ("Committee Last Night") raised issues about the applicability of Law 16A to a situation where a player either has been or might have been awakened to his previously forgotten methods by partner's alert and/or explanation. Both auctions involved 2H "transfers" over 1NT (Irv's auction was on the second round folowing a strong club sequence) by players with 5 hearts and 3 spades. In the original post, the 2H bidder apparently confessed to having forgotten his methods, and the general consensus of the respondents seemed to be that the score should be adjusted based on the UI available to the 2H bidder via the explanation "transfer to spades". In my post, the bidder claimed that he had not, after all, forgotten his methods but had psyched the transfer, and in this case most of the respondents seemed disposed to let the auction and result stand, despite the somwhat shaky (shady?) explanation. These examples illustrate two fundamental problems with treating these "wake-up call" auctions as UI situations subject to Law 16A adjudication. The first is that the distinction drawn between the two examples violates an important principle of applying the Laws: that a player's comments concerning his intentions are generally not considered relevant. Self-serving comments are often made in good faith, and are sometimes even true, but shouldn't interfere with our judgement either as directors or AC members. But in the case of the wake-up call, a good story, even if only marginally plausible, seems to be enough to earn the alleged forgetter a pass. Indeed, as a number of respondents pointed out, it would be impossible to rule against the 2H bidder of my post without effectively declaring him to be a liar. The second problem concerns the difficulty of divining LA's. In Irv's example, the opponents wanted to force a spade raise from the 2H bidder, presumably on the theory that treating the 2S bid as natural was certainly a LA. Most of the respondents chose not to be quite so harsh, but maintained that the 2H bidder was obliged to treat the 2S bid as fit-showing, and compelled him to bid an unmakeable heart game. One even went so far as to postulate an entire auction in which the subsequent 4H bid would have to be treated as a splinter, with an auction boiling malignantly up into the stratosphere from a witch's brew of hypotheticals. Problem is, all these so-called LA's simply aren't. Logical, that is. They all proceed by inventing a hypothetical set of methods for N/S, perhaps played by nobody at all but in any event irrelevant to this particular pair's bidding methods, and then postulating an auction based on this "system". Strictly speaking, this process is illogical in the precise sense of being contrafactual. If there are no limits on the methods we can impose on N/S in our search for LA's, then of course they are absolutely guaranteed a horrible result, because there is always some hypothetical system, and hence some "Logical Alternative", compared to which any actual choice is both more successful and suggested by the so-called UI. I suggest that these wake-up calls should not be considered UI situations at all, at least for enforcement purposes. Will some players benefit by getting a helpful reminder of their methods via partner's explanation or alert? Probably so, but I am not greatly bothered by this. In the first place, the player will frequently have remembered the method without the assist from partner. In Irv's post, for example, it is hard to argue convincingly that the 2H bidder would not have realized his mistake as soon as partner's 2S bid hit the table, quite without benefit of any explanatory note from partner. In the second place, those who mis-bid, whether by forgetting their methods, inadvertently selecting the wrong bidding card, or silly psyching, have already paid a high price for their mistake, in the coin of misleading partner. Such bids will usually lead to results at either too high a level or in the wrong strain, often both. In the two cases examined, for example, the 2H bidder has excellent reason to fear a rebid of 4S from opener after 2NT, since he has after all advertised a non-existent 5-card spade suit, and has additional reason to be concerned about missing the real fit in hearts without getting too high. Folks who consistently forget their methods will not, in the long run, benefit overmuch from being let off the hook on the UI issue. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 11:09:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:09:22 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12839 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:09:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0516750; 23 Jun 97 2:07 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:03:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI from partner explanation In-Reply-To: <199706210642.XAA24287@freya.van.hookup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sund wrote >Did this issue ever reach consensus in this group? > >With 40% of my partners i play transfers, with the rest 2-way stayman. > > i hold xx AKxxx Kxx Jxx > >Playing with a Transfer partner, we bid : 1NT - 2Di >When asked partner says "Transfer". > >Do I now have to bid as if we are playing 2way stayman because I can't >chose from LA the one demonstrably suggested by this alleged UI? I have read this article three times and then the replies and I am totally confused. With some of your partners [not all] you play Transfers. So do I. You are playing with a partner with whom you play transfers. Fine. You bid a transfer. Fine. Your partner says "Transfer". This is correct under ACBL regulations, so I believe. It is UI to you, but that surely does not matter, because you have made a transfer, and it matters not that partner describes it correctly. This is the first time I have ever heard UI discussed when partner has made a correct explanation by both your agreements and your hand! You want to be assured that you may assume that you are playing Transfers? Let me assure you! To be legalistic, the fact that a player correctly follows the regulations of the SO, while providing UI to his partner, does not make Logical Alternatives out of actions that his partner would never consider because he knows the system that you are playing. Now tell me, what have I missed? --------------- As part of his reply: Mark Abraham wrote >Clearly if the laws dictate this then something is wrong. I do not think >the laws dictate anything of the sort. You must bid as if there had been no >UI. If partner's explanation is correct, then you have no LAs that you >could not have had without the UI, and you presumably still have plenty of >illogical alternatives that L16A does not cover... As has been pointed out many times both here and on RGB, the clause "You must bid as if there had been no UI" is against the Laws of the game, which constrain your actions once UI becomes available from partner. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 11:09:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:09:55 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12846 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:09:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1115088; 23 Jun 97 2:07 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:01:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last In-Reply-To: <199706200508.WAA09271@freya.van.hookup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sund wrote >This seems an excellent example of the delicate balance that needs to be >maintained between accusing an honest player of being a liar, and catching >a scoundrel taking blatant advantage of UI. > > South has done nothing that does not agree 100% with his explanation of >what he was doing. >a) His psychic transfer was perfect in that it would prevent the lead that >would remove the late entry to his heart suit. >b) His 2Nt was a reasonable evaluation of his hand. >c)His holding of Axx of Spades is some protection against opener insisting >on playing a spade contract ( the 4-3 may be very playable). > >The only basis for any action is to flatly accuse South of lying. It is very important that people do not think this way. When a judgement situation is reached, then the TD/AC as relevant listens to the evidence and makes a judgement. That's it. Of course he does not accuse anyone of lying. Now in the modern method of arguing, people often *accuse themselves*. No credence should ever be given to this sort of fatuosity. In other words, if the TD/AC decide to adjust in this case, South may say "They are calling me a liar!". Well, they aren't, and no notice should be taken of such a childish reaction. [s] >Perhaps South is a creative scoundrel, but surely the greater evil would be >to accuse an honest player of being a liar. If South is a scoundrel, let's >wait til we catch him with the goods before we find him guilty. That is for C&E Committees: TD/ACs do *not* need proof: their job is to make value decisions. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 11:15:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:15:27 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12893 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:15:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0624332; 23 Jun 97 2:07 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:02:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Committee Night Before Last In-Reply-To: <199706222043.QAA28555@brickbat9.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >Although I strongly disagree with your end conclusion, I think you've >identified what I consider to be the heart of the problem, and the reason I >posted this in the first place. It is my understanding that the above >principle is basic to the administration of the Laws: we cannot in truth >know what was in a player's mind at the time of a particular play or call, >and the player himself often is clueless, so we choose to disregard all >potentially self-serving comments ("Of course I knew there was a trump >left..." " I never even noticed the hesitation..."," I would always bid >that way with that hand..."). No, no, no! We disregard nothing. It is the job of the TD/AC to take note of *all* the evidence and then make a judgement decision. The fact that a comment is "potentially self-serving" goes to the weight of it as evidence but not to its admissability, as I remember Perry Mason explaining to a jury. It is very helpful if you keep the Subject Line unchanged for those of us with software that threads this mailing list: please. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 11:35:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:35:57 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA13000 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 11:35:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1009075; 23 Jun 97 2:07 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:02:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last In-Reply-To: <199706200859.MAA03192@adm.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote >> KQx N E S W >> AJx 1N P 2H* P >> AJT 2S P 2N P >> J8xx 3N P P P >Let's imagine you have N's hand. If 2H shows 5-card spades, than after 2NT >S has sth like >5332 distribution and invitational values. Are you supposed to ruff sth in >4 Spades? >The only question is to pass or to bid 3NT. That's why everything in this >story is OK. South will not always be 5332: he might be 5431. Not all 4333s are the same: the hand that would probably want most to play in 4S rather than 3NT would be one with secondary values in spades, and primary values outside - like this one! With a good partner I might bid 3D over 2NT to see what he thinks. --------- Hirsch Davis wrote >You may disagree with North's bid, but there is no possible infraction >there, as North was not in possession of UI. As far as N is concerned, his >partner has shown an invitational hand with 5 spades, and he made a bridge >judgement. No UI was available to N (at least none was presented in the >original post), so why should there be any focus on him? L40A gives you the right to make *any* call so long as it is not based on a CPU. The effect of this is that fielding a psyche or misbid is an infraction. Thus, since South claims to have psyched, we should consider North's actions: in fact that should be totally routine for a TD looking at *any* psyche. In England/Wales there is a laid down procedure, which always requires the TD to ask the psycher's partner for an explanation of his actions. ------ I am talking somewhat theoretically. In practice, despite both the above sections, I would expect North to convince me quite easily that he had not fielded anything. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 13:56:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:56:53 +1000 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA13368 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 13:56:46 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-ppp-ls-094.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.130]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA10807; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 20:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33ACA638.D48@lightspeed.net> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:12:40 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee Meeting Night Before Last References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snipping context, short version: What do TDs or ACs need to determine whether one claiming no wake-up but rather a psyche did, in fact, psyche] > That [proof] is for C&E Committees: TD/ACs do *not* need proof: their job is > to make value decisions. > Apparently there is a different use of the word 'proof' than I am familiar with. What does "value decisions" mean? I don't think using this sort of verbiage assists us in determining the proper standards. I suggest that TDs and ACs in these situations go with whatever the preponderance of the evidence shows (one standard of proof.) That evidence should certainly include what the players say, including the accused offender. I do think that a finding that a player did not psych when he says he did is a finding that dishonesty was more probable than not. I note here that many ACBL high-ranking appeals committee members place a much higher burden on the psycher's partnership in any case involving a psych, forcing that partnership to demonstrate that they are innocent at a higher standard. For conduct committees, I think clear and convincing evidence is called for before sanctions are made. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 16:07:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:07:37 +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 QAA13719 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:07:33 +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 QAA02433 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:07:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.63.221.41]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17648 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:07:27 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:07:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199706230607.QAA17648@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:ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pair A scores 170 out of a possible 300 MP for the first 25 boards of a 26 board 13 table Mitchell movement. Pair B scores 171 on the same boards. On Board 26, Pair C (vs Pair D) forgets to enter a score. Pair A scores 8 MP and Pair B scores 7 MP on board 26 with the reduced top of 11. The Neuberg formula is applied and on board 26, pair A's score is increased to 8.75, while pair B obtains 7.67. Having defeated pair B by greater than the requisite margin of 0.01 MP, the ACBL require pair A to be awarded the higher rank. In effect, the ACBL require one to be able to estimate the probability that pair C's score would have been intermediate between that of pair A and pair B on board 26 - without reference to the the performance of pairs C or D on any previous hand. Moreover, they require this estimation to two places of decimals. Without in any way denying the right of any SO from mandating such a procedure, I assert that it is scientifically indefensible to measure the performance to this accuracy. Pairs A and B have had an equal opportunity to win match points, they have won an equal number, so to my mind they have tied. Indeed, I think if final scores were reported as:(Pair A scored 178 against 311 real opponents, and 0.75 against 1 virtual opponent), it would not only give participants a very rude shock to see how many virtual opponents they regular win MPs against, but that their score against such "opponents" could influence their final percentage quite considerably (one or two percentage points would not be exceptional) Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 23 17:48:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:48:33 +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 RAA14023 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:48:26 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA22009 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:47:31 +0200 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:47:31 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: ardelm@ozemail.com.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re:ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- In-Reply-To: <199706230607.QAA17648@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 ardelm@ozemail.com.au wrote: > Pairs A and B have had an equal opportunity > to win match points, they have won an equal number, so to my mind they have > tied. But, now the last board carries less weight. Suppose A and B each score 25 average boards and 1 top. Logic suggests that they are tied, after all, they have played equally good. However, A score his top on board 1, so this matchpoints to 12+24x6+5.5=161.5 out of 311 or 51.92%. B scores the top on the last board, so they score 25x6+11=161 out of 311 (51.77%). This is a significant difference. Neuberg gives you 162 and 161.96 matchpoints, which is much closer to what you expect. They still aren't tied but it is pretty close, and the European practice of rounding to 1 decimal would produce an exact tie. (Actually, now that I think about it, 12 or 13 scores don't seem to give an estimate of the mp score within 0.01 point, so rounding to 0.1 seems better). > Indeed, I think if final scores were reported as:(Pair A scored 178 against > 311 real opponents, and 0.75 against 1 virtual opponent), So, now suppose that A has scored 178(against real opponents)+1(against virtual opponents) and B has scored 179. Who has done better? Does it matter that A got some MP's against virtual opponents just because the board couldn't be played at 1 table. > it would not only > give participants a very rude shock to see how many virtual opponents they > regular win MPs against, but that their score against such "opponents" could > influence their final percentage quite considerably (one or two percentage > points would not be exceptional) Huh? 1 matchpoint on a 312 maximum is about 0.32%, so you'd need to get 3 matchpoints from factoring artificial scores in order to gain a full %. This is a lot, for starters, requires 3 artificial scores in a single session. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 24 11:44:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:44:52 +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 LAA19763 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:44:48 +1000 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 LAA20996 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:44:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p58.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.74]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA01307 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:44:43 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970623140657.006a705c@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:06:57 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Montecatini Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've been waiting with interest Herman's report on his visit to Montecatini, where he went armed with some questions re the 1997 penalty card Law and UI. Have I missed his report, or are we still waiting? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 24 16:02:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:02:59 +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 QAA20486 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:02:55 +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 QAA05001; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:02:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.63.221.44]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA29868; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:02:49 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:02:49 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199706240602.QAA29868@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: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Subject: Re:ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:47 AM 23/06/97 +0200, you wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 ardelm@ozemail.com.au wrote: > >> Pairs A and B have had an equal opportunity >> to win match points, they have won an equal number, so to my mind they have >> tied. > >But, now the last board carries less weight. Suppose A and B each score >25 average boards and 1 top. Logic suggests that they are tied, after >all, they have played equally good. However, A score his top on board >1, so this matchpoints to 12+24x6+5.5=161.5 out of 311 or 51.92%. B >scores the top on the last board, so they score 25x6+11=161 out of 311 >(51.77%). This is a significant difference. > >Neuberg gives you 162 and 161.96 matchpoints, which is much closer to what >you expect. They still aren't tied but it is pretty close, and the >European practice of rounding to 1 decimal would produce an exact tie. > >(Actually, now that I think about it, 12 or 13 scores don't seem to >give an estimate of the mp score within 0.01 point, so rounding to >0.1 seems better). > >> Indeed, I think if final scores were reported as:(Pair A scored 178 against >> 311 real opponents, and 0.75 against 1 virtual opponent), > >So, now suppose that A has scored 178(against real opponents)+1(against >virtual opponents) and B has scored 179. Who has done better? Does >it matter that A got some MP's against virtual opponents just because >the board couldn't be played at 1 table. > >> it would not only >> give participants a very rude shock to see how many virtual opponents they >> regular win MPs against, but that their score against such "opponents" could >> influence their final percentage quite considerably (one or two percentage >> points would not be exceptional) > >Huh? 1 matchpoint on a 312 maximum is about 0.32%, so you'd need to >get 3 matchpoints from factoring artificial scores in order to gain a >full %. This is a lot, for starters, requires 3 artificial scores in a >single session. Sorry, I excised a more horrible example before sending. I regularly play in a 3 section club duplicate, where the boards are scored across the field. One set of boards are regularly played in only 1 or 2 sections. When a half table is present as well, quite a range of tops can obtain. In this type of game, it is not unusual to have 25 or more virtual pairs contributing to your score, and this was the case I was alluding to. Our local association requires splitting ranks to 0.01 MP, but I think that in this case the margin should probably be at least 0.5 MP. Tony Musgrove ------------------------------------------------- >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk >Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >%DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 24 20:54:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:54:15 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA21182 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:54:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1003155; 24 Jun 97 11:44 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 03:02:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Montecatini In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970623140657.006a705c@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote >I've been waiting with interest Herman's report on his visit to >Montecatini, where he went armed with some questions re the 1997 penalty >card Law and UI. Have I missed his report, or are we still waiting? > We're waiting. Montecatini is still going. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 25 05:46:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 05:46:32 +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 FAA25326 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 05:46:24 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA11637 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:45:22 +0200 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:45:22 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: ardelm@ozemail.com.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re:ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- In-Reply-To: <199706240602.QAA29868@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 ardelm@ozemail.com.au wrote: > >Huh? 1 matchpoint on a 312 maximum is about 0.32%, so you'd need to > >get 3 matchpoints from factoring artificial scores in order to gain a > >full %. This is a lot, for starters, requires 3 artificial scores in a > >single session. > > Sorry, I excised a more horrible example before sending. I regularly play > in a 3 section club duplicate, where the boards are scored across the field. > One set of boards are regularly played in only 1 or 2 sections. When a half > table is present as well, quite a range of tops can obtain. In this type of > game, it is not unusual to have 25 or more virtual pairs contributing to > your score, and this was the case I was alluding to. Our local association > requires splitting ranks to 0.01 MP, but I think that in this case the > margin should probably be at least 0.5 MP. But if you play with 3 sections scored accross the field, you need duplicated boards. Why don't you use an appendix Mitchell movement then, so that every board is played the same number of times (+/- 1 in case of a half table)? That would completely remove the factoring. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 25 06:58:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 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 GAA25614 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 06:58:48 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA17340 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970624170039.006c2474@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:00:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970619163641.0b174312@ime.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:37 PM 6/19/97 -0400, Tim wrote: >Here is where I think the problem lies. When a person plays canape and >opens 1S he is not positively showing willingness to play in some other >denomination -- he might well have a spade one-suiter and want to play in >spades. Of course he could also have a 4 (or 3) card spade suit and a >longer heart suit that he would (on the surface) prefer to play in. This is >the same as a SA 1 minor opening which may be a one-suiter, but which also >may be a 3 card suit with a longer major (which, on the surface, opener >would rather play in). > >If your understanding of canape is that a 1S opening promises another longer >suit, then your interpretation of it as a convention under this definition >is correct. If spades could be the longest suit AND you think it is still >conventional, then a SA 1 minor opening must be conventional under similar >reasoning. I know what I mean, but I'm having trouble making myself clear... Consider 1C-1H-1S as (a) an SA sequence, (b) a canape sequence. In (a), spades can be longer than clubs, simply because, although both suits are being bid naturally, 1C only promised three, while 1S promised four. But you're still bidding both suits naturally; clubs can be longer (and are, more often than they're shorter; partner doesn't know), and this is the way you'd bid a 2-suiter with longer clubs. There is nothing conventional here. In (b), the 1S rebid promises longer spades (or perhaps equal or longer spades); you cannot bid this way with longer clubs. This is a two-part conventional sequence (using the "strong willingness" interpretation), starting with 1C. That makes 1C conventional. If a bid may be the start of a two-part conventional sequence (even though it may also not be) it should be considered conventional. That's where the difference I suggested in my previous remarks is coming from. An SA three-card minor (or a Modernized Scientific EHAA three-card major) cannot be followed by a rebid that PROMISES that the rebid suit is longer (or not shorter); a canape three-card opening can be. Thus the latter is conventional, the former 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 Wed Jun 25 22:53:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:53:42 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA28134 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:53:35 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id IAA05783 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:53:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Jun25.204600.1189.109677; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:50:19 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jun25.204600.1189.109677@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:50:19 -0600 Subject: FW: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >If a bid may be the start of a two-part conventional sequence (even though >it may also not be) it should be considered conventional. >That's where the difference I suggested in my previous remarks is coming >from. An SA three-card minor (or a Modernized Scientific EHAA three-card >major) cannot be followed by a rebid that PROMISES that the rebid suit is >longer (or not shorter); a canape three-card opening can be. Thus the >latter is conventional, the former not. At this point in time, my main question is why the specific focus on "two-part conventional sequences". It seems to me that if we are using the "strong willingness" interpretation, any bidding sequence which demonstrates that opener's first bid suit is not his best suit should be treated in a similar manner, regardless of whether this fact become apparent with opener's initial rebid or on the third/fourth/later round of the auction. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 25 23:02:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:02:28 +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 XAA28210 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:02:22 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA22388 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970625090416.006c0d10@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:04:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New Law 83 In-Reply-To: <199706202146.RAA22850@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Less than two weeks before the new Laws went into effect I was called to the table at our weekly unit game. N-S were experienced club players; E-W were relative novices. With South dealer, the bidding had gone 1H-1S-2H-2S-4D. West inquired as to the meaning of the 4D bid. North replied that it was "standard; just bridge". West felt entitled to an explanation of what North meant by that, and called for a TD. In our area, any experienced player would take 4D as a splinter raise, promising at most a singleton; South did indeed have a singleton diamond. E-W, however, were not experienced players, and had not encountered this bid before. In an attempt to get North to disclose the meaning of 4D, I asked a series of leading questions: Do you have any agreement with your partner as to the meaning of 4D? Do you have any other agreements that would help partner ascertain the meaning of 4D? Is there anything in your general style that would lead partner to an interpretation of your 4D bid? North insisted that there were no pertinent agreements, that this was "just bridge", and that the Laws didn't require her to teach her opponents how to play bridge. As I was unwilling to call North a liar, or accuse her of a C&E offense, I ordered that play continue. West cashed a diamond against 4H, then, still unaware of the fact that declarer had shown diamond shortness with her 4D bid, continued diamonds, which allowed 4H to make. I felt that E-W had been damaged by misinformation, and encouraged them to appeal. They wanted no part of any appeal. They had come to play for fun, not to get into "legal hassles". They respectfully informed me that the clubs in which they usually play didn't have any truck with things like appeals, and they had come to the unit game unaware that this was one of those "expert rules and stuff" games, and that they would not be back. I commented to my fellow TDs at the game that had it been two weeks later I would have brought N-S before an AC on my own authority. It seems to me that it was for cases like this that L83 was rewritten. I don't think it had anything at all to do with frivolous appeals. Every TD I know does what they can to prevent frivolous appeals from reaching 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 Thu Jun 26 01:28:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:28:00 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA01200 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:27:53 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-22.ime.net [207.242.17.31]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA08574; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970625112726.30d7ae06@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: FW: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:50 AM 6/25/97 -0600, Richard Willey wrote: >At this point in time, my main question is why the specific focus on >"two-part conventional sequences". >It seems to me that if we are using the "strong willingness" >interpretation, any bidding sequence which demonstrates that opener's >first bid suit is not his best suit should be treated in a similar >manner, regardless of whether this fact become apparent with opener's >initial rebid or on the third/fourth/later round of the auction. But, which bid 'demonstrates that opener's first bid suit is not his best?' In the canape sytems that I am familiar with, an opening bid of 1 Spade does not promise that there is another main suit in the hand -- Spades could be the longest and strongest suit. It is the second bid that reveals (demonstates) the nature of the distribution. As an aside, not that this should be an authority, I recall that in the Naturalists vs Scientists match, the Naturalist (specifically Robson-Forrester) played canape. I also believe that the Naturalists were not permitted to make a cue-bid in a suit of less than a specific length (I think it was four cards). Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 26 02:44:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:44:26 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01657 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:44:18 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id MAA21874; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Jun26.003800.1189.109769; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:40:36 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws'), timg@ime.net (Tim Goodwin) Message-ID: <1997Jun26.003800.1189.109769@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:40:36 -0600 Subject: RE: FW: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Tim Goodwin[SMTP:timg@ime.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 11:56 AM To: Richard Willey; 'bridge-laws' Subject: Re: FW: Conventional bids At 08:50 AM 6/25/97 -0600, Richard Willey wrote: >>At this point in time, my main question is why the specific focus on >>"two-part conventional sequences". >>It seems to me that if we are using the "strong willingness" >>interpretation, any bidding sequence which demonstrates that opener's >>first bid suit is not his best suit should be treated in a similar >>manner, regardless of whether this fact become apparent with opener's >>initial rebid or on the third/fourth/later round of the auction. >But, which bid 'demonstrates that opener's first bid suit is not his best?' >In the canape sytems that I am familiar with, an opening bid of 1 Spade does >not promise that there is another main suit in the hand -- Spades could be >the longest and strongest suit. It is the second bid that reveals >(demonstrates) the nature of the distribution. My guess is that Tim, Eric, and myself are considering three different propositions. I apologize if I am putting words in other people's mouths, but Eric's position would appear to be best stated by his contention that "If a bid may be the start of a two-part conventional sequence (even though it may also not be) it should be considered conventional." You appear to be stating that if a bid IS the start of a two-part conventional sequence it should be considered conventional, however, if the bid might include non conventional options, than the bid should not necessarily be deemed conventional. The example you seem to be suggesting is a Canape style 1S opening which MIGHT be made on either AQJ4 or QJT963 AJT642 J --- A86 QJ3 AQ4 My position is that any treatment which suggests that bids which MIGHT include non-conventional options should be treated as non-conventional will run into problems. For example, Ron Klinger's Power system has a 1C opening which MIGHT be a perfectly normal 1C opener, but I wouldn't want to try to argue that this 1C opening is not a conventional opening. My primary problem with Eric's position, as I mentioned before, is his insistence on the concept of a "two-part" conventional sequence. There are numerous different bidding sequences following either a Standard American style 1m opening or a Precision style 1D opening which show that opener temporized by bidding a 3 card minor suit, rather than opening a "better" 4 card major. In some cases in Precision, a bidder with open a 4 card diamond suit instead of showing a 5 card club suit. These distributional details are typically not shown until after the second round of the auction. To me, Eric's definition of what demonstrates "willingness to play" in a named denomination should not require artificially discriminating between the 2nd round of an auction and later rounds of the auction. If I were tying to define a concept such as willingness to play in the named denomination, I would base this on whether or not an opening bid is forcing. Opening bids which are not forcing, should certainly demonstrate a willingness to play in the named denomination. Opening bids which can not NORMALLY be passed, should not. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 26 03:51:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 03:51:54 +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 DAA02063 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 03:51:40 +1000 Received: from cph61.ppp.dknet.dk (cph61.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.61]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA13100 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:51:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: New Law 83 Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:51:30 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33b25a1c.3450581@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970625090416.006c0d10@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970625090416.006c0d10@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, 25 Jun 1997 09:04:16 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I felt that E-W had been damaged by misinformation, and encouraged them = to >appeal. Why not simply rule misinformation, and let the misinformers worry about appealing? L81C6 gives the TD the right (and duty) to rule when he becomes aware of an irregularity. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 26 04:24:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 04:24:19 +1000 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA02219 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 04:24:12 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-ppp-ls-155.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.191]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA06560; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 11:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <33B0148A.3401@lightspeed.net> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:40:10 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: New Law 83 References: <3.0.1.32.19970625090416.006c0d10@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > Less than two weeks before the new Laws went into effect I was called to > the table at our weekly unit game. N-S were experienced club players; E-W > were relative novices. With South dealer, the bidding had gone > 1H-1S-2H-2S-4D. West inquired as to the meaning of the 4D bid. North > replied that it was "standard; just bridge". West felt entitled to an > explanation of what North meant by that, and called for a TD. West did everything right. North is obnoxious. I had a similar thing happen to me at an ACBL nationals when a person refused to explain their pre-empting style, simply saying, "standard." Also, not particularly relevent to anything, I think playing 4D as a splinter in that sequence is substantially inferior to a long-suit slam try. (I assume there are no passes in the given auction.) > > In our area, any experienced player would take 4D as a splinter raise, > promising at most a singleton; South did indeed have a singleton diamond. > E-W, however, were not experienced players, and had not encountered this > bid before. > > In an attempt to get North to disclose the meaning of 4D, I asked a series > of leading questions: > Do you have any agreement with your partner as to the meaning of 4D? > Do you have any other agreements that would help partner ascertain the > meaning of 4D? > Is there anything in your general style that would lead partner to an > interpretation of your 4D bid? > > North insisted that there were no pertinent agreements, that this was "just > bridge", and that the Laws didn't require her to teach her opponents how to > play bridge. As I was unwilling to call North a liar, or accuse her of a > C&E offense, I ordered that play continue. Ouch. We know North is being deliberately non-cooperative, because North obviously has some meaning in mind with "just bridge." Also that pure shoveled substance about not teaching opponents bridge does not properly apply except in unusual cases. North is not being forthright and should have been forced to answer the question. > > West cashed a diamond against 4H, then, still unaware of the fact that > declarer had shown diamond shortness with her 4D bid, continued diamonds, > which allowed 4H to make. > > I felt that E-W had been damaged by misinformation, and encouraged them to > appeal. They wanted no part of any appeal. They had come to play for fun, > not to get into "legal hassles". They respectfully informed me that the > clubs in which they usually play didn't have any truck with things like > appeals, and they had come to the unit game unaware that this was one of > those "expert rules and stuff" games, and that they would not be back. > I think bridge is to be played by the rules, and here it wasn't. Apparently South didn't correct either. I hesitate to be harsh to one of our fine posters, but this is a completely ludicrous non-ruling. An AC is totally unnecessary. Any competent TD can and should adjust the score right there. I generally dislike procedural penalties, but I'd also give N-S a PP, even at a club game, even if they owned the club. E-W should never, never have to be on the appealing side when they are the victims of gross misconduct. E-W should get an apology from the director (and a free play might be nice). N-S should have been firmly educated as to their duties. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 26 04:59:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 04:59:48 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA02439 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 04:59:42 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id OAA12059 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:59:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970625150033.00691b70@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 15:00:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: FW: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <1997Jun26.003800.1189.109769@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:40 PM 6/25/97 -0600, Richard wrote: >My position is that any treatment which suggests that bids which MIGHT >include non-conventional options should be treated as non-conventional >will run into problems. For example, Ron Klinger's Power system has a 1C >opening which MIGHT be a perfectly normal 1C opener, but I wouldn't want >to try to argue that this 1C opening is not a conventional opening. > >My primary problem with Eric's position, as I mentioned before, is his >insistence on the concept of a "two-part" conventional sequence. There >are numerous different bidding sequences following either a Standard >American style 1m opening or a Precision style 1D opening which show that >opener temporized by bidding a 3 card minor suit, rather than opening a >"better" 4 card major. In some cases in Precision, a bidder with open a >4 card diamond suit instead of showing a 5 card club suit. These >distributional details are typically not shown until after the second >round of the auction. To me, Eric's definition of what demonstrates >"willingness to play" in a named denomination should not require >artificially discriminating between the 2nd round of an auction and later >rounds of the auction. > >If I were tying to define a concept such as willingness to play in the >named denomination, I would base this on whether or not an opening bid is >forcing. Opening bids which are not forcing, should certainly >demonstrate a willingness to play in the named denomination. Opening >bids which can not NORMALLY be passed, should not. This has been a most illuminating discussion. It's clear from Richard's reply to my latest posting that the position I proposed regarding the conventional nature of canape openings is now fully understood. At this point, having reviewed what everyone has had to say and having thought on it further, I've come to decide that my proposal is not a good one. Even with "strong willingness", a canape opening, although not showing willingness, does not show what I earlier called "not-willingness". Calling such openings "the start of a two-part conventional sequence" merely begs the question of what makes a sequence conventional. Richard's (and others') point that "not-willingness" may be manifested on the third or fourth round of the auction (and that this can sometimes happen in totally natural sequences) is well taken. Moreover, we'd be well served by reading the new definition as straightforwardly as possible. This suggests that a canape opening on a three-card suit, which does not necessarily "convey... willingness" but, obviously, does "convey... length (three cards or more), is not conventional. Of course, as has already been said, a canape continuation, when made, is conventional. I do not go as far as saying that any non-forcing opening bid is perforce non-conventional. But I'm now convinced that any non-forcing opening bid that promises at least three cards in the suit is indeed non-conventional. The Precision 1D opening, which can be made on a two-card suit, would, under the above interpretation, be conventional. 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 Jun 26 06:00:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:00:23 +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 GAA02715 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:00:17 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA14456 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970625160127.00691a20@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:01:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New Law 83 In-Reply-To: <33b25a1c.3450581@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970625090416.006c0d10@cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19970625090416.006c0d10@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:51 PM 6/25/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:04:16 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: >>I felt that E-W had been damaged by misinformation, and encouraged them to >>appeal. > >Why not simply rule misinformation, and let the misinformers >worry about appealing? L81C6 gives the TD the right (and duty) >to rule when he becomes aware of an irregularity. Perhaps I was too timid. I saw the situation as: - I thought North knew what was going on. Without looking at South's hand, I expected diamond shortness. This is the usual treatment in our area, and, I believe, North knew it. I thought North was being deliberately obtuse. - OTOH, North denied having any pertinent agreements or special knowledge. At 11:40 AM 6/24/97 -0700, John wrote: >Also, not particularly relevent to anything, I think playing 4D as a >splinter in that sequence is substantially inferior to a long-suit slam >try. (I assume there are no passes in the given auction.) ...and North made something like this very point, suggesting that, as far as her agreements were concerned, 4D could have been natural, but that she didn't care and didn't (legally) "have to work it out" for her opponents' benefit. Legal niceties notwithstanding, ruling misinformation would have been taken (by both sides) as a determination of "liar". I just wasn't prepared to do this, especially (I reluctantly confess) against a regular who plays in that game a lot more frequently than I direct it. In a similar situation in the future, I'll make the same ruling, but insist that it be reviewed by an AC. I'm delighted to have that option under the new L83. 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 Jun 26 06:16:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:16:00 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA02815 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 06:15:54 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-22.ime.net [207.242.17.31]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15410; Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:15:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 16:15:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970625161533.30d72594@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: FW: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:00 PM 6/25/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Of course, as has already been said, a canape continuation, >when made, is conventional. I would disagree. What makes the bid of a second suit conventional? For the purposes of this discussion, let consider this auction: 1H-1S; 3D where 1H shows 4+ and the 3D bid reveals that diamonds are longer than hearts (opener is either 45 or 46 or 56 in hearts and diamonds), and where 3D shows better than a minimum opening. My contention is that neither 1H nor 3D is conventional. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 26 22:55:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:55:13 +1000 Received: from punt-2.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 WAA06717 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:55:05 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0503364; 26 Jun 97 2:46 BST Message-ID: <9F5MVgAZxZszEwiJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:31:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: FW: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970625150033.00691b70@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote >Moreover, we'd be well served by reading the new definition as >straightforwardly as possible. This suggests that a canape opening on a >three-card suit, which does not necessarily "convey... willingness" but, >obviously, does "convey... length (three cards or more), is not >conventional. Of course, as has already been said, a canape continuation, >when made, is conventional. If this is the case, then it gives SOs the right to regulate canape openings by regulating the rebid rather than the opening. In other words, you can open 1S with 3S's and 7H's, but you are not permitted to rebid hearts [or anything else!] to show such a hand. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 27 03:46:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:46:30 +1000 Received: from freya.van.hookup.net (root@freya.van.hookup.net [207.102.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA10613 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:46:23 +1000 Received: from wphnvffu (100mile-28.netshop.net [204.174.70.123]) by freya.van.hookup.net (8.8.5/1.25) with ESMTP id KAA10303 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199706261746.KAA10303@freya.van.hookup.net> From: "sund" To: Subject: Fatuous, Childish Reactions Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:41:14 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I left this list some time ago, it was being used as a forum for debate on issues of bridge laws. If David Stevenson will allow me a little more room to explore the problem with the ' one UI fits all' approach of the laws, even if I fatuously react childishly, I will continue. Post-UI (the normal case): You open 4Hts with a wild freak, partner makes a slow double of an overcall. You pull. Here, most would agree that the UI is pressing enough to bring on the LA arguments and opener will do himself no good to argue that he always intended to bid 5 Hts over any action by partner. The committee will decide the hand on 'normal' UI-LA grounds. No implication that Opener did anything unethical. It matters not what _he_ would have done (after the UI) but what his peers would do ( or consider doing). Most have no major problem with that. Pre-UI (the abnormal case): You transfer, partner explains your call as transfer. You are in possession of UI. Most still agree, but some start to argue the normal Post-UI-LA case and others feel differently. David Stevenson explained: "With some of your partners [not all] you play Transfers. So do I. " You are playing with a partner with whom you play transfers. "Fine. " You bid a transfer. Fine. " Your partner says "Transfer". This is correct under ACBL regulations,so I believe. It is UI to you, but that surely does not matter, because you have made a transfer, and it matters not that partner describes it correctly. " I am quoting David out of context and if any feel that changes the meaning of his comments, feel free to point out the change in interpretation. Many, including myself, agree with Davids comments above. ( well, not the ones in the subject line of this post :-) ). The difference I am trying to explore between 'Post-UI' and ' Pre- UI" is: Post-UI essentially has to deal with only the recipients actions _after_ the receipt of the UI. Pre-UI cases are heavily involved in what occurred _before_ the UI. Take Davids transfer comments above... everything seems fine until we delve in the 'psychic transfer' case in "Committee Meeting Night Before Last". Or the case I clumsily made in "UI from partner explanation" that David was commenting on above. To some in the psychic case the decision was the usual 'post-UI' decision. What would his peers have done if they had psyched a transfer and never heard the explanation? You apply Davids comments above and get on with it. In "UI from partner explanation" , the example was of a player who normally does not play transfers and possibly had been awakened by the explanation _BUT_ his hand fit a normal transfer hand. 1NT - 2Di with xx AKxxx Axx Jxx even tho' it also fit a normal Forcing stayman hand ( the system he usually plays). The point I was trying to make was the lofty statements about "intent does not matter" and what matters is what peers would do without the UI are based on pretty thin logical ice. The 2way-staymaner would have been taking 100% advantage of UI. The psycher would have been taking 0% advantage of UI. However happy you are with the UI laws and appeal process, you must allow some of us to look at the current structure with a strong squint when we see 2 cases being debated that could be so easy to come to the wrong decision by applying the current criteria. People tend to bring their biases with them to a new forum. So, I will answer Davids frustration with those who see the problem in ruling against the psycher. It comes from applying 'common sense' logic to the current laws of bridge ( not a wise move ). > Of course he does not accuse anyone of lying. he=the TD/AC The Felon testified that he was home watching TV. The Judge found him guilty of the robbery. Is there a universe with people who do not believe that the Felon was also guilty of perjury? Is there a universe where the Felon could have been home watching TV AND also have committed the robbery? No Quantum arguments, please. :-) No, the judge ( the TD/AC ) doesn't accuse South of lying. I'm blushing to think that I fell into the infantile trap of thinking that would be a valid conclusion from the ruling to adjust the score, when the alleged UI added nothing to Souths knowledge of his partnership agreements. Likely it _was_ a childish reaction. > Now in the modern method of arguing, people often *accuse themselves*. > No credence should ever be given to this sort of fatuosity. I've always been given to fatuity and was quite put out to have been demoted to mere fatuousity. :-< > > In other words, if the TD/AC decide to adjust in this case, South may > say "They are calling me a liar!". Well, they aren't, and no notice > should be taken of such a childish reaction. Ok, can we get back to debating the flaws in the current laws and their implementation ... they weren't handed to us in stone, were they? Should the laws not clearly reflect the difference I am trying to make between Post-UI and Pre-UI problems? jerry sund sund@netshop.net From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 28 00:15:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:15:36 +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 AAA16827 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 00:15:30 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA05106 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970627101738.006c0294@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:17:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <9F5MVgAZxZszEwiJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970625150033.00691b70@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:31 PM 6/25/97 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>Moreover, we'd be well served by reading the new definition as >>straightforwardly as possible. This suggests that a canape opening on a >>three-card suit, which does not necessarily "convey... willingness" but, >>obviously, does "convey... length (three cards or more), is not >>conventional. Of course, as has already been said, a canape continuation, >>when made, is conventional. > > If this is the case, then it gives SOs the right to regulate canape >openings by regulating the rebid rather than the opening. In other >words, you can open 1S with 3S's and 7H's, but you are not permitted to >rebid hearts [or anything else!] to show such a hand. Yes, that is my current reading of the new definition. I believe that a rebid which guarantees (as opposed to "could have") equal or greater length in the rebid suit is conventional, and that this gives SOs a "hook" to regulate (i.e. ban) canape methods. Of course, I also think that an SO would be foolish to do so, other than in the context of something like "Classic Bridge". 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 Jun 28 01:56:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:56:24 +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 BAA17221 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:56:08 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:54:55 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 16:54:53 BST Message-Id: <393.9706271554@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: Conventional bids Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric, David, and BLML Eric Landau wrote > At 11:31 PM 6/25/97 +0100, David wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote > > > >>Moreover, we'd be well served by reading the new definition as > >>straightforwardly as possible. This suggests that a canape opening on a > >>three-card suit, which does not necessarily "convey... willingness" but, > >>obviously, does "convey... length (three cards or more), is not > >>conventional. Of course, as has already been said, a canape continuation, > >>when made, is conventional. > > > > If this is the case, then it gives SOs the right to regulate canape > >openings by regulating the rebid rather than the opening. In other > >words, you can open 1S with 3S's and 7H's, but you are not permitted to > >rebid hearts [or anything else!] to show such a hand. > > Yes, that is my current reading of the new definition. I believe that a > rebid which guarantees (as opposed to "could have") equal or greater length > in the rebid suit is conventional, and that this gives SOs a "hook" to > regulate (i.e. ban) canape methods. > > Of course, I also think that an SO would be foolish to do so, other than in > the context of something like "Classic Bridge". > As David has got fond of saying "I may be missing something, but ..." What good is a definition of conventional if bidding your longest suit (at any stage in the auction) is regarded as conventional? Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 28 02:15:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 02:15:45 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17479 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 02:15:40 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id MAA14911 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Jun28.001000.1189.110427; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:11:51 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jun28.001000.1189.110427@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:11:51 -0600 Subject: FW: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 10:54 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Conventional bids >At 11:31 PM 6/25/97 +0100, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >> >>>Moreover, we'd be well served by reading the new definition as >>>straightforwardly as possible. This suggests that a canape opening on a >>>three-card suit, which does not necessarily "convey... willingness" but, >>>obviously, does "convey... length (three cards or more), is not >>>conventional. Of course, as has already been said, a canape continuation, >>>when made, is conventional. >> >> If this is the case, then it gives SOs the right to regulate canape >>openings by regulating the rebid rather than the opening. In other >>words, you can open 1S with 3S's and 7H's, but you are not permitted to >>rebid hearts [or anything else!] to show such a hand. >Yes, that is my current reading of the new definition. I believe that a >rebid which guarantees (as opposed to "could have") equal or greater length >in the rebid suit is conventional, and that this gives SOs a "hook" to >regulate (i.e. ban) canape methods. I for one would appreciate a slightly more detailed explanation of how you came to this conclusion. To go back to the original "willingness" definition which you proposed, since a canape style sequence shows greater length in the second suit than in the first, it would seem clear that if the canape opening demonstrated a willingness to play in the named suit, through transitivity, the bid in a new suit MUST demonstrate willingness to play as well. The crux of the matter would appear to be that a canape style bid in a new suit conveys "a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named". In this case, that the length of the original suit bid is less than or equal to the length of the new suit. However, by this same logic, it would appear as if almost any bid which occurred on the second round of the auction could be treated as convention. For example, consider the following Standard American bidding sequence. 1D - 1N 2H The 2H bid does not necessarily say anything much about the heart suit. Opener might only have a three card heart suit. But it does convey very specific information about the opener's diamonds. Specifically, the length of the diamond suit must be greater than that of the heart suit. If we are going to treat a reverse as a convention, than we are essentially saying that the Sos' have the right to ban anything they don't personally like, simply by restricting virtually any follow-up sequence. The 9-11 HCP NT comes to mind. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 28 04:10:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 04:10:48 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [204.97.248.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18027 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 04:10:42 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-20.ime.net [207.242.17.29]) by ime.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA20316; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970627141020.32cf33e2@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: FW: Conventional bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:11 PM 6/27/97 -0600, Richard Willey wrote: > ---------- >From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] >Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 10:54 AM >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: Conventional bids > >>At 11:31 PM 6/25/97 +0100, David wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote >>> >>>>Moreover, we'd be well served by reading the new definition as >>>>straightforwardly as possible. This suggests that a canape opening on >a >>>>three-card suit, which does not necessarily "convey... willingness" >but, >>>>obviously, does "convey... length (three cards or more), is not >>>>conventional. Of course, as has already been said, a canape >continuation, >>>>when made, is conventional. >>> >>> If this is the case, then it gives SOs the right to regulate canape >>>openings by regulating the rebid rather than the opening. In other >>>words, you can open 1S with 3S's and 7H's, but you are not permitted to >>>rebid hearts [or anything else!] to show such a hand. > >>Yes, that is my current reading of the new definition. I believe that a >>rebid which guarantees (as opposed to "could have") equal or greater >length >>in the rebid suit is conventional, and that this gives SOs a "hook" to >>regulate (i.e. ban) canape methods. > >I for one would appreciate a slightly more detailed explanation of how >you came to this conclusion. Pretend for a moment that the American order is the natural order and you will start to understand Eric's position. To do things 'backwards' is unnatural and thus a convention. ACBL has been using this kind of thinking for decades and it has earned them a lot of respect. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 28 04:40:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 04:40:37 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18180 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 04:40:29 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id OAA27619 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970627144241.006ae504@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:42:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Canape (WAS: Conventional bids) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a dutiful ACBL TD, I've taken my best shot at coming up with a rationale for canape methods being treated as conventional, which would have justified the ACBL's (IMO inevitable) continuing to regulate them. But the consensus of the group seems to be that this is nonsense (or, at best, represents a uniquely North American perspective!). So I now give up trying, and concede to the consensus: Canape methods are not conventional. To be honest, I'm pleased with this result, as I have no wish to see SOs banning canape from tournament play. Now the challenge will be to get the ACBL to accept this interpretation sometime before the start of the 22nd century. 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 Jun 28 07:04:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:04:59 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18796 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:04:53 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id RAA12058 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:04:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Jun28.045700.1189.110533; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:01:09 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jun28.045700.1189.110533@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:01:09 -0600 Subject: FW: Canape (WAS: Conventional bids) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Eric Landau[SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 3:02 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Canape (WAS: Conventional bids) >As a dutiful ACBL TD, I've taken my best shot at coming up with a rationale >for canape methods being treated as conventional, which would have >justified the ACBL's (IMO inevitable) continuing to regulate them. But the >consensus of the group seems to be that this is nonsense (or, at best, >represents a uniquely North American perspective!). So I now give up >trying, and concede to the consensus: Canape methods are not conventional. Actually, I'm not sure that the ACBL does regulate canape methods. Blue Team Club uses both Canape openings and Canape response sequences and is a perfectly legitimate system to use. The recent addition of the GCC clauses "Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing or better values. May NOT be part of a relay sequence" and "All Constructive Calls, starting with the opening bidder's second call" permits the use of the Neapolitan 2C/2D sequences which were the only real stumbling block for this system. Roman Club, with forcing limited opening bids can NOT be played in most events in the US, however, the stumbling block for this system is not the canape openings per-see, but rather the Herbert negative which is required to support them. This is not to say that I don't think ACBL wouldn't LIKE to regulate Canape styles. Frankly with the number of anti Canape letters which the bulletin was publishing, I'm surprised that they haven't tried something already. Thankfully, no one has come up with the obvious extension to current ACBL policy. If the ACBL can effectively ban the super weak NT opening by legislating that players may not use conventional bids following a <10 HCP NT, I'm not sure what's to prevent them from simply banning the use of any type of conventional bids during any sequences by a player who uses canape. IE, If I play a canape style opening system, I may not use Stayman, Blackwood, or any other conventions. In either case, a player is making a natural opening. I'm not sure what the difference is. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 28 07:54:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:54:54 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA19010 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:54:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1106819; 27 Jun 97 22:52 BST Message-ID: <4OelHAAr5CtzEwbZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:19:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <393.9706271554@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote >Eric, David, and BLML >As David has got fond of saying "I may be missing something, but ..." > >What good is a definition of conventional if bidding your longest suit >(at any stage in the auction) is regarded as conventional? Yes, well, hmph. I suppose it is time to answer this. While I can understand the reasoning behind having a definition of a Convention and the reasoning behind the actual definition, I believe the law-makers have got it quite wrong. My apologies to the law-makers who read BLML: I think it was very difficult, but I do not like what we have finished with one bit. Why do we need a definition of a Convention? The only answer that I have seen that has any credence IMO is to stop the ACBL going mad - and that's not much of a reason! First, do we need a definition of Convention? Not in my view. I would leave it to custom and practice, plus directives from the SO. Why? Well, first it is very difficult to get a real definition, while custom and practice works quite well: we all know in most cases quite instintively whether a call is conventional. Second, directives do not need to be full and accurate. For example, rather than defining conventional, an SO might merely note that opening bids of 1m that may be on 2- cards are conventional, while opening bids of 1M that may be on 3- cards are conventional, without trying to define everything. Or an SO could say that a canape opening is to be treated as natural, or as conventional. Third, it seems to me that with the different development of systems in different parts of the world, calls that are considered conventional in some places are considered natural in others: 3card 1D openings being an example: in most of EBU/WBU territory such strange things would be considered totally unnatural and thus conventional! Second, what is such a definition needed for? It seems to be used for defining what an SO can regulate, also for how you deal with an insufficient bid. Lets consider the three things in turn [three?]. Why you need to control SO's ability to regulate natural bids is beyond me. I think it is fairly silly, but I appreciate that a large number of people on RGB and BLML think otherwise, especially those under the aegis of the ACBL. Perhaps it all came from the 1950's, when to play a raise to three of a major as limit was banned for a time in NAmerica. Why do I think it is silly? Because I do not see the difference between whether you allow people to play Weak Twos or Blackwood: if you trust your SO they will make sensible decisions: forcing them by Law to allow Weak Twos but allowing them to ban Blackwood seems a strange arrangement to me. Hopwever, I suppose there is something in the argument that if you are controlling the SO's ability to regulate, you should not let them define the boundaries. However, take for a moment the premise that it is reasonable to make this distinction, why do we need a complicated rule as to what is conventional? Consider bids for a moment: any bid that does not suggest either that this is a place to play or that this is the longest suit is conventional. Of course this will include several things as conventional that probably shouldn't be [and vv] but does it *matter*? If the SO regulates totally wrong then you are in trouble anyway: if not, what difference does it make? Perhaps we should just rewrite L40D as follows: D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of partnership agreements about calls that do not either indicate a place to play or show the shape of the hand by bidding suits in order of length. They may also regulate the use of partnership agreements in the play. Zonal organizations may, in addition, regulate any partnership understandings that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength; Zonal organizations may delegate this responsibility. How about an insufficient bid? In the 1987 Laws it made a difference whether the insufficient bid was conventional: in the 1997 Laws it makes a difference whether both the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination are conventional: so we have two different uses for a convention. Let me make it clear that I am not at all keen on this Law: it would be far simpler and IMO generally acceptable if they had decided to take no notice of whether the insufficient bid was conventional, thus removing two problems, namely [a] insufficient bids are *never* conventional by agreement and [b] the principle of finding out from a player what he intended so that the TD can then give the table UI seems somewhat ludicrous. If someone calls 1D over 1NT, I cannot see why he should not correct it to 2D without penalty [if 2D would have been natural]. The fact that he originally bid 1D is UI in the 1997 Laws, and no-one needs to find out whether he intended to bid diamonds naturally or otherwise. So if I had my way, I would have only had a difference based on whether the new bid would be conventional. Not allowing someone to change 1D over 1NT to 2D without penalty seems reasonable if they could not have bid 2D naturally in the first place. This particular argument I did make to the Lawmakers in plenty of time for 1997: it was included in a longish document I sent them about five years ago: regrettably they did not accept the argument. Anyway, what about the definition of conventional? Again, why do we need a complicated one? Suppose that over 1NT I bid 1D, intending to bid it as a defence to their strong club: I show that diamonds are leadable, always guaranteeing the ace. By some readings of the new definition this is natural: do you think I should be allowed to correct to 2D without penalty when I could not if it showed the ace of hearts? Flim-flam! While we have this unnecessary part of the insufficient bid law there is no reason again why a very simple definition of convention should not suffice. Suppose 1D is natural: to correct, 2D must be natural as well. Surely a simple definition of natural will do? Why should he be allowed to correct to a canape 2D? or to a 3+card 2D? For this law to make sense he should not be allowed to correct to 2D without penalty unless 2D shows a longest suit - and that is what most people think a natural bid is! There again, one solution would be for L27 to be re-written to include any definition: it is too long to include here, but just consider it saying along the lines of *any* insufficient bid may be corrected to ... unless the pair has a partnership agreement that this bid does not show length in the suit bid. What about alerting? Well, it is a matter of regulation for the SO. If they need a definition of conventional they can create one: the EBU already does for their regulations. ---------- To summarise my views. We do not need a definition of a Convention in the Law book. If we are going to have such a definition, then it does not need to be complicated nor is there any advantage in it being so. We do not need to forbid SOs from regulating natural bids. If we are going to forbid them, let us make the rule simple, and perhaps include it in the Law. Whether an insufficient bid is conventional should be irrelevant. Whether the next sufficient bid is conventional is relevant but does not need any complicated rules: best if it is included in the Law, or left to custom and practice. Alerting is not a matter of law so not relevant. To return to Robin's question it is my view that the lawmakers have gone wrong by including a definition of Convention, and also by making it very complicated. They also seem to have gone wrong because it seems to be flawed and subject to several interpretations. So to argue about whether the definition of Convention is any good is no help. We are stuck with it to 2007, and we must just make the best of it, interpret it in a not unreasonable fashion and realise that it is not that important anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 28 12:16:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:16:22 +1000 Received: from mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA19686 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:16:16 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME ([207.116.49.98]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA29614 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 02:15:42 +0000 Message-ID: <33B49E03.19E2@worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:15:47 -0700 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Fwd: Canape (WAS: Conventional bids)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > As a dutiful ACBL TD, I've taken my best shot at coming up with a rationale > for canape methods being treated as conventional, which would have > justified the ACBL's (IMO inevitable) continuing to regulate them. But the > consensus of the group seems to be that this is nonsense (or, at best, > represents a uniquely North American perspective!). So I now give up > trying, and concede to the consensus: Canape methods are not conventional. > > To be honest, I'm pleased with this result, as I have no wish to see SOs > banning canape from tournament play. > > Now the challenge will be to get the ACBL to accept this interpretation > sometime before the start of the 22nd century. > > 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 Has the concept of treatment completely disappeared? It seems there was a time that natural bidding (e.g. canape) that was unexpected was considered a treatment (i.e. not a convention) and required an alert because it was unexpected. -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 28 17:48:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:48:46 +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 RAA20459 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:48:41 +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 RAA04858; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:48:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.63.221.27]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA00660; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:48:35 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:48:35 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199706280748.RAA00660@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: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional bids Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 PM 27/06/97 +0100, you wrote: >Robin Barker wrote >>Eric, David, and BLML > >>As David has got fond of saying "I may be missing something, but ..." >> >>What good is a definition of conventional if bidding your longest suit >>(at any stage in the auction) is regarded as conventional? > > Yes, well, hmph. I suppose it is time to answer this. ...cut > We do not need a definition of a Convention in the Law book. > If we are going to have such a definition, then it does not need to be >complicated nor is there any advantage in it being so. I wasn't paying too much attention during the discussion of whether the 10 was an honour card (by definition), and if so whether a TD could be over-ruled on a point of law. The definition of convention seems to offer a much more fruitful area of concern. When ruling for an insufficient bid, should I tell the offender that according to my reading of the definition of a conventional bid, his corrected bid is conventional (partner barrred etc.), but that an AC may have a different opinion. In other words, do I have to offer offenders the right to appeal my decision? > We do not need to forbid SOs from regulating natural bids. > If we are going to forbid them, let us make the rule simple, and >perhaps include it in the Law. > Whether an insufficient bid is conventional should be irrelevant. What about the sequence 1C (1C)? If the offenders play 1C (2C) as natural, would you allow it, even if they play precision (or the possibility of a two card club suit), and have evidently not seen the opponents opening bid? Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 29 00:22:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:22:37 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA23874 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 00:22:27 +1000 Received: from dmatters.demon.co.uk ([158.152.69.76]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0722532; 28 Jun 97 15:19 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:04:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Martin Taylor Reply-To: Martin Taylor Subject: A scoring question MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This isn't going to be a point of lengthy debate. I'm just an ordinary player who wants an insight into an aspect of scoring. In a certain Swiss Pairs match, there are 54 tables. It's 8 board matches, so there are 10 boards in play in each section. There must be 6 sections. Its the sixth and final match. We've played well up to now but play badly on the last match and we've definitely lost. However when the results arrive, I am surprised to see we lost 20-0. We had at least one 50% result because we were awarded an average due to a misboard by the previous table. On inspecting the results there are no less than 11 tables where the result was 20-0. BTW there is at least one of every other score but for instance there is only one 15-5 and one 14- 6. Is this possible, or even plausible? None of the other matches had more than 7 20-0 results. As a more straightforward technical question: Are vps awarded on each board ranking, or as a ranking of the match result in total? In the former case I can understand the skew of the results, but not why we got 20-0 (we had an average by definition), in the latter I can understand the 20-0 but not the skew. Martin Taylor From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 30 08:35:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:35:47 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA02151 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:35:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1012950; 29 Jun 97 23:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:12:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [Fwd: Canape (WAS: Conventional bids)] In-Reply-To: <33B49E03.19E2@worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Kopera wrote >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> As a dutiful ACBL TD, I've taken my best shot at coming up with a rationale >> for canape methods being treated as conventional, which would have >> justified the ACBL's (IMO inevitable) continuing to regulate them. But the >> consensus of the group seems to be that this is nonsense (or, at best, >> represents a uniquely North American perspective!). So I now give up >> trying, and concede to the consensus: Canape methods are not conventional. >> >> To be honest, I'm pleased with this result, as I have no wish to see SOs >> banning canape from tournament play. >> >> Now the challenge will be to get the ACBL to accept this interpretation >> sometime before the start of the 22nd century. >Has the concept of treatment completely disappeared? It seems there was >a time that natural bidding (e.g. canape) that was unexpected was >considered a treatment (i.e. not a convention) and required an alert >because it was unexpected. > Disappeared from what? Treatments are matters of regulation not Law. Eric's quoted article refers to whether canape methods are conventional or natural so as to decide whether an SO can regulate them. That's a matter of Law, and treatments do not [and did not] come into it. You refer to alerts. Any SO can include treatments in their definition of what is alertable if they wish. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 30 09:11:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:11:48 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA02285 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:11:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0707338; 29 Jun 97 23:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:22:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A scoring question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Taylor wrote >This isn't going to be a point of lengthy debate. I'm just an ordinary >player who wants an insight into an aspect of scoring. > >In a certain Swiss Pairs match, there are 54 tables. It's 8 board >matches, so there are 10 boards in play in each section. There must be 6 >sections. I do not quite understand this. In most Swiss Pairs events 54 tables would be one section, certainly no more than two. The boards are irrelevant: they are the same everywhere, and in fact there will be 11 sets in use. >Its the sixth and final match. We've played well up to now but play >badly on the last match and we've definitely lost. > >However when the results arrive, I am surprised to see we lost 20-0. We >had at least one 50% result because we were awarded an average due to a >misboard by the previous table. On inspecting the results there are no >less than 11 tables where the result was 20-0. BTW there is at least one >of every other score but for instance there is only one 15-5 and one 14- >6. > >Is this possible, or even plausible? None of the other matches had more >than 7 20-0 results. It is possible: it is plausible. The skew of results depends on the effect of people playing at that time. Your average is irrelevant. At 11 tables the differences between to two sides was marked: perfectly reasonable. It is my impression that there are more 20-0s in the last match because [a] people are tired and [b] more people are pressing to try and grab a good final match. >As a more straightforward technical question: > >Are vps awarded on each board ranking, or as a ranking of the match >result in total? Result in total. >In the former case I can understand the skew of the results, but not why >we got 20-0 (we had an average by definition), in the latter I can >understand the 20-0 but not the skew. The skew is normal. It just means that at several tables one side tended to get a lot of good results. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 30 09:48:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:48:14 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA02458 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:48:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0528413; 29 Jun 97 23:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:34:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <199706280748.RAA00660@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ardelm@ozemail.com.au wrote >At 10:19 PM 27/06/97 +0100, you wrote: >>Robin Barker wrote >>>Eric, David, and BLML >> >>>As David has got fond of saying "I may be missing something, but ..." >>> >>>What good is a definition of conventional if bidding your longest suit >>>(at any stage in the auction) is regarded as conventional? >> >> Yes, well, hmph. I suppose it is time to answer this. > >...cut > >> We do not need a definition of a Convention in the Law book. >> If we are going to have such a definition, then it does not need to be >>complicated nor is there any advantage in it being so. > >I wasn't paying too much attention during the discussion of whether the 10 >was an honour card (by definition), and if so whether a TD could be >over-ruled on a point of law. The definition of convention seems to offer a >much more fruitful area of concern. When ruling for an insufficient bid, >should I tell the offender that according to my reading of the definition of >a conventional bid, his corrected bid is conventional (partner barrred >etc.), but that an AC may have a different opinion. In other words, do I >have to offer offenders the right to appeal my decision? Whatever the answer to this question, I am sure the answer is the same using the new Definition. It needs interpretation: I merely believe that my approach would make the interpretation simpler: I do not suggest there would be no need for interpretation. [Yay: got the spellchekka back: I wrote `Watever' originally ] >> We do not need to forbid SOs from regulating natural bids. >> If we are going to forbid them, let us make the rule simple, and >>perhaps include it in the Law. >> Whether an insufficient bid is conventional should be irrelevant. > >What about the sequence 1C (1C)? If the offenders play 1C (2C) as natural, >would you allow it, even if they play precision (or the possibility of a two >card club suit), and have evidently not seen the opponents opening bid? First, it is not as obvious as that: there are other reasons for insufficient bids: perhaps he meant to bid 2C and accidentally bid 1C. I think it better *not* to ask. Second, surely you are going to have as many problems with that particular sequence when the 1C is natural [3+ clubs], are you not? There is still a large amount of information. Of course the original 1C bid is UI to partner [L16C, as amended in 1997], and this Law covers this type of problem: Law 27 - Insufficient Bid B. Insufficient Bid Not Accepted If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass. 1. Not Conventional, and Corrected by Lowest Sufficient Bid in Same Denomination (b) Award of Adjusted Score If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score. I think this covers the difficulties adequately whether the 1C is conventional or natural. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 30 23:16:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:16:35 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04368 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:16:28 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA09423 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970630091905.006ab48c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:19:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Mini NTs in the ACBL (WAS: Canape) In-Reply-To: <1997Jun28.045700.1189.110533@azure-tech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:01 PM 6/27/97 -0600, Richard wrote: >This is not to say that I don't think ACBL wouldn't LIKE to regulate >Canape styles. Frankly with the number of anti Canape letters which the >bulletin was publishing, I'm surprised that they haven't tried something >already. Thankfully, no one has come up with the obvious extension to >current ACBL policy. If the ACBL can effectively ban the super weak NT >opening by legislating that players may not use conventional bids >following a <10 HCP NT, I'm not sure what's to prevent them from simply >banning the use of any type of conventional bids during any sequences by >a player who uses canape. Perhaps what's stopping them is all the s--t they've gotten about their policy on mini NT openings, which many regard as blatantly illegal. Even those who favor the policy admit that it's a clever and devious device to take advantage of a loophole in the Laws to contradict their intended spirit, if not their letter. If I might start a new thread here, what does the group think about the legality of the ACBL policy on mini NTs? 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 Jun 30 23:42:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:42:37 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04461 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:42:32 +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/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA11094 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970630094509.006ab518@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:45:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <4OelHAAr5CtzEwbZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <393.9706271554@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 PM 6/27/97 +0100, David wrote: > Why do we need a definition of a Convention? The only answer that I >have seen that has any credence IMO is to stop the ACBL going mad - and >that's not much of a reason! ...unless you happen to live in North America. > First, do we need a definition of Convention? Not in my view. I >would leave it to custom and practice, plus directives from the SO. >Why? Well, first it is very difficult to get a real definition, while >custom and practice works quite well: we all know in most cases quite >instintively whether a call is conventional. Second, directives do not >need to be full and accurate. For example, rather than defining >conventional, an SO might merely note that opening bids of 1m that may >be on 2- cards are conventional, while opening bids of 1M that may be on >3- cards are conventional, without trying to define everything. Or an >SO could say that a canape opening is to be treated as natural, or as >conventional. Third, it seems to me that with the different development >of systems in different parts of the world, calls that are considered >conventional in some places are considered natural in others: 3card 1D >openings being an example: in most of EBU/WBU territory such strange >things would be considered totally unnatural and thus conventional! If we give the ACBL this much power, it won't be long before we in North America are playing a game that the rest of the world won't recognize as bridge. Anyone who doubts this should read the editorial in the March 1997 issue of the ACBL Bulletin. > How about an insufficient bid? In the 1987 Laws it made a difference >whether the insufficient bid was conventional: in the 1997 Laws it makes >a difference whether both the insufficient bid and the lowest sufficient >bid in the same denomination are conventional: so we have two different >uses for a convention. Let me make it clear that I am not at all keen >on this Law: it would be far simpler and IMO generally acceptable if >they had decided to take no notice of whether the insufficient bid was >conventional, thus removing two problems, namely [a] insufficient bids >are *never* conventional by agreement and [b] the principle of finding >out from a player what he intended so that the TD can then give the >table UI seems somewhat ludicrous. If someone calls 1D over 1NT, I >cannot see why he should not correct it to 2D without penalty [if 2D >would have been natural]. The fact that he originally bid 1D is UI in >the 1997 Laws, and no-one needs to find out whether he intended to bid >diamonds naturally or otherwise. This is really the only sensible way to do things. What the current law does is force us to accept the premise that a bid can be "conventional" without being "conventional by agreement". That sounds nonsensical to me, but even if it made sense it would open up a huge can of worms best left sealed. > What about alerting? Well, it is a matter of regulation for the SO. >If they need a definition of conventional they can create one: the EBU >already does for their regulations. They certainly don't need one, and, IMO, shouldn't want one. SOs are free to define any bid as alertable or not. Using "conventional" in the definition of "alertable" only adds complexity and confusion in an area which, in the ACBL at least, is widely regarded as so complex and confusing as to be often mentioned as one of the major causes of the declining popularity of competitive bridge in North America. 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