From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 1 00:34:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 00:34:20 +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 AAA06952 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 00:34:14 +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 KAA20623 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970630103651.006abed8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:36:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [Fwd: Canape (WAS: Conventional bids)] In-Reply-To: <33B49E03.19E2@worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:15 PM 6/27/97 -0700, Michael wrote: >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. The "treatment" concept was an ACBL thing; it was never recognized by the Laws. (The Laws, of course, do not address the issue of what's alertable; that's entirely up to the SO.) It does seem to have disappeared in the latest revision of the ACBL's alert policy. The reason it is no longer relevant is that the ACBL has now decided that any "unexpected" bid, whether a natural bid, treatment, or convention, should be alerted. A number of bids which would be defined as natural bids, as opposed to treatments, have been made alertable, such as low-level penalty doubles and weak 2-bids in clubs. 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 Jul 1 02:43:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:43:04 +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 CAA07645 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:42:57 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-163.innet.be [194.7.10.163]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA28122 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:37:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33B7B095.41D8@innet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:11:49 +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 References: <3.0.1.32.19970623140657.006a705c@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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? I'm back - and I found 826 messages (mostly from the flags mailing list). Wait just a few days longer please ? Besides - not a lot to report, yet. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 1 02:43:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:43:02 +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 CAA07641 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:42:55 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-163.innet.be [194.7.10.163]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA28118 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:37:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33B7A9BF.4303@innet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:42:39 +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: 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > 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. > The European practice of rounding is not a real practice, and it almost got the French calculators in a spot of trouble at the recent European Ladies' Pairs Championships in Montecatini. Second and Third placed pairs had exactly the same number of MP's, after rounding to one decimal. It was decided to recalculate all boards using two decimals, and we were about to start that herculean task when luckily one wrongly scored board was pointed out, which gave the Italian pair an advantage of 2 MP over the French. However, it should be noted that no rounding should ever take place. Consider this : Pair A gets scores of 1.24, 11.24 and 21.24 = total 33.72 Pair B gets scores of 21.18, 11.18 and 1.28 = total 33.64 now round to one decimal : A : 1.2 + 11.2 + 21.2 = 33.6 B : 21.2 + 11.2 + 1.3 = 33.7 All computer scoring should be done with "all" decimals. If results are printed, they shall of course be rounded, but if their is a tie on one decimal, the computer should be able to tell us as many decimals as are needed. As to awarding equal prizes for pairs coming "too" close to each other to split them, I have no "TD" opinion. When I wear a "SO" hat however, I often do put it in the regulations. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 1 02:44:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:44:34 +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 CAA07681 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 02:44:28 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-163.innet.be [194.7.10.163]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA28385 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:39:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33B7E230.4842@innet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:43:28 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Its all gone quiet References: <25375.9706160905@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: > > 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 One reason of course was that I was at the European Championships at Montecatini, where I met fellow list members Eithan Levy and Ian Crorie. 406 messages read - 420 to go !. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 1 03:07:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 03:07:19 +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 DAA07804 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 03:07:13 +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 NAA08468 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:07:05 -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-1997Jul01.010100.1189.110812; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:03:32 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jul01.010100.1189.110812@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: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:03:32 -0600 Subject: Mini-NTs in the ACBL Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk elandau@cais.com said >If I might start a new thread here, what does the group think about the >legality of the ACBL policy on mini NTs? I'll preface everything I'm about to say with the comment that I am not a weak NT player at heart. Frankly, I'm a lot more comfortable playing a Romex style dynamic 1N or some of the other super-strong 1N variants that I am with the 1N's super weak brethren. With that said and done, I have a great many problems with the ACBL's policy which effectively bans the super-weak 1N opening. My biggest problem is NOT the fact that the 1N opening was banned, by rather the method which the ACBL used to restrict the use of this opening. By using what was essentially a loophole in the existing Laws structure, the ACBL went and opened up Pandora's box. The ACBL is openly resorting to games-man-ship in its interpretations of the Laws of bridge, and it is ludicrous to expect that anyone who wants to get their own pet convention or treatment approved will not do the same thing. The ACBL has essentially sanctioned an environment where it is only important to obey the letter of the laws, and not its spirit, and I can't believe that this is going to be a good thing for bridge. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 1 03:27:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 03:27:02 +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 DAA07858 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 03:26:53 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA29697 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:25:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:25:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Mini NTs in the ACBL (WAS: Canape) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970630091905.006ab48c@cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:01 PM 6/27/97 -0600, Richard wrote: > [that's some other Richard (Willey?), not me!] > >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? > Edgar Kaplan unfortunately (in both his and my opinion) believes that the ACBL is acting legally in restricting the use of conventions in response to a sub-10 point notrump. In his capacity as co-chair of the National Laws Commision, he wrote (Letter to Richard Lighton, Mar 15, 1993) "I believe you are confusing possibly ill judged or foolish ACBL "regulations with illegal ones. The ACBL used to have on its books "regulations forbidding a wide-range one-notrump opening, and "barring a weak two-bid with fewer than 5 pts. or 5 cards. These "restrictions on natural bids directly contravened the Laws. The Laws "Commission told the ACBL Board just that, which resulted in the "withdrawal of the regulations. The current regulations, which "replaced the illegal ones, restrict not the natural openings but "the artificial responses to them, which clearly are subject to "the League's authority. " "An analogy: Some players use the "comic notrump"--an overcall of "one notrump is either the normal strong balanced hand or a weak "unbalanced hand with a long suit; partner's two-club response "asks which. The ACBL would be acting illegaly if it barred "pyschic notrump overcalls with an escape suit. However, the "two-club conventional response is another matter--that is under "the League's control. The League must allow psychs even if it "considers them harmful to low-level games, but surely the League "is not required to make it convenient for members to psych. " "Personally, I consider it unwise of the ACBL to try to influence "its' members choice as to the point ranges and promised lengths "of natural bids--bridge instruction, bridge theory, is simply "not its proper function. But neither is it the function of the "Laws Commission to instruct the ACBL Board in wisdom, only "in legality. " Sincerly yours, " Edgar Kaplan " Co-chairman, ACBL Laws Comm." -- Richard Lighton | It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly (lighton@idt.net) | unless one has plenty of work to do. Wood-Ridge NJ | -- Idle thoughts of an Idle Fellow USA | Jerome K. Jerome > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 1 04:33:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 04:33:19 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA08175 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 04:33:10 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id LAA10071; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma009959; Mon, 30 Jun 97 11:40:03 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id LAA10444 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199706301832.LAA10444@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 30 Jun 97 17:20:30 GMT Subject: Re: Mini NTs in the ACBL (WAS: Canape) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If we are to have a discussion, then perhaps the policy could be set out in writing, for the benefit of those of us whose bridge is played outside the control of the ACBL. I assume that, after a mini NT, the ACBL bar any conventional bids by the side who has opened a mini NT Before commenting, however, I'd like to see "chapter and verse". Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 1 05:37:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 05:37:35 +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 FAA08429 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 05:37:28 +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 PAA09829 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:37:12 -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-1997Jul01.032900.1189.110902; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:33:36 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jul01.032900.1189.110902@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: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:33:36 -0600 Subject: FW: Mini NTs in the ACBL (WAS: Canape) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Stephen_Barnfield[SMTP:Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 2:49 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Mini NTs in the ACBL (WAS: Canape) >If we are to have a discussion, then perhaps the policy could be set out in >writing, for the benefit of those of us whose bridge is played outside the >control of the ACBL. I assume that, after a mini NT, the ACBL bar any >conventional bids by the side who has opened a mini NT Before commenting, >however, I'd like to see "chapter and verse". >From the ACBL's General Convention Chart Responses and Rebids Section (ALLOWED) 9. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct overcall (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP). No conventional responses or rebids are allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP. Further, a conventional defense to a conventional defense is not permitted. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 1 13:41:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:41:28 +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 NAA09640 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:41:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1226038; 1 Jul 97 3:52 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 01:59:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mini NTs in the ACBL (WAS: Canape) In-Reply-To: <199706301832.LAA10444@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 >If we are to have a discussion, then perhaps the policy could be set out in >writing, for the benefit of those of us whose bridge is played outside the >control of the ACBL. I assume that, after a mini NT, the ACBL bar any >conventional bids by the side who has opened a mini NT Before commenting, >however, I'd like to see "chapter and verse". ACBL General Convention Chart Responses and Rebids 9. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP). No conventional responses or rebids are allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP. Further, a conventional defense to a conventional defense is not permitted. -- 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 Jul 1 18:00:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 18:00:50 +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 SAA10392 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 18:00:43 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA01897 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:59:49 +0200 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:59:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- In-Reply-To: <33B7A9BF.4303@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > 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. > The European practice of rounding is not a real practice, and it almost > got the French calculators in a spot of trouble at the recent European > Ladies' Pairs Championships in Montecatini. > Second and Third placed pairs had exactly the same number of MP's, after > rounding to one decimal. > It was decided to recalculate all boards using two decimals, and we were > about to start that herculean task when luckily one wrongly scored board > was pointed out, which gave the Italian pair an advantage of 2 MP over > the French. I don't agree with this procedure. If the conditions of contest specify that the scores on the board are calculated with rounding to 1 digit, then one should stick to that and call this a tie. Suppose that after the scores were recalculated, there was still a tied. Now one could argue that had all calculations been done with 64 bit arithmetic instead of the usual 32 bits, there would have been a difference. Would you now call the programmer and ask him to rewrite the scoring program? You can compare it to, say, the long jump. There the distances are measured in 1cm units and if two player both jump 800 cm, then it is a tie, even though you could go out and get a device that can measure the differences in distance a couple of orders of magnitude better. > However, it should be noted that no rounding should ever take place. > Consider this : > > Pair A gets scores of 1.24, 11.24 and 21.24 = total 33.72 > Pair B gets scores of 21.18, 11.18 and 1.28 = total 33.64 > > now round to one decimal : > > A : 1.2 + 11.2 + 21.2 = 33.6 > B : 21.2 + 11.2 + 1.3 = 33.7 > > All computer scoring should be done with "all" decimals. Please define "all". 32 bit arithmetic, 64 bits or perhaps an old CDC with 56 bits? 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 Jul 1 23:32:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:32:24 +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 XAA11238 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:32:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1003909; 1 Jul 97 14:29 BST Message-ID: <3Tj2QrBSsPuzEwyv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:41:54 +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 "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote >On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> > 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. >> The European practice of rounding is not a real practice, and it almost >> got the French calculators in a spot of trouble at the recent European >> Ladies' Pairs Championships in Montecatini. >> Second and Third placed pairs had exactly the same number of MP's, after >> rounding to one decimal. >> It was decided to recalculate all boards using two decimals, and we were >> about to start that herculean task when luckily one wrongly scored board >> was pointed out, which gave the Italian pair an advantage of 2 MP over >> the French. >I don't agree with this procedure. If the conditions of contest specify >that the scores on the board are calculated with rounding to 1 digit, >then one should stick to that and call this a tie. I agree with Henk, and I find it absolutely amazing that after a result has been decided by the normal method, a new method is used to try and change the result! >> However, it should be noted that no rounding should ever take place. Why on earth not? It is a perfectly normal thing to do, so long as you round the final figure. I do not want a score of 58.7610593759206937254860794624396079037364865063333333333.....% thank you very much. >> Consider this : >> >> Pair A gets scores of 1.24, 11.24 and 21.24 = total 33.72 >> Pair B gets scores of 21.18, 11.18 and 1.28 = total 33.64 >> >> now round to one decimal : >> >> A : 1.2 + 11.2 + 21.2 = 33.6 >> B : 21.2 + 11.2 + 1.3 = 33.7 Rounding to one decimal means: Pair A gets scores of 1.24, 11.24 and 21.24 = total 33.72, rounded to 33.7. Pair B gets scores of 21.18, 11.18 and 1.28 = total 33.64, rounded to 33.6. >> All computer scoring should be done with "all" decimals. All scoring should be calculated to as many decimal places as is practical for the computer/brain, and then rounded at the end. -- 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 Jul 2 06:29:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 06:29:02 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA15054 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 06:28:53 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA22055 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 15:28:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca1-15.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.47) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma022039; Tue Jul 1 15:27:38 1997 Message-ID: <33B967AB.6F30@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 13:25:15 -0700 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix13.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: Mini NTs in the ACBL (WAS: Canape) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > ACBL General Convention Chart > > Responses and Rebids > > 9. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP (including those that > have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which > exceeds 3 HCP). No conventional responses or rebids are > allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls > with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range > of greater than 5 HCP. Further, a conventional defense > to a conventional defense is not permitted. As I have stated in the past, I believe the ACBL is misguided in using the approach of restricting conventions over natural bids which are politically disfavored. I'll concede that the ACBL actions are legal under the current laws framework. Ultralight and/or wide-range 1NT openings are natural bids which a SO cannot regulate; however, the ACBL and other SOs have cleverly circumvented the intent of the laws by imposing regulations on the conventional bids which follow these natural openings. It's my belief that if the bridge laws framers wished to allow SOs to regulate natural bids in the manner which the ACBL has chosen, they could have so stated. The ACBL's rationale is that it is providing an entertainment service for the bridge masses, and that unusual methods such as ultralight or wide-range 1NT openings make some quantum of the masses uncomfortable. The entertainment mission is not accomplished if participants are uncomfortable with the opponent's bidding methods. Viewed in this light, the ACBL's approach is most reasonable when applied to limited or open events; it is less reasonable when applied to top-flighted or upper level events. I would propose that for top-flighted events, there be no restriction on conventions after a natural opening bid. If a SO wishes, it could ewperiment with a one-year probationary trial period to see if insoluble problems arise (I don't think they will). Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 2 09:47:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 09:47:54 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA15876 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 09:47:48 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-10.ts-7.lax.idt.net [169.132.210.10]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA06664; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 19:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33B99605.C961B871@idt.net> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 16:43:01 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jonbriss@ix13.ix.netcom.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mini NTs in the ACBL (WAS: Canape) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <33B967AB.6F30@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For once in my life, I find myself on the same side of an argument with Jon. I'd like to go even a little farther, even, and see the ACBL create side-by-side events, one with truly open conventions (forcing pass, anyone?), and one with perhaps just the current limitations, rather than the (perhaps draconian) Classic card limitations. My only fear is that the ACBL would have one event and draw all their conclusions from the one event, rather than put it in place for an appreciable period of time. Over time, I'll bet people would gravitate toward the more open environment, but I might be wrong. Why not let the ACBL membership vote with their pocketbook? Whichever way it went, a lot of folks would be surprised. Irv B&S wrote: > > ACBL General Convention Chart > > > > Responses and Rebids > > > > 9. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP (including those that > > have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which > > exceeds 3 HCP). No conventional responses or rebids are > > allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls > > with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range > > of greater than 5 HCP. Further, a conventional defense > > to a conventional defense is not permitted. > > As I have stated in the past, I believe the ACBL is misguided in using > > the approach of restricting conventions over natural bids which are > politically disfavored. > > I'll concede that the ACBL actions are legal under the current laws > framework. Ultralight and/or wide-range 1NT openings are natural bids > > which a SO cannot regulate; however, the ACBL and other SOs have > cleverly circumvented the intent of the laws by imposing regulations > on > the conventional bids which follow these natural openings. It's my > belief that if the bridge laws framers wished to allow SOs to regulate > > natural bids in the manner which the ACBL has chosen, they could have > so > stated. > > The ACBL's rationale is that it is providing an entertainment service > for the bridge masses, and that unusual methods such as ultralight or > wide-range 1NT openings make some quantum of the masses uncomfortable. > > The entertainment mission is not accomplished if participants are > uncomfortable with the opponent's bidding methods. Viewed in this > light, the ACBL's approach is most reasonable when applied to limited > or > open events; it is less reasonable when applied to top-flighted or > upper > level events. > > I would propose that for top-flighted events, there be no restriction > on > conventions after a natural opening bid. If a SO wishes, it could > ewperiment with a one-year probationary trial period to see if > insoluble > problems arise (I don't think they will). > > Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 2 20:14:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 20:14:59 +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 UAA17648 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 20:14:53 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-13-62.innet.be [194.7.13.62]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA24003 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 12:09:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33BA2AC0.4B69@innet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 11:17:36 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > The European practice of rounding is not a real practice, and it almost > > got the French calculators in a spot of trouble at the recent European > > Ladies' Pairs Championships in Montecatini. > > Second and Third placed pairs had exactly the same number of MP's, after > > rounding to one decimal. > > It was decided to recalculate all boards using two decimals, and we were > > about to start that herculean task when luckily one wrongly scored board > > was pointed out, which gave the Italian pair an advantage of 2 MP over > > the French. > > I don't agree with this procedure. If the conditions of contest specify > that the scores on the board are calculated with rounding to 1 digit, > then one should stick to that and call this a tie. > Of course the conditions of contest don't specify such a ridiculous practice. In fact they don't specify anything specific in this case. With 'the French practice', all I meant was that the computer is programmed like that; Besides which, there was a carry-over that had also been entered with just the one decimal; so that too had to be redone. > Suppose that after the scores were recalculated, there was still a tied. > Now one could argue that had all calculations been done with 64 bit > arithmetic instead of the usual 32 bits, there would have been a > difference. Would you now call the programmer and ask him to rewrite > the scoring program? > Now that is an argument that is not too well thought out. The reason for the decimals is the Neuberg formula. In this, a division is made, by the number of comparable results. If there are more than ten tables, the unit score becomes less than 0.1. But is is still well above 0.001. So perhaps a third decimal might sometimes be needed, but beyond that, it can be safe to assume that it is a real tie, to the 1000th decimal. > You can compare it to, say, the long jump. There the distances are > measured in 1cm units and if two player both jump 800 cm, then it > is a tie, even though you could go out and get a device that can > measure the differences in distance a couple of orders of magnitude > better. No, in fact you can't. It is impossible to measure a distance in the sand to the nearest millimeter. That is why this is a tie. There was once a swimming race won over a thousandth of a second. Then the silver medallist had the pool remeasured and found that the winners' lane was two millimeters shorter, so that in fact he had swam the faster race. Since then, swimming races are timed in hundredths of seconds. But bridge is not measuring, but recalculating of unit scores. Bridge results are true numbers, down to the last decimal. They are still discrete and can be given as fractions. > > > > However, it should be noted that no rounding should ever take place. > > Consider this : > > > > Pair A gets scores of 1.24, 11.24 and 21.24 = total 33.72 > > Pair B gets scores of 21.18, 11.18 and 1.28 = total 33.64 > > > > now round to one decimal : > > > > A : 1.2 + 11.2 + 21.2 = 33.6 > > B : 21.2 + 11.2 + 1.3 = 33.7 > > > > All computer scoring should be done with "all" decimals. > > Please define "all". 32 bit arithmetic, 64 bits or perhaps an old > CDC with 56 bits? > 32 bit arithmetic should be good enough for more than three decimal places, shouldn't it ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 2 22:57:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:57:24 +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 WAA18006 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:57:18 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-168.innet.be [194.7.10.168]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA20964 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:52:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33BA3C6A.34BB@innet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 12:32:58 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- References: <3Tj2QrBSsPuzEwyv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I agree with Henk, and I find it absolutely amazing that after a > result has been decided by the normal method, a new method is used to > try and change the result! > See my reply to Henk's post directly. There are no regulations. > >> However, it should be noted that no rounding should ever take place. > > Why on earth not? It is a perfectly normal thing to do, so long as > you round the final figure. I do not want a score of > 58.7610593759206937254860794624396079037364865063333333333.....% > thank you very much. > Nor do I, but I would like to know that my 58.76 beat out someone else's 58.76 that was actually only 58.7591235845846875214669333333333333333333333...% > > >> All computer scoring should be done with "all" decimals. > > All scoring should be calculated to as many decimal places as is > practical for the computer/brain, and then rounded at the end. > Exactly what I said -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 2 22:57:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:57:41 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA18013 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:57:35 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-168.innet.be [194.7.10.168]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21036 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:52:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33BA3F5B.33AB@innet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 12:45:31 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New Law 83 References: <33A9C24B.1E89@popd.ix.netcom.com> <33ba66ff.23857355@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Indeed mailed only to Jesper and not to the list (sorry Jesper) (we really should be changing this - the flags mailing list has no problem with it) Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > 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. > We could add : (d) the TD rules in favour of a side that has nothing to win or lose, but feels that the matter is complex enough to merit an appeal. In the past, we relied on the 'winning' side to appeal in order to protect the field, whereas now the TD can call the AC in. Example recently in Montecatini : last round, first half, match GB-NL, TD ruled in favour of GB. GB were lying eighth, NL fifth. GB appealed (David Burn knows all about it) even though they had nothing to win or lose. One of the reasons may well have been to protect France's intrests. note : The Brits did that anyway, by blitzing NL 25-5 to keep them out of the Bermuda Bowl. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 3 02:23:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 02:23:36 +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 CAA21252 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 02:23:27 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA18542 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 2 Jul 1997 18:22:37 +0200 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 18:22:36 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- In-Reply-To: <33BA2AC0.4B69@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > > I don't agree with this procedure. If the conditions of contest specify > > that the scores on the board are calculated with rounding to 1 digit, > > then one should stick to that and call this a tie. > Of course the conditions of contest don't specify such a ridiculous > practice. In fact they don't specify anything specific in this case. Why not? The ACBL CoC do, the Dutch WEKO has recommendations for this, so I don't see why it wasn't specified for the EC Ladies' Pairs. At the very least, it saves you the hassle of having to recalculate everything when two pairs seem to tie. > > Suppose that after the scores were recalculated, there was still a tied. > > Now one could argue that had all calculations been done with 64 bit > > arithmetic instead of the usual 32 bits, there would have been a > > difference. Would you now call the programmer and ask him to rewrite > > the scoring program? > Now that is an argument that is not too well thought out. The reason for > the decimals is the Neuberg formula. In this, a division is made, by the > number of comparable results. If there are more than ten tables, the > unit score becomes less than 0.1. But is is still well above 0.001. > So perhaps a third decimal might sometimes be needed, but beyond that, > it can be safe to assume that it is a real tie, to the 1000th decimal. Only if you do this with integer arithmetic and calculate the numbers as fractions. I doubt that any programmer would do that. > > You can compare it to, say, the long jump. There the distances are > > measured in 1cm units and if two player both jump 800 cm, then it > > is a tie, even though you could go out and get a device that can > > measure the differences in distance a couple of orders of magnitude > > better. > No, in fact you can't. It is impossible to measure a distance in the > sand to the nearest millimeter. That is why this is a tie. That is NOT the point I'm trying to make. Suppose I had two devices: One that measures down to 1cm, the other one down to 0.5 cm, and I tell the players than I'm using the one with a resolution of 1cm. Two players tie and now I suddenly decide to get the second device. I don't think that this is fair, one should specify the conditions of the contest and then stick with it. > There was once a swimming race won over a thousandth of a second. > Then the silver medallist had the pool remeasured and found that the > winners' lane was two millimeters shorter, so that in fact he had swam > the faster race. Since then, swimming races are timed in hundredths of > seconds. This is something different. There are two factors that contribute to the error: the construction errors of the pool and the resolution of the clock. The overall error in the time is determined by the time of the clock and the length of the pool. This apparently works out to be 0.01 s, so you shouldn't quote difference of 0.001 even though ONE of your measuring devices has that resolution. (Or, in short, get you high school physics text books from the attic :-) > But bridge is not measuring, but recalculating of unit scores. > Bridge results are true numbers, down to the last decimal. > They are still discrete and can be given as fractions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, but your computer doesn't do that, it represents the numbers as floating points. When you go from fractions to floating points, you introduce an error as the fractions don't have to be a power of two and thus cannot be exactly represented by your computer. 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 Jul 3 05:59:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 05:59:34 +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 FAA22056 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 05:59:24 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1316435; 2 Jul 97 18:39 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 17:38:55 +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: <33BA3C6A.34BB@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> I agree with Henk, and I find it absolutely amazing that after a >> result has been decided by the normal method, a new method is used to >> try and change the result! >See my reply to Henk's post directly. There are no regulations. Did I use the word regulations? When you decide how to score something, either by following the regulations or just using your knowledge if there are no regulations, then you get a result, do you not find it incredible to then rescore it? It seems not that much different from deciding you don't like a pair that has won so you rescore it by a different method. I know you would not do that, but I am not keen on your *rescoring* any event. Do not misunderstand: there will sometimes be cases where ties *have* to be split. The EBU has long and boring regulations to cover these: but they have them, and you can see them *before* you get a tie, so there is no question of how you break it. Furthermore it is known in advance whether you split. The case you quoted involved second and third place in a tournament. Unless the top two pairs are qualifying for another event, why not call them second equal? If the organisers wish to break such ties then they should devise and publish regulations as to *how* and *when* such ties should be broken, not wait for it to happen and take a random shot. >> >> However, it should be noted that no rounding should ever take place. >> >> Why on earth not? It is a perfectly normal thing to do, so long as >> you round the final figure. I do not want a score of >> 58.7610593759206937254860794624396079037364865063333333333.....% >> thank you very much. >Nor do I, but I would like to know that my > 58.76 >beat out someone else's > 58.76 >that was actually only > 58.7591235845846875214669333333333333333333333...% Why? If your final score is 58.76% and my final score is 58.76% then you have tied with me. It is a very sad thing to do to find out whether you would have beaten me using a different scoring method. Rounding to a different number of places *is* a different scoring method. >> >> All computer scoring should be done with "all" decimals. >> All scoring should be calculated to as many decimal places as is >> practical for the computer/brain, and then rounded at the end. >Exactly what I said If it was what you said, then why did you quote an example where the rounding was done before the end, clearly a less fair method? -- 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 Jul 3 07:27:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 07:27:02 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA22325 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 07:26:55 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0519085; 2 Jul 97 22:13 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 21:50:08 +0100 To: Richard Willey Cc: "'bridge-laws'" From: Labeo Subject: Re: FW: Canape (WAS: Conventional bids) In-Reply-To: <1997Jun28.045700.1189.110533@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1997Jun28.045700.1189.110533@azure-tech.com>, Richard Willey writes > > > > ---------- >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) > > Canape methods are not conventional. > Labeo : no, but they are (except where generally played by most) in the nature of 'special partnership understandings'. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 3 07:30:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 07:30:06 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA22341 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 07:29:59 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1205627; 2 Jul 97 22:14 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:07:14 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New Law 83 In-Reply-To: <199706202146.RAA22850@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199706202146.RAA22850@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes > >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.) Labeo: footnote to Law 92 (1997 Code) provides authority, hitherto questionable, for forfeits of money or of score when an appeal is deemed not to have merit. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 3 08:04:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:04:14 +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 IAA22475 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:04:06 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0909338; 2 Jul 97 22:14 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:10:41 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: L93B3, second attempt In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970609092510.0068c7d4@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970609092510.0068c7d4@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >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. > Labeo: The definitions are (by definition!) statements of fact; this is true. As to whether a particular circumstance, alleged to be a fact, fits the definition - this is a matter of judgement. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 3 09:59:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 09:59:47 +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 JAA22804 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 09:59:39 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wjZPf-00003V-00; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 00:06:19 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-51-89.btinternet.com [195.99.51.89]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA07699; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 00:59:53 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707022359.AAA07699@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: New Law 83 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 00:58:46 +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 Herman [snip of previous argument] > We could add : > > (d) the TD rules in favour of a side that has nothing to win or lose, > but feels that the matter is complex enough to merit an appeal. In the > past, we relied on the 'winning' side to appeal in order to protect the > field, whereas now the TD can call the AC in. > > Example recently in Montecatini : last round, first half, match GB-NL, > TD ruled in favour of GB. GB were lying eighth, NL fifth. GB appealed > (David Burn knows all about it) even though they had nothing to win or > lose. One of the reasons may well have been to protect France's > intrests. > note : The Brits did that anyway, by blitzing NL 25-5 to keep them out > of the Bermuda Bowl. Ob Note: if the GB-Netherlands ruling had gone our way, we would in fact have qualified for Tunisia provided that Italy beat France by more than 19-11 (since we would then have passed both the Netherlands, who finished 6th, and the French, who finished 5th). We had plenty to "win or lose" (though in the first half of the match, we led the Netherlands by only 8 IMPs needing 60 to defeat them 25-4, so it may have appeared at the time that we were doing only the "honourable" thing in appealing). Since I don't believe in spoiling a good story by withholding the ending, I give the appeal below: You, South, hold: x Q9xx AKQxxx Ax and open a Precision 1D after two passes (my vote would have been for a strong 1C, but I am a humble coach and not a player). LHO bids 3S. Two passes (RHO, on your side of the screen, gives some consideration to his pass). You double. Pass, 4D (agreed slow even with the screen), pass. You bid 5D, passed out. The lead is a club, and partner has: xx Axxx J10x Qxxx You stick in the QC, which holds, and with hearts 3-2 onside you make your contract. The opponents complain, and the TD adjusts to 4D making 5. Our guy, who might have had: x Q9xx AJxxx AJx for his double of 3S, pleaded that he was about four tricks stronger than he might have been. With partner marked with at least a 6 count and some diamond support, he had good odds for a vulnerable game, so took a shot at one (after all, HK10 and the CK was about all he needed, and he inferred correctly from RHO's slow pass that partner's values would not be in spades). Now, I did not expect that we would actually win this appeal. 5D is certainly suggested by the UI, so we would lose (as we did, quite properly). But 5D was also suggested pretty strongly by the auction (after all, RHO has passed and LHO has pre-empted). Since the player who made the bid was a fiercely ethical Tredinnick - they both are - we felt that we were morally OK. (Contrast this with a hand that we failed to appeal against Israel: a guy put a 4C card on the tray when he meant to bid 3NT; the tray got to the other side so that 4C was seen by all parties; the man who bid it pulled it back; the TD ruled - wrongly - in his favour; we, perhaps foolishly in the light of later Israeli appeals, let it go.) We appealed because - and only because - our player believed that he had the right of it. There was not - nor should there have been - any question of proteting the French, or damaging the Dutch, or looking after the interests of the men from Timbuktu. The club lead, which was berserk, might have been ruled "wild and gambling" by the Committee in any case. I had prior reason to expect that this could be an outcome, since a Committee on which I had previously sat had given an exactly analogous ruling against the same Dutch pair (the Italians were deemed to have used UI to reach 5C doubled, so they got +50 for defending 4H, but the opening lead against 5Cx was sufficiently ludicrous that the Dutch kept their -550). Herman will give you the details - I have gone on for long enough. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 3 21:01:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 21:01:06 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24441 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 21:00:58 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1209403; 3 Jul 97 11:22 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC86F5.DD335690@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:40:19 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:40:12 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 18 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> I agree with Henk, and I find it absolutely amazing that after a >> result has been decided by the normal method, a new method is used to >> try and change the result! >> > >See my reply to Henk's post directly. * There are no regulations.* > There are regulations covering methods of calculation and rounding in England. >SNIP From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 4 01:15:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 01:15:21 +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 BAA27698 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 01:15:13 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-135.innet.be [194.7.10.135]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19319 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:09:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33BB98E9.1E25@innet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:19:53 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 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 David Stevenson wrote: > > > Did I use the word regulations? > > When you decide how to score something, either by following the > regulations or just using your knowledge if there are no regulations, > then you get a result, do you not find it incredible to then rescore > it? It seems not that much different from deciding you don't like a > pair that has won so you rescore it by a different method. I know you > would not do that, but I am not keen on your *rescoring* any event. > I repeat again, I am not rescoring !!!! The true regulations in force do not (or should not - or need not) specify the number of decimals to which the results are printed out. If the printout shows a tie, then this is not a tie, just a difference too small for that number of decimals. So you go back and ask the computer to print out a decimal more ! No rescoring, no change of regulations, nothing !! > >> you round the final figure. I do not want a score of > >> 58.7610593759206937254860794624396079037364865063333333333.....% > >> thank you very much. > > >Nor do I, but I would like to know that my > > 58.76 > >beat out someone else's > > 58.76 > >that was actually only > > 58.7591235845846875214669333333333333333333333...% > > Why? If your final score is 58.76% and my final score is 58.76% then > you have tied with me. No I haven't. Your score is 58.761%, mine is 58.759%. You are ahead. You always were, you allways will be, only the printout did not show it at first. > It is a very sad thing to do to find out whether > you would have beaten me using a different scoring method. Rounding to > a different number of places *is* a different scoring method. > it would be, but as I said, there should be no rounding ! > >> >> All computer scoring should be done with "all" decimals. > > >> All scoring should be calculated to as many decimal places as is > >> practical for the computer/brain, and then rounded at the end. > > >Exactly what I said > > If it was what you said, then why did you quote an example where the > rounding was done before the end, clearly a less fair method? > There was no rounding, only printing of fewer decimals ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 4 01:18:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 01:18:08 +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 BAA27724 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 01:18:02 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-135.innet.be [194.7.10.135]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA19870 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:12:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33BB9968.8EE@innet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:22:00 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > Of course the conditions of contest don't specify such a ridiculous > > practice. In fact they don't specify anything specific in this case. > > Why not? The ACBL CoC do, the Dutch WEKO has recommendations for this, > so I don't see why it wasn't specified for the EC Ladies' Pairs. At > the very least, it saves you the hassle of having to recalculate > everything when two pairs seem to tie. > That only happens in the rare instance of there being a semblance of a tie, and only because the French were not certain enough of their computer program. And a silver medal should be worth the hassle. > > So perhaps a third decimal might sometimes be needed, but beyond that, > > it can be safe to assume that it is a real tie, to the 1000th decimal. > > Only if you do this with integer arithmetic and calculate the numbers > as fractions. I doubt that any programmer would do that. > But the numbers ARE fractions ! Of course no programmer will work with fractions, but my point is that the difference between computer arithmetic (using REAL type) and fractions is smaller than the splitting of the tie would demand. > > > You can compare it to, say, the long jump. There the distances are > > > measured in 1cm units and if two player both jump 800 cm, then it > > > is a tie, even though you could go out and get a device that can > > > measure the differences in distance a couple of orders of magnitude > > > better. > > No, in fact you can't. It is impossible to measure a distance in the > > sand to the nearest millimeter. That is why this is a tie. > > That is NOT the point I'm trying to make. Suppose I had two devices: > One that measures down to 1cm, the other one down to 0.5 cm, and I > tell the players than I'm using the one with a resolution of 1cm. Two > players tie and now I suddenly decide to get the second device. > I don't think that this is fair, one should specify the conditions > of the contest and then stick with it. > But the point is that with a device with resolution 0.5 cm, you can NOT get a good result. The last decimal simply won't be accurate ! > > There was once a swimming race won over a thousandth of a second. > > Then the silver medallist had the pool remeasured and found that the > > winners' lane was two millimeters shorter, so that in fact he had swam > > the faster race. Since then, swimming races are timed in hundredths of > > seconds. > > This is something different. There are two factors that contribute > to the error: the construction errors of the pool and the resolution > of the clock. The overall error in the time is determined by the time > of the clock and the length of the pool. This apparently works > out to be 0.01 s, so you shouldn't quote difference of 0.001 even though > ONE of your measuring devices has that resolution. > > (Or, in short, get you high school physics text books from the attic :-) > > > But bridge is not measuring, but recalculating of unit scores. > > Bridge results are true numbers, down to the last decimal. > > They are still discrete and can be given as fractions. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Yes, but your computer doesn't do that, it represents the numbers > as floating points. When you go from fractions to floating points, > you introduce an error as the fractions don't have to be a power > of two and thus cannot be exactly represented by your computer. > But that error is smaller than the difference between the two pairs mentioned in Yves' example (who came to within 0.005 of each other). Again, I am not saying that I could not support regulations that would decide such a small difference to be a tie, but I don't see the need to do it. There is a difference, however small, and our tools are delicate enough to detect it. > unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. Do explain that one just once, Henk, we've all been wondering for months. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 4 10:11:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:11:05 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA29564 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:10:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0707120; 4 Jul 97 1:10 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 00:05:37 +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: <33BB98E9.1E25@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >it would be, but as I said, there should be no rounding ! Why? I accept that you have said it, but you have not justified 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 Fri Jul 4 10:13:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:13:14 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA29585 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:13:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0520068; 4 Jul 97 1:10 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 00:08:08 +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: <33BB9968.8EE@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. > >Do explain that one just once, Henk, we've all been wondering for >months. My guess is that once Henk was typing something in when he could not find his coffee. So he typed this in and abandoned. Later, when he looked at it he thought it looked amusing so included it from then on as part of his sig. -- 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 Jul 4 10:33:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:33:48 +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 KAA29678 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:33:42 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa25402; 3 Jul 97 17:33 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jul 1997 00:08:08 PDT." Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 17:33:10 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9707031733.aa25402@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Herman De Wael wrote > >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >> unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. > > > >Do explain that one just once, Henk, we've all been wondering for > >months. > > My guess is that once Henk was typing something in when he could not > find his coffee. So he typed this in and abandoned. Later, when he > looked at it he thought it looked amusing so included it from then on as > part of his sig. That's certainly a possibility. If it were *me*, the likely explanation would be that I just got to work in the morning, and nobody's made coffee yet, and damned if I'm going to try to get any work done before I can get the six cups of coffee I need to get started. (Yes, I'm a caffeine addict, but I'm not worried because I know I can quit--I've done it a thousand times.) -- Adam apologies to Mark Twain From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 4 16:36:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 16:36:19 +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 QAA00742 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 16:36:15 +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 QAA18888; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 16:36:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.63.221.28]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA08803; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 16:36:07 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 16:36:07 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199707040636.QAA08803@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 06:22 PM 2/07/97 +0200, you wrote: >On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> > On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > cut >> the decimals is the Neuberg formula. In this, a division is made, by the >> number of comparable results. If there are more than ten tables, the >> unit score becomes less than 0.1. But is is still well above 0.001. >> So perhaps a third decimal might sometimes be needed, but beyond that, >> it can be safe to assume that it is a real tie, to the 1000th decimal. > Let the MP score for each pair be represented as: Pair A scored x MP against X real opponents, and a.bc MP against Y virtual opponents, where x is integral, or half integral, depending on the method used, and X and Y are integers. The portion x of the score can be factored up or down to any desired accuracy, without altering the players true playing percentage (100x/X). However, I do not agree with the false accuracy of quoting the Neuberg estimate of how one might or might not have performed against any number of fictitious opponents to two decimal places. Remember these estimates are arrived at without reference to how well the virtual pair(s) have done on other boards. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 4 18:04:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 18:04:32 +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 SAA00992 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 18:04:26 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA28581 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:03:44 +0200 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:03:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: <9707031733.aa25402@flash.irvine.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote > > >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > > >> unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. > > > > > >Do explain that one just once, Henk, we've all been wondering for > > >months. > > > > My guess is that once Henk was typing something in when he could not > > find his coffee. So he typed this in and abandoned. Later, when he > > looked at it he thought it looked amusing so included it from then on as > > part of his sig. > > That's certainly a possibility. If it were *me*, the likely > explanation would be that I just got to work in the morning, Sort of, I started to use this when DESY management forbid people to have their own coffeemakers in their office, with some argument about safety, then moved our group to a new building 250m away from the nearest coffee machine. The first half is an attempt to make it look like a serious Vax/VMS error message. 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 Fri Jul 4 19:07:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 19:07:20 +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 TAA01144 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 19:07:14 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id LAA19409 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:07:10 +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 sma019144; Fri Jul 4 11:06:23 1997 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.2.1m-970402) with ESMTP id LAA03739 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:06:22 +0200 Received: from pasadena (pasadena [130.144.63.226]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id LAA14344 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:06:22 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by pasadena (1.37.109.15/) id AA253167179; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 11:06:19 +0200 Message-Id: <199707040906.AA253167179@pasadena> Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 11:06:19 METDST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote HdW> it would be, but as I said, there should be no rounding ! > Why? I accept that you have said it, but you have not justified it. I do not think there is any justification in the Laws for rounding. So, I completely agree with Herman that the real score (not 'real' as in a 'real number', but as in the 'real world') is a fraction and NOT a number rounded to a specific number of decimals. The custom of publishing scores rounded to two decimal places seems to have deluded people into thinking that the rounded score is the real score. David, if you do not agree, please refer to some Law that supports rounding. The discussion about measurement accuracy has unnecessarily muddled the matter. With fractions one can compute EXACT scores with no measurement-tolerances whatsoever. That there may exist a computer- program that is not able to compute and/or display more than two decimals does not mean that 'exact measurement' is not possible. -- 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 Fri Jul 4 21:11:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 21:11:14 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA01429 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 21:11:09 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id EAA22601; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 04:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma022496; Fri, 4 Jul 97 04:19:15 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id EAA15098 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 04:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199707041112.EAA15098@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 4 Jul 97 11:38:57 GMT Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote > I do not think there is any justification in the Laws for rounding. >So, I completely agree with Herman that the real score (not 'real' >as in a 'real number', but as in the 'real world') is a fraction and >NOT a number rounded to a specific number of decimals. The custom of >publishing scores rounded to two decimal places seems to have deluded >people into thinking that the rounded score is the real score. David, >if you do not agree, please refer to some Law that supports rounding. > The discussion about measurement accuracy has unnecessarily muddled >the matter. With fractions one can compute EXACT scores with no >measurement-tolerances whatsoever. That there may exist a computer- >program that is not able to compute and/or display more than two >decimals does not mean that 'exact measurement' is not possible. I have not been following this debate very closely, so sorry if I have missed the point, *but* Law 78A does not permit any fractions whatsoever (other than to take account of the fact that halves are used in some parts of the world, where other parts use units). As I have pointed out before, the EBU does not use match-pointing under Law 78A. Instead it uses a special method under Law 78D. From recollection this rounds to one decimal place. I suspect other sponsoring organisations also use a special method. If they do, then, IMO, they can round to as many or as few decimal places as they wish. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 4 22:15:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 22:15:14 +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 WAA01628 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 22:15:07 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id OAA22515 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 14:15:03 +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 sma022451; Fri Jul 4 14:14:30 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 OAA12690 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 14:14:29 +0200 Received: from pasadena (pasadena [130.144.63.226]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id OAA22217 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 14:14:29 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by pasadena (1.37.109.15/) id AA013638465; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 14:14:25 +0200 Message-Id: <199707041214.AA013638465@pasadena> Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 14:14:25 METDST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen Barnfield wrote: > Law 78A does not permit any fractions whatsoever (other > than to take account of the fact that halves are used > in some parts of the world, where other parts use units). Strictly yes, but there are two obvious logical extensions to 78A that are used by most if not all bridge leagues: * 40% and 60% like prescribed by Law 12c1 (which does not in general yield an integer value). * Neuberg's formula in case there is a difference in the number of times boards have been played. For mathematically inclined bridge-lawyers like you seem to be, this indeed means that one should take refuge in 78D, but I think the spirit of the law would be to stick as close as possible to 78A with the two extensions mentioned above. Stephen Barnfield also wrote: > As I have pointed out before, the EBU does not use match- > pointing under Law 78A. Instead it uses a special method > under Law 78D. From recollection this rounds to one decimal > place. Interesting, so in EBU-land pairs with 53.56 % and 53.64 % are considered tied? > I suspect other sponsoring organisations also > use a special method. If they do, then, IMO, they can round > to as many or as few decimal places as they wish. I agree, 78D allows everything. Also, e.g., to follow the new point-system of soccer, i.e. 3 point for a 'win' and 1 for a 'draw' (instead of 2 and 1 following 78A). But the fact that the Law contains a loophole by which they can, does not mean that they should....... -- Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 4 23:12:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 23:12:46 +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 XAA01823 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 23:12:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0902904; 4 Jul 97 14:00 BST Message-ID: <$BqUEBAz+NvzEwaN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:34:11 +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: <199707040906.AA253167179@pasadena> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> Herman De Wael wrote >>>...it would be, but as I said, there should be no rounding ! >> Why? I accept that you have said it, but you have not justified it. > I do not think there is any justification in the Laws for rounding. >So, I completely agree with Herman that the real score (not 'real' >as in a 'real number', but as in the 'real world') is a fraction and >NOT a number rounded to a specific number of decimals. The custom of >publishing scores rounded to two decimal places seems to have deluded >people into thinking that the rounded score is the real score. David, >if you do not agree, please refer to some Law that supports rounding. Come off it, Con, you have just said there is no such Law! The point that I have really been making is that there is no Law that says you should round nor one that says you should not. The Law that covers rounding is as follows: Law 78 - Methods of Scoring D. Special Scoring Methods Special scoring methods are permissible, if approved by the sponsoring organization. In advance of any contest the sponsoring organization should publish conditions of contest detailing conditions of entry, methods of scoring, determination of winners, breaking of ties, and the like. Note the *requirement* to publish method of scoring, including tie- splitting. While it may not explicitly say so, I believe that a SO has not done its duties under this Law when the scoring method is not what the players expect. If scores are shown rounded off to two places then I believe the player has a perfect right to believe those are the absolute scores, and I so believe. The methods of splitting ties that flood into my mind are: [1] Recalculate scores to a greater degree of accuracy [2] Split on the result when the contestants played each other [3] Number of rounds won [4] Whether the contestants were charming young females [5] Spin a coin [6] Let the contestants fight it out in the carpark [7] Base it on half-time score [8] Swiss Points [9] Aggregate score No doubt I can think of others. These are *all* legal under L78D, though some of them are not very nice! [4] and [6] might be against the countries' Laws, of course. I believe that ties should be split on the basis of [2] then [8] then [1] then [9]. The fact that some of you seem to think [1] is obvious merely means that the SO must announce their methods as L78D requires. > The discussion about measurement accuracy has unnecessarily muddled >the matter. With fractions one can compute EXACT scores with no >measurement-tolerances whatsoever. That there may exist a computer- >program that is not able to compute and/or display more than two >decimals does not mean that 'exact measurement' is not possible. Surely. But let us not `muddle' the display and the ability to calculate. WYSIWYG is a type of computer screen, I believe. It stands for What You See Is What You Get. Now I believe that players have a *right* to believe this applies to them. If they get 54.63% after rounding and that is what is published then that *is* their score unless something else has been published to say otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 4 23:44:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 23:44:12 +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 XAA01933 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 23:44:06 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA08389 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Fri, 4 Jul 1997 15:43:06 +0200 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 15:43:06 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- In-Reply-To: <33BB9968.8EE@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > So perhaps a third decimal might sometimes be needed, but beyond that, > > it can be safe to assume that it is a real tie, to the 1000th decimal. > > Only if you do this with integer arithmetic and calculate the numbers > > as fractions. I doubt that any programmer would do that. > But the numbers ARE fractions ! But they are not written as fractions. In the original posting, we had a score of 11 matchpoints in a 12 table section, to be converted to 13 tables with Neuberg, or: Mp' = 13/12 (11 + 1/2) - 1/2 Using only integer arithmetic, we get: Mp' = 13/12 (23/2) - 1/2 = 299/24 - 12/24 = 287/24 This is still exact. However, that is not the way the program will calculate it, the program (at least, my utility to do scoring does: Mp = float(13)/float(12) (float(11)+0.5) - 0.5 = 10.83(...)3 * 11.5 - 0.5 = 11.9583 It does NOT create a fraction type and operator-overload *, /, + and - to get exactly 287/24 to be compared with, for example, 574/48 from another contestant. 287/24 and 574/48 are, of course, the same, but if you first convert these numbers to floating points, then this doesn't have to be the case anymore. > But the point is that with a device with resolution 0.5 cm, you can NOT > get a good result. The last decimal simply won't be accurate ! I agree on that. The point that I was trying to make ASSUMED that you could measure the distance down to 0.5cm but, for whatever reason, used the 1.0 cm device, then discovered that you had a tie. 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 Jul 5 00:40:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 00:40:34 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04411 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 00:40:26 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id HAA14886; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 07:49:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma014845; Fri, 4 Jul 97 07:48:46 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id HAA02287 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 07:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199707041441.HAA02287@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 4 Jul 97 14:49:26 GMT Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote: >Stephen Barnfield wrote: > >> Law 78A does not permit any fractions whatsoever (other >>than to take account of the fact that halves are used >> in some parts of the world, where other parts use units). > > Strictly yes, but there are two obvious logical extensions >to 78A that are used by most if not all bridge leagues: > >* 40% and 60% like prescribed by Law 12c1 (which does not in > general yield an integer value). I agree that an artificial assigned adjusted score, and, I suppose, an assigned adjusted score, could result in a non-integral number of matchpoints. But that has nothing to do with whether the SO is using Law78A or Law78D. The winner is still determined by adding up the number of matchpoints. Except in the case or ArtAdjScores or ArtAssScores the matchpoints will be determined by Law78A, and will be integral. When you said " I do not think there is any justification in the Laws for rounding." perhaps you meant you thought there was nothing in the Laws to stop an SO using a Law78D method which worked to the exact fraction. If that is what you meant then I agree. All I was pointing out is that Law78A *does* provide the "justification ... for rounding". Indeed it requires it except where the SO provides otherwise. > >* Neuberg's formula in case there is a difference in the > number of times boards have been played. But what is Neuberg's formula to do with Law78A? My understanding is that Neuberg is not a Law 78A method, but is a Law 78D method. > > For mathematically inclined bridge-lawyers like you seem >to be, this indeed means that one should take refuge in 78D, Sorry, but I thought this was a Bridge Laws Mailing List. I was merely setting out my views on the legality of scoring methods. As I said before, I had not paid much attention to the start of this discussion, and perhaps my comments were not to the point. >but I think the spirit of the law would be to stick as close >as possible to 78A with the two extensions mentioned above. > >Stephen Barnfield also wrote: > >> As I have pointed out before, the EBU does not use match- >> pointing under Law 78A. Instead it uses a special method >> under Law 78D. From recollection this rounds to one decimal >> place. > > Interesting, so in EBU-land pairs with 53.56 % and 53.64 % >are considered tied? Please! We are talking about the number of matchpoints on a board, not the percentage over a session. In fact, from recollection, the EBU scoring method displays session scores to the nearest 2 decimal places. Also, from recollection, this is for display purposes only, and, if necessary, and possible, a tie (to 2 d.p.) would be split. > >> I suspect other sponsoring organisations also >> use a special method. If they do, then, IMO, they can round >> to as many or as few decimal places as they wish. > > I agree, 78D allows everything. Also, e.g., to follow the >new point-system of soccer, i.e. 3 point for a 'win' and 1 >for a 'draw' (instead of 2 and 1 following 78A). But the fact >that the Law contains a loophole by which they can, does not >mean that they should....... Law 78D is not a "loophole". It enables SOs to use other forms of scoring, if they wish. I was not talking about what SOs *should* do, but what the law permits. If you are talking about what they should do, then I am wasting your time, for which I apologise. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 5 03:11:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 03:11:06 +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 DAA04966 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 03:10:58 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-485.innet.be [194.7.14.185]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA03044 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 19:05:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33BCE2EE.7EB2@innet.be> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 12:47:58 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave +,- References: <199707040906.AA253167179@pasadena> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote: (see the original) Dank je wel, Con Thanks for the support. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 5 03:11:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 03:11:05 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA04964 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 03:10:57 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-485.innet.be [194.7.14.185]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA03040 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 19:05:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33BCE23C.6027@innet.be> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 12:45:00 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 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 David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote > > >it would be, but as I said, there should be no rounding ! > > Why? I accept that you have said it, but you have not justified it. > I didn't think it needed justifying. (small timeout to watch England bowl out Australia for 235) The Neuberg formula produces a result which is an accurate number. Upgrade a second top from 13 tables to a field of 100 gives : (22+1)/13*100-1 = 175 and 12/13, which is usually written as 175.9 But whether we write it as 176, 175.9, 175.92 or 175.923076923... does not make any difference. The true result is 175 + 12/13, and that result should be used in further calculations. All other numbers are approximations (even the REAL values in our computers). We must make sure that the approximations are good enough. But we should never consider rounding. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 5 03:11:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 03:11:07 +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 DAA04971 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 03:11:00 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-485.innet.be [194.7.14.185]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA03049 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 19:05:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33BCE398.6EE@innet.be> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 12:50:48 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- References: <199707031000.AA24889@MAILMN.mis.tandem.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk FARLEY_WALLY@tandem.com wrote: (I don't believe it was posted to the list) > > Herman, > I think you go to far to say the 'no' programmer would deal with the > numbers involved as fractions. Many of us -- particularly those who > identify with the credo "If they asked *me* to do it, it must be of > critical importance" -- would indeed determine the smallest fraction > possibly involved and scale everything upwards -- to be able to do it > all in integer arithmetic. There are some progeammers (and some bridge > players) who can recall the not-so-distant past when floating point ops > were another way of making your computer slow to a crawl. > Sorry Wally, that will not work. The 'smallest' fraction is not possible. You see, the fractions come from dividing by the number of comparable results. That can be any number from 2 to N-1. So although we know the results can be expressed as fractions in a theoretical sense, in practice this will not be done and decimals will be used. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 5 08:36:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 08:36:57 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA05785 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 08:36:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1219941; 4 Jul 97 23:30 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 22:55:01 +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: <33BCE23C.6027@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >it would be, but as I said, there should be no rounding ! >> Why? I accept that you have said it, but you have not justified it. >I didn't think it needed justifying. > >(small timeout to watch England bowl out Australia for 235) > >The Neuberg formula produces a result which is an accurate number. > >Upgrade a second top from 13 tables to a field of 100 gives : > >(22+1)/13*100-1 = 175 and 12/13, which is usually written as 175.9 > >But whether we write it as 176, 175.9, 175.92 or 175.923076923... does >not make any difference. > >The true result is 175 + 12/13, and that result should be used in >further calculations. > >All other numbers are approximations (even the REAL values in our >computers). We must make sure that the approximations are good enough. >But we should never consider rounding. Well, if you do not think it needs justifying, and all you say is that you should never consider rounding then: [a] I don't agree with you and [b] A majority of players don't agree with you You may think [a] does not matter. Fine, I don't care. But [b] is very much what this game is about. One thing that horrifies me in many discussions is the lack of worrying about acceptability to players. I do not believe that most players would thank you for a non-rounded result. I believe that most players consider that any result published *is* their result. i believe that your mathematical arguments in this thread would be unacceptable to most players. -- 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 Jul 5 09:56:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 09:56:25 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA05908 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 09:56:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0729082; 4 Jul 97 23:30 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 22:59:00 +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: <199707041214.AA013638465@pasadena> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote > For mathematically inclined bridge-lawyers like you seem >to be, this indeed means that one should take refuge in 78D, >but I think the spirit of the law would be to stick as close >as possible to 78A with the two extensions mentioned above. I think that we can do without too much gratuitous commentary of this sort. Steve Barnfield is not a mathematically inclined bridge-lawyer in the accepted meaning of the phrase. Furthermore, it is you and Herman who are producing the mathematical argument that does not necessarily agree with all of the rest of us. If you do see fit to insult Steve, the least you could do is to insult him for what he says rather than for the opposite of what he says. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 6 04:38:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 04:38:41 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA10122 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 04:38:33 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0524953; 5 Jul 97 18:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 18:03:01 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Law25B: 40% rule In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > 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. > Labeo: I have reason to believe the drafting committee intended that 40% should be a ceiling. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 6 04:40:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 04:40:47 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA10138 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 04:40:42 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0725203; 5 Jul 97 17:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 13:24:50 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: <199706192323.TAA22364@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199706192323.TAA22364@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes > >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. > > Labeo: I would have thought it more accurate to say that a treatment is a variation of the understanding of a call which is other than the normal expectation but which does not change the basic intention. The call in question may be either natural or conventional. In both cases careful disclosure is requisite but only in the case of treatment of a convention is it subject to regulation (for instance, prohibition). I would also suggest that a so-say 'treatment' of a natural call which converts it into a conventional call goes too far to be termed a treatment but rather constitutes development of a fresh convention. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 6 09:50:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 09:50:21 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10826 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 09:50:15 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0729235; 5 Jul 97 18:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 18:22:33 +0100 To: ruscourt@iafrica.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: re : CTD's dilemma. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Rusty Court writes .....cut... > >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. > ,.......cut....... >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.." ...cut... > 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. LABEO: IMO declarer had called attention to an alleged irregularity. Director should have dealt with it as he would have done if he had been called to the table and told. I suggest it is not good practice for players to inform the Director of irregularities away from the table. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 6 20:02:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 20:02:03 +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 UAA11799 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 20:01:55 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1318650; 6 Jul 97 10:54 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 00:48:19 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Conventional bids In-Reply-To: <4OelHAAr5CtzEwbZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <4OelHAAr5CtzEwbZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > >.....(some small part removed)....... > > Anyway, what about the definition of conventional? Again, why do we >need a complicated one? ..........(omission).......... .... there is no reason again why a very simple definition of convention >should not suffice. > > ............(more taken away)....... LABEO: The Laws of Duplicate Bridge are the rules of a game. Their purpose is to establish the conditions under which the game is played, and to do so in such a way as to obtain a uniform understanding of this internationally. To do this it is necessary to have common international understandings of the meanings of the laws, for which reason words used whose meaning may be argued need to be defined. The appropriate place to provide these definitions is as part of the laws; the execution may be flawed but the purpose is wholly proper. Because many words are used in connection with bridge as terms of art it is probable that the need for definition is not fully satisfied by as many definitions as are currently provided. As to 'conventional', this word applies to any bid or play which conveys an agreed meaning that is not 'natural' where the latter term denotes that which would be generally understood without any prior arrangement. Unfortunately there is no universal consensus as yet by which all bridge players can determine what is to be regarded as 'natural': the true requirement, and the more complex task, is in fact to establish what is natural and it is this which is in need of definition. The 1997 definition of 'convention' takes a small step along this road. In respect of calls it acts by making a statement as to what is natural and defining all else as conventional. I find it interesting that in any position any three card suit may be bid naturally and, being appropriately disclosed, such calls are not then subject to regulation. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 6 20:04:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 20:04:19 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA11816 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 20:04:14 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0719391; 6 Jul 97 10:54 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 01:26:05 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: [Fwd: Canape (WAS: Conventional bids)] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >>Eric Landau wrote: >>> I now give up trying, and concede to the consensus: Canape methods are not conventional. and David Stevenson inter alia responded: > You refer to alerts. Any SO can include treatments in their >definition of what is alertable if they wish. LABEO: They may have fun sorting out words to define 'treatment' - and may do better just to use the language of the laws which speak of 'a special partnership understanding'. In this thread I seem to have read a lot about an ACBL regulation of canape bids as though they were conventional. I am not sure what manner of regulation, nor do I know the state of U.S. law, but I could imagine an interesting legal argument if the circumstances were right, bearing in mind that the ACBL itself has promulgated the very laws which it is alleged to be overriding. Of course, if all the ACBL is doing is to require an alert for a bid of a suit of three cards or more where by agreement the next suit bid by that player is longer, the ACBL is within its powers (but correspondents would be aware of this, so they must be saying it is more ?). Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 6 21:04:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 21:04:30 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA11925 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 21:04:25 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0503788; 6 Jul 97 10:54 BST Message-ID: <97ZapCAfq2vzEwoB@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 10:51:27 +0100 To: jonbriss@ix23.ix.netcom.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: <33A9A151.5DA@popd.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33A9A151.5DA@popd.ix.netcom.com>, B&S writes >Tim Goodwin wrote: > [ .... cut ... ] >> 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." B&S said: >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. > ...more omitted... LABEO: Going back to basic language it seems that the understanding each partnership has about each and every call or play is a treatment. It is either the normal treatment or a special partnership understanding. What is 'normal' ? Well, 'I' am normal, 'you' are not. The requirement is to establish what is the natural expectation of the action if there is no predetermined agreement, and then to leave to the authorities the question of what manner of disclosure is prescribed for unexpected treatments (best described for consistency as special partnership understandings). I share the view elsewhere expressed on this circuit that there is no advantage in allowing regulation only of conventional matters. It would make more sense if all matters of system were open to regulation; the higher the level at which this were done the better - which could for that matter be as part of the laws of the game, a two line law to incorporate an appendix. We might have an extended discussion on what the regulation should be, but this would be fun. The method said to be adopted by ACBL to regulate non-conventional methods was much earlier used in England, a lot of years ago (since discarded), to regulate minimum standards for opening One-of-suit bids in some contexts. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 7 22:52:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 22:52:07 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA17672 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 22:51:57 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0505672; 7 Jul 97 11:42 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 02:09:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: <97ZapCAfq2vzEwoB@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote > The method said to be adopted by ACBL to regulate >non-conventional methods was much earlier used in England, a lot >of years ago (since discarded), to regulate minimum standards for >opening One-of-suit bids in some contexts. Oh? When was it discarded? FYI, I understood that it *may* be discussed at the L&EC meeting on Wednesday. My understanding is that it is currently in use. -- 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 Jul 11 09:33:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:33:36 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10056 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:33:30 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0721357; 11 Jul 97 0:14 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:11:45 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote > >> The method said to be adopted by ACBL to regulate >>non-conventional methods was much earlier used in England, a lot >>of years ago (since discarded), to regulate minimum standards for >>opening One-of-suit bids in some contexts. > > Oh? > > When was it discarded? > > FYI, I understood that it *may* be discussed at the L&EC meeting on >Wednesday. My understanding is that it is currently in use. > Labeo: I must have overlooked where the regulation is now published? Or is it a secret? But I'm sure you must be right - and anyway it does seem the method will certainly be in use when the licensing revisions are put into effect. I expect some transatlantic friends will be noticing that one of the proposed uses for it is to inhibit three card opening bids in major suits. Let me add that I do believe it is appropriate to regulate for some levels of bridge in respect of some aspects of what is technically natural bidding, necessitating adoption of a legal device since in this the laws remain bound in the past. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 12 03:13:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 03:13:11 +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 DAA15440 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 03:13:04 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA06749; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:11:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca2-14.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.78) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma006694; Fri Jul 11 12:11:03 1997 Message-ID: <33C66887.3956@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:08:23 -0700 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix2.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Labeo CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote, inter alia: > Let me add that I do believe it is appropriate to regulate for > some levels of bridge in respect of some aspects of what is > technically natural bidding, necessitating adoption of a legal > device since in this the laws remain bound in the past. Respectfully, I disagree. The appropriate method of dealing with laws that appear antiquated or inadequate is to change the laws. It promotes neither order nor respect for the law to allow sponsoring organizations through regulation to accomplish an end antithetical to the law. The laws do not authorize sponsoring organizations to regulate natural bids. If bridge legislators wish to allow sponsoring organizations to regulate natural bids by using the legal device of regulating conventions used subsequently, they may amend the law to explicitly grant the power. Absent a clear mandate from the law, administrative activism should be curtailed. My position is that sponsoring organizations should rescind any regulations which affect the use of conventions after any natural bid, and cease tinkering until and unless the laws are amended to empower such. Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 12 09:41:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 09:41:58 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA16723 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 09:41:53 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1309154; 12 Jul 97 0:35 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:38:08 +0100 To: jonbriss@ix2.ix.netcom.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: <33C66887.3956@popd.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33C66887.3956@popd.ix.netcom.com>, B&S writes >Labeo wrote, inter alia: > >> Let me add that I do believe it is appropriate to regulate for >> some levels of bridge in respect of some aspects of what is >> technically natural bidding, necessitating adoption of a legal >> device since in this the laws remain bound in the past. > and Brissman commented: >Respectfully, I disagree. The appropriate method of dealing with laws >that appear antiquated or inadequate is to change the laws. It promotes >neither order nor respect for the law to allow sponsoring organizations >through regulation to accomplish an end antithetical to the law. > >...cut... Labeo: I have no problem with that, but it is paternal and futility itself to try to use the laws to stop national authorities doing what they consider desirable for the game in their own territories. It is this misconceived attempt which promotes lack of respect for the laws; the laws should be changed - national authorities are no longer children to be protected from their own immaturity of judgment. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 12 11:17:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 11:17:25 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16959 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 11:17:20 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-9.ime.net [207.242.17.18]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id VAA10027; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 21:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 21:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970711211656.093768aa@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: jonbriss@ix2.ix.netcom.com, Labeo From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:08 AM 7/11/97 -0700, B&S wrote: >My position is that sponsoring organizations should rescind any >regulations which affect the use of conventions after any natural bid, >and cease tinkering until and unless the laws are amended to empower >such. > >Jon C. Brissman I agree with you whole heartedly in OPEN events. If the ACBL or other sponsoring organization wants to limit conventions in restricted events or offer concurrent events that restrict conventions or even natural calls, I think they should be able to. Actually, if they want to offer open events and restrict natural calls, they should go right ahead, but they shouldn't call it bridge. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 13 03:14:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 03:14:56 +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 DAA21525 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 03:14:49 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA01855 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970712131419_-625807030@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Psychs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that once a person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt make allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further psych in that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," which is illegal). Comments, please. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 13 03:15:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 03:15:01 +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 DAA21530 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 03:14:55 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout02.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA21995 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970712131424_646860492@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Concealed Partnership Understanding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a cash-out situation. wherein the defender sitting over declarer must obviously lead a suit in which dummy holds KJ, the hand sitting over the dummy against a weak declarer will, when previously discarding from the suit, routinely signal high (encouraging) when holding the queen, and low when holding the ace or neither of those cards. Against a good declarer, the hand sitting over the dummy will signal high with the ace OR queen, low with neither. With AQ, of course, the signal is always high. All this is a partnership understanding gained from previous experience. The hand sitting over declarer knows in all cases when not to underlead the ace, that he must lay it down, and when he can possibly gain by underleading it. When he does not have the ace, partner's signal in the suit provides him with no useful information, since he must lead a low card perforce. The good declarer cannot gain from disclosure of this understanding, since he knows that the hand sitting over the dummy has the ace or queen, or both, when his LHO leads a low card...there is nothing to disclose that would help him play from dummy. The weak declarer can certainly gain from the disclosure that his RHO does not have the ace when he signals low, and must have the queen when he signals high. My question is, if special partnership understandings must be disclosed, is the weak declarer's LHO obligated to tell him, upon leading a low card, that partner's discard of a high card in the suit showed the queen, or that a low card showed the ace? Gary Blaiss, Chief Director of the ACBL, tells me yes. My answer is no, that L73E permits a deceptive discard when "the deception is NOT PROTECTED by concealed partnership understanding or experience," and the partnership understanding in this case does not provide "protection." When declarer's LHO has the queen, he must lead low no matter how partner has signalled. There is no "protection." When he has the ace, an informative discard showing the queen is a standard signal (not a SPECIAL understanding) made against all players. If the answer is yes, all special partnership understandings must be disclosed, then all those standard falsecards we use against naive declarers must be disclosed by partner, rendering them useless. If the answer is no, then it is not true that all special partnership understandings must be disclosed, and TDs should stop saying so. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 13 06:02:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:02:46 +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 GAA22090 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:02:41 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA23196 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 16:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 16:02:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <970712131419_-625807030@emout19.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that once a > person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a > partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt make > allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further psych in > that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," which is > illegal). > > Comments, please. This was a general ruling by the ACBL a few (2-3) years ago. I thought (hoped?) that it had died out. The Laws clearly state I can make any bid I like as long as opponents and partner are equally confused. If the bidding goes 1H-(Dbl)-1S whether my partner is my regular partner or not, I am always aware that partner may not have spades. I am not allowed to act as though I am expecting it. I will raise with four--probably even with three since partner is quite likely to have five, and if I don't when I have a fairly obvious raise, then opponents probably have good cause to call the cops. This is a standard psych. Every reasonable player playing with a decent partner will be aware of its possibility. The one time I tried it, the most astounded person when I ruffed the opening spade lead was partner. Would the ACBL rule I can not do that again, playing with the same partner? I hope not. My most regular partner rarely psychs. When he does, it is most likely that he opens a 3-card major in third seat with an 11-point hand (we open 4-card majors). He did it to me again last week, for the third time in about four years. As usual, I was as (genuinely) surprised as opponents. The previous two times I raised him to four, and we got a decent result. This time I got to 2NT down two (on a misdefense--I might have gone down four) for a terrible result. Should we have been shot? I hope not. -- Richard Lighton | I came to the United States because I heard the streets were (lighton@idt.net)| paved with gold. I learned three things. 1. The streets are Wood-Ridge NJ | not paved with gold. 2. They are not even paved. 3. They USA | expected me to pave them. -- Italian immigrant, 1903 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 13 06:46:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:46:47 +1000 Received: from math.lsa.umich.edu (null.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22206 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 06:46:41 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id QAA07560; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 16:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 16:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707122046.QAA06908@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: lighton@idt.net CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Richard Lighton on Sat, 12 Jul 1997 16:02:36 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Psychs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >> TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that once a >> person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a >> partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt make >> allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further psych in >> that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," which is >> illegal). A ruling that this is a controlled psych is impossible; a psych is controlled only if some control exists for it. An agreement to psych is also illegal, though, and this may be the ACBL's position. >> Comments, please. > This was a general ruling by the ACBL a few (2-3) years ago. I thought > (hoped?) that it had died out. Actually, the ACBL's principle seems to be that doing anything which they do not like for the second time constitutes an implicit agreement. One example which has come up repeatedly is stretching to open a 10-13 1NT on a 9 count. Psyching seems to be another example. But it seems to be fairly clear that the ACBL sees nothing wrong with opening a 5-11 weak 2-bid repeatedly on a 4-count, even though 4-11 is an illegal range for a weak 2-bid (conventions are barred); most good players will do this at favorable vulnerability, particularly in third seat. And I have opened a 21-22 2NT three times with the same partner on a 20 count with all four aces; I think writing 20+-22 on my convention card, although required if we have an agreement to open 20 counts, would be actively unethical, because I don't make the bid on most good 20 counts, only on hands which I want partner to pretend are worth 21. The ACBL could reasonably say, "Repeated violations of a partnership agreement may be considered as *evidence* that the partnership has an implicit agreement," but the word "evidence" is important; it is not proof. General bridge technique is also an important factor to consider; if partner has once before psyched a third-seat opening at favorable vulnerability, is he really barred from doing that again? > The Laws clearly state I can make any bid I like as long as opponents > and partner are equally confused. And this is the most important point of psychic regulations. If you psyche and partner fields it, this is strong evidence that you either had an agreement to psyche or that the psyche was picked up based on UI. That should be the limit on psyching. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner (may move soon) Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 13 20:25:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 20:25:48 +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 UAA23989 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 20:25:40 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1121686; 13 Jul 97 11:23 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 11:20:40 +0100 To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <970712131419_-625807030@emout19.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970712131419_-625807030@emout19.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com writes >TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that once a >person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a >partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt make >allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further psych in >that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," which is >illegal). Labeo: 1. The position hinges upon Law 75 - for those with no book handy I quote: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements which must be disclosed". 2. When there is an implicit agreement it constitutes an element of system and is subject to the regulations in force. 3. The question to be settled - technically one for the Director in the first instance, and then for the AC - is the stage at which it can be recognized, you can recognize, that your partner/partnership has established a habit. To achieve some sort of consistency national authorities commonly give advice to their Directors. I have not heard previously of an area in which one isolated instance has been accounted enough to establish habitual violation - three occasions within a fairly short time (something less than living memory!) is the kind of standard I haved noted elsewhere. I would say the judgement has something to do with what probability there is that the partner will readily recall the past occurrence. 4. The point that players who psyche fairly often tend to overlook is that where the given kind of psyche is a formed habit it is *not* enough just to ensure you do not cater for it in your bidding. The *requirement* of the law is that you disclose it to opponents. 5. The talk of a controlled psyche being illegal is a red herring. The relevance here is that if controlled a psyche *must* be part of the agreed system, but it is not only psyches with controls that are subject to Law 75. 6. Any suggestion that a psyche of a given kind (e g. 1H - Dbl - *1S*) is a baby psyche and a matter of general bridge experience does not stand up. It is not only that there are plenty of players who do not indulge; it is not the determination of the partnership not to make allowances for the possibility of a psyche in their auction: the essential fact is that to be a psyche the call must be grossly at variance with the disclosed partnership understandings and by definition is *not* to be foreseen. If it is not this then it is evidently systemic. Opponents are entitled to be informed of any partnership understanding without having to work it out for themselves when it happens. It may be that failure to announce the baby will be unlikely to damage players beyond the second grade but even when there is no damage the breach of law is still open to penalty if that kind of view is taken of it. 7. In passing, two comments on a parallel note from David Grabiner: (a) Fielding of a psyche is evidence that the partnership had an awareness. But it is not the only possible evidence - for example, NBOs may keep records and are entitled at some stage to determine that a partnership must be aware of something that has happened enough times. The question is still at what point this stage is reached - if as has been said, then I think South-West USA is too hot - but they only have to adjust their sights, not change their target. (b) One should be careful not to inveigh against 'psyching' when all we are talking about is a limit bid opened one point outside of range. This is merely a deviation, normally done because the player's bridge judgement tells him this is the hand and the time for it. If, however, the frequency with which it happens is high enough to call into question whether it is truly a bridge judgement or whether it is a partnership practice then some kind of statement about it on the CC is appropriate. {Not that DG is guilty of censuring what is acceptable, but he implies there are people who do it] Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 14 10:49:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 10:49:25 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28810 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 10:49:19 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0703480; 13 Jul 97 23:19 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 19:49:17 +0100 To: Mlfrench@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Concealed Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <970712131424_646860492@emout02.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970712131424_646860492@emout02.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com writes >.omitted.... >All this is a partnership understanding gained from previous experience. The >hand sitting over declarer knows in all cases when not to underlead the ace, >that he must lay it down, and when he can possibly gain by underleading it. >When he does not have the ace, partner's signal in the suit provides him with >no useful information, since he must lead a low card perforce. ...more taken out... >My question is, if special partnership understandings must be disclosed, is >the weak declarer's LHO obligated to tell him, upon leading a low card, that >partner's discard of a high card in the suit showed the queen, or that a low >card showed the ace? Gary Blaiss, Chief Director of the ACBL, tells me yes. >My answer is no, that L73E permits a deceptive discard when "the deception is >NOT PROTECTED by concealed partnership understanding or experience," and the >partnership understanding in this case does not provide "protection." When >declarer's LHO has the queen, he must lead low no matter how partner has >signalled. There is no "protection." When he has the ace, an informative >discard showing the queen is a standard signal (not a SPECIAL understanding) >made against all players. > >If the answer is yes, all special partnership understandings must be >disclosed, then all those standard falsecards we use against naive declarers >must be disclosed by partner, rendering them useless. > >If the answer is no, then it is not true that all special partnership >understandings must be disclosed, and TDs should stop saying so. > Labeo: Dear Marv, The answer is quite certainly 'yes' - Blaiss is right. As you would expect. Law 75 has it in a nutshell. Your opponent, weak or strong, is entitled to know your signalling methods. You are confusing yourself with talk about deceptive cards - the cards you talk about are not deceptive - they conform to your agreed partnership methods. A false card would communicate wrong information to partner as well as to your opponent. (On occasion partner would be able to tell it was false from what he could see but he is not entitled to have a secret arrangement by which it would be false.) It is not TDs who say special understandings must be disclosed; it is the laws of duplicate bridge. A player's methods must be transparent; whatever in them does not conform to what all the world knows, or at least the world in which (s)he is playing at the time, must be uncovered to opponents. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 14 22:11:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 22:11:40 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01276 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 22:11:34 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id FAA21391; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 05:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma021273; Mon, 14 Jul 97 05:22:32 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id FAA01468 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 05:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199707141215.FAA01468@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 Jul 97 10:37:20 GMT Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon C. Brissman wrote >Labeo wrote, inter alia: > >> Let me add that I do believe it is appropriate to regulate for <> some levels of bridge in respect of some aspects of what is >> technically natural bidding, necessitating adoption of a legal >> device since in this the laws remain bound in the past. > >Respectfully, I disagree. The appropriate method of dealing with laws >that appear antiquated or inadequate is to change the laws. It promotes >neither order nor respect for the law to allow sponsoring organizations >through regulation to accomplish an end antithetical to the law. > >The laws do not authorize sponsoring organizations to regulate natural >bids. If bridge legislators wish to allow sponsoring organizations to >regulate natural bids by using the legal device of regulating >conventions used subsequently, they may amend the law to explicitly >grant the power. Absent a clear mandate from the law, administrative >activism should be curtailed. > >My position is that sponsoring organizations should rescind any >regulations which affect the use of conventions after any natural bid, >and cease tinkering until and unless the laws are amended to empower >such. I agree with Labeo that "it is appropriate to regulate for some levels of bridge in respect of some aspects of what is technically natural bidding", but, (I think) like him, recognise the opposite view is reasonable. I am afraid I do not agree with Jon C. Brissman, who appears to assume that the Laws do not permit restrictions on conventions after the opening of "natural" one-level bids. Law80F permits SOs "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws". Nowhere in the Laws does it prevent an SO from regulating conventions after the opening of "natural" one-level bids. Thus an SO can do that. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 14 23:12:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:12:03 +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 XAA01426 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:11:57 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA03430 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970714091254.00694b08@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:12:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Concealed Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: References: <970712131424_646860492@emout02.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:49 PM 7/13/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >In message <970712131424_646860492@emout02.mail.aol.com>, >Mlfrench@aol.com writes >>.omitted.... >>All this is a partnership understanding gained from previous experience. The >>hand sitting over declarer knows in all cases when not to underlead the ace, >>that he must lay it down, and when he can possibly gain by underleading it. >>When he does not have the ace, partner's signal in the suit provides him with >>no useful information, since he must lead a low card perforce. > >...more taken out... > >>My question is, if special partnership understandings must be disclosed, is >>the weak declarer's LHO obligated to tell him, upon leading a low card, that >>partner's discard of a high card in the suit showed the queen, or that a low >>card showed the ace? Gary Blaiss, Chief Director of the ACBL, tells me yes. >>My answer is no, that L73E permits a deceptive discard when "the deception is >>NOT PROTECTED by concealed partnership understanding or experience," and the >>partnership understanding in this case does not provide "protection." When >>declarer's LHO has the queen, he must lead low no matter how partner has >>signalled. There is no "protection." When he has the ace, an informative >>discard showing the queen is a standard signal (not a SPECIAL understanding) >>made against all players. >> >>If the answer is yes, all special partnership understandings must be >>disclosed, then all those standard falsecards we use against naive declarers >>must be disclosed by partner, rendering them useless. >> >>If the answer is no, then it is not true that all special partnership >>understandings must be disclosed, and TDs should stop saying so. >> >Labeo: > Dear Marv, > The answer is quite certainly 'yes' - Blaiss is right. > As you would expect. > Law 75 has it in a nutshell. Your opponent, weak or strong, is > entitled to know your signalling methods. You are confusing > yourself with talk about deceptive cards - the cards you talk > about are not deceptive - they conform to your agreed partnership > methods. A false card would communicate wrong information to > partner as well as to your opponent. (On occasion partner would > be able to tell it was false from what he could see but he is not > entitled to have a secret arrangement by which it would be > false.) > > It is not TDs who say special understandings must be disclosed; > it is the laws of duplicate bridge. A player's methods must be > transparent; whatever in them does not conform to what all the > world knows, or at least the world in which (s)he is playing at > the time, must be uncovered to opponents. This does seem to open up quite a can of worms. Consider the following: (1) A defender who realizes that he is about to be squeezed in a position where declarer will have to guess whether he has been squeezed or not will decide which suit he intends to abandon (he might, for example, have to come down to a stiff king behing the AQ in dummy). He will routinely abandon the suit early, hoping to mislead a naive declarer who may assume that he will (as the naive declarer might) make the crucial discard only at the last possible moment. Conversely, if he is not being squeezed, but wants to mislead declarer into thinking that he is, he will be sure to pitch from the key suit at his final discard. (2) A declarer who needs to guess a suit holding a sequence to the jack opposite Kx[...] will routinely lead the lowest card of the sequence planning to pass it, hoping that a naive defender will, seeing what may look to him like a small card, rise with the ace in front of dummy if he has it. Conversely, if he will gain from LHO's ducking the ace, he will lead the jack. (Neither Law 75, which requires revelation of partnership agreements, nor the ACBL's (and others'?) regulations which make knowledge gained through partnership experience "implicit agreement", makes any distinction between the declaring and defending sides with regard to the revelation of "agreements" about the play.) What we seem to be saying is that once you have sufficient experience with a partner to know that he is aware of these routine ploys, they become implicit partnership understandings which must be revealed to the opponents. But doing so renders them useless, indeed requires that they be abandoned to avoid giving the show away. Do we really believe that the Law requires that such routine maneuvers be available only to new partnerships? This does appear to be the ACBL's position: Law 75C says that "a player... need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." But the knowledge gained from partnership experience that one's partner shares one's "general knowledge and experience" of specific situations is not such an inference, but rather an implicit partnership understanding. If we accept that, aren't we saying that the above-quoted clause in L75A is relevant only to inexperienced partnerships? 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 Jul 15 01:28:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 01:28:32 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA04176 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 01:28:23 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0508321; 14 Jul 97 15:38 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC906B.E30446E0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:37:50 +0100 Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC88B1.E850A740@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 19:38:54 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Conventional bids Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:37:38 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 17 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 02:27 PM 7/2/97 +0100, David Martin wrote: > >>Surely supporting partners suit with any number of cards, even a >>singleton or doubleton, is natural provided that the supporting player >>is indicating that the partnership has a combined holding of 8 or more >>cards in the suit? > >8? Why not 7? I've seen some 3-3's played very nicely for fine results. >And, a 4-2 was once the top spot in the Master Solvers' Club. > I quite agree and was not suggesting that an 8 card fit was the minimum required, ie that 8 was a necessary condition for the bid to be natural, >but rather that it was a sufficient condition. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 02:13:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:13:41 +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 CAA04503 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:13:34 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00689; 14 Jul 97 9:12 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Psychs In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:14:20 PDT." <970712131419_-625807030@emout19.mail.aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:12:55 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9707140912.aa00689@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that once a > person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a > partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt make ^^^^^^^^ > allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further psych in > that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," which is > illegal). > > Comments, please. Well, I know from my own experience this isn't true. I'm a terrible psych-fielder; I know this only because I have one regular partner who likes to psych occasionally. (Most people I play with don't psych at all.) I never figure out what he's doing until he actually shows out in the suit he's supposed to have. The way I figure it, I have enough problems figuring out what to bid; I have to take into account the calls partner made, the calls partner didn't make, the bids the opponents made and the bids they could have made but didn't, our system, the opponent's system, what the rest of the field is likely to do, etc., which is already too much for my poor brain to handle. If I had to make allowances for partner's possible psyching, my brain would likely go into overload and shut down. Anyway, that's my rationale for not fielding partner's psychs. The other rationale is that if I don't field them, maybe partner will learn not to psych. I understand that a lot of people don't like psychs, but the reasoning that these TD's have come up with is not at all based in reality. I'm sure there's lots of people who feel the same way I do, that there's already too much to think about without worrying about partner's occasional psychs (*frequent* psychs are a different matter). So the idea that "partner will no doubt make allowance for the psych in the future" is just as much a fantasy as my belief that if I don't field psychs, partner will quit making them. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 03:45:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 03:45:46 +1000 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA04859 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 03:45:39 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA25101; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 13:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 13:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970714134423_-1828866513@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: smug@bridgeworld.com Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Surely the lawmakers did not intend that an SO should be able to bar conventions for some players and not for others in the same event, based on the non-conventional methods they employ. There is a concept known as "equal protection under the law." If a police force is given the right to regulate automobile speeds, that doesn't mean it may do so differently for drivers of Fords and Cadillacs. If an SO can bar conventions following a non-conventional call that it dislikes, then it can control all non-conventional calls, since few are useful if no conventions are permitted after making them. Don't like certain HCP-range weak two bids or 1NT openings? Just bar any subsequent conventions, and they go away. Law 40D states which "partnership understandings" other than conventions an SO may regulate, certainly implying that no others may be regulated. Barring conventions after a specific understanding is exercised constitutes a "regulation" of the understanding. At one time the ACBL restricted weak two bids to a certain HCP range, with a maximum of 12 HCP. Shortly thereafter, Johnny Crawford was penalized in an NABC for opening a 13 HCP weak two bid in fourth position. Every time the ACBL comes up with some outrage like this, the lawmakers have to counter with clarifying language to stop the practice. The new sentence in the definition of "convention": "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention" was aimed especially at the ACBL. In the next update, the Laws should make it clear that an SO cannot regulate conventions solely on the basis of a partnership's non-conventional methods. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 05:11:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 05:11:49 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05223 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 05:11:44 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-19.ts-9.la.idt.net [169.132.208.91]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA12113; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33CA78E1.BC22E226@idt.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:07:13 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mlfrench@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <970712131419_-625807030@emout19.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A lot of strangeness in this area is cropping up. In the just-concluded Bridge Week, a pair received 3 imps when they were 'victimized' by a psych. It seems the bidding went 2H-p-2N, and the 2N bidding had a bad hand, and was therefore guilty of psyching a conventional bid, a big no no in the ACBL. At the other table, incidentally, the bidding went 2H-p-3N (!) but this was not penalized, because 3N wasn't conventional. In my experience, the 2N psych is as old as the hills, and I'm really astonished that any player would actually call the director over it. I suppose the ACBL policy didn't really have this in mind, but carelessly devised rules will often have unexpected repercussions. Irv Kostal Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that > once a > person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a > partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt > make > allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further > psych in > that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," > which is > illegal). > > Comments, please. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 05:41:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 05:41:36 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05327 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 05:41:30 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA23791; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:40:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca2-16.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.80) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma023702; Mon Jul 14 14:40:29 1997 Message-ID: <33CA7FF4.1CD4@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:37:24 -0700 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix20.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls References: <199707141215.FAA01468@cactus.tc.pw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote, inter alia: > I am afraid I do not agree with Jon C. Brissman, who appears to assume that the > Laws do not permit restrictions on conventions after the opening of "natural" > one-level bids. Law80F permits SOs "to publish or announce regulations > supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws". > > Nowhere in the Laws does it prevent an SO from regulating conventions after the > opening of "natural" one-level bids. Thus an SO can do that. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never questioned the authority of a SO to regulate conventions. What concerns me is that an SO may use (abuse) this authority to prohibit all conventions subsequent to a natural bid which it disfavors, and the effect is to make the underlying natural bid unplayable. Thus, a SO may accomplish the end of regulating natural bids even though the law does not so permit. IMO, the use of a SO's convention regulation authority in this fashion is in conflict with the law. Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 06:10:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:10:50 +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 GAA05423 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:10:44 +1000 Received: from cph18.ppp.dknet.dk (cph18.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.18]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA12730 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 22:10:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Psychs Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 22:10:34 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33cd85dc.3476779@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <970712131419_-625807030@emout19.mail.aol.com> <33CA78E1.BC22E226@idt.net> In-Reply-To: <33CA78E1.BC22E226@idt.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 Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:07:13 -0700, Irwin J Kostal wrote: >A lot of strangeness in this area is cropping up. In the just-concluded >Bridge Week, a pair received 3 imps when they were 'victimized' by a >psych. It seems the bidding went 2H-p-2N, and the 2N bidding had a bad >hand, and was therefore guilty of psyching a conventional bid, a big no >no in the ACBL. L40A: "A. Right to Choose Call or Play=20 A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." This clearly allows a player to make any call whatsoever. SOs are allowed to regulate _partnership agreements_ - they are not allowed to regulate psyches. So the ACBL rule forbidding this 2NT call is very obviously illegal. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 06:43:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:43:18 +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 GAA05564 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:43:12 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA14985; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:43:00 -0800 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:43:00 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: Irwin J Kostal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <33CA78E1.BC22E226@idt.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Irwin J Kostal wrote: > A lot of strangeness in this area is cropping up. In the just-concluded > Bridge Week, a pair received 3 imps when they were 'victimized' by a > psych. It seems the bidding went 2H-p-2N, and the 2N bidding had a bad > hand, and was therefore guilty of psyching a conventional bid, a big no > no in the ACBL. At the other table, incidentally, the bidding went > 2H-p-3N (!) but this was not penalized, because 3N wasn't conventional. > > In my experience, the 2N psych is as old as the hills, and I'm really > astonished that any player would actually call the director over it. I I'm not at all astonished that a director was called -- people call a director over the silliest things sometimes. The part that astonishes me is that the 2NT bid is considered a psychic at all. My system notes, and several books, define this as an ASKING BID, inquiring about opener's suit quality and strength (or, for other people, strength and location of side values). Responder promises nothing as far as strength OR distribution, though most often it is 15+ points with a fit. The ACBL General Convention Chart allows "Artificial bids... after opening bids of 2C or higher" with no restrictions on the nature of the hand that makes the artificial bid. Furthermore, the ACBL Alert Chart says "2NT/2 level openings asking for clarification" isn't even alertable (whether 2NT promises values or not)! Is it the ACBL's intention to force me to Alert my asking bid because it doesn't promise values? I'm willing to do this, but it ain't what the chart says. As for whether there should be a penalty -- it seems that this depends on what the pair's agreement is. If I presented the argument of the above 2 paragraphs to a director, I would expect not to be penalized. On the other hand, if the 2NT bidder says "I'm supposed to have a strong hand for my bid but I psyched," well, he has confessed, so I guess we have to string him up. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 07:33:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 07:33:21 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA05760 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 07:33:15 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0508324; 14 Jul 97 15:38 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC906B.E30446E0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:37:50 +0100 Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC88B0.B6D03010@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 19:30:22 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: ACBL Factoring Method for Board with Ave+,- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:37:36 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 73 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >On Friday, 20th June, Henk wrote: >> >>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%. > >Yes, but 60% of which other pairs? If the board has several Art ASs >then do you get the score for beating 60% of the players who *really* >played the board or the score for beating 60% of the players who *should >have* played the board bearing in mind that the real players are being >handicapped by Neuberg and can only beat other *real* players. For >those who really play the board, the original top is no longer available >so is it fair that the AV+ should get 60% of that unattainable top? > >It might be helpful to look at the legal basis of of what I am >suggesting. Law 12C1 does not mention *other pairs* but talks about >"available matchpoints". Law 78A states "In matchpoint scoring each >contestant is awarded, for scores made by different contestants *who >have played* the same board and whose scores are compared with his: two >scoring units (matchpoints or half matchpoints) for each score inferior >to his, one scoring unit for each score equal to his, and zero scoring >units for each score superior to his." No mention is made here or >anywhere else in the Laws of factoring scores. Thus, if a board has >only been played 11 times when it should have been played 21 times then, >going strictly by the wording of the Laws, the maximum number of >matchpoints *available* on that board is 10 (using half matchpoints) and >AV+ and AV- are 6 and 4 matchpoints respectively. > >Clearly, if the movement is incomplete (ie. all boards are not played by >all pairs) then the players of this board could be significantly >disadvantaged if they simply got their unfactored raw matchpoint scores. > As the Laws contain no specific method for factoring scores, most >Sponsoring Organisations use their powers under Law 78D to produce their >own regulations for matchpoint scoring that include some form of >factoring and the Neuberg formula is easily the most commonly used >method when computer scoring is available. > >Most such supplementary regulations that I have seen explain how Neuberg >should be applied to scores but are silent as to how Art ASs are >calculated and my contention is that the Art AS matchpoints should >therefore be awarded at the same time and *on the same basis* as the >real matchpoints (which is consistent with Law 12C1's use of the phrase >"available matchpoints") and from then on treated in the same way as >real matchpoints in terms of factoring up. > >There is of course nothing stopping Sponsoring Organisations from having >*different* supplementary regulations for the calculation of Art ASs >that require the available matchpoints be calculated on the basis that >the board had been fully played by all the players who should have >played it. My suggestion is that this is less fair than the previous >method because AV+ will now give you more matchpoints (12 in your >example) than a real player who beats 60% of his real opponents will get >(11.91 in your example). Similary, AV- will give you fewer matchpoints >than a real player who beats 40% of his real opponents will get. > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 10:02:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:02:21 +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 KAA06336 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:02:14 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0923123; 15 Jul 97 1:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:25:21 +0100 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <33cd85dc.3476779@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33cd85dc.3476779@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes > SOs are allowed to regulate _partnership agreements_ - they are not >allowed to regulate psyches. So the ACBL rule forbidding this >2NT call is very obviously illegal. Labeo: There have been plenty of instances of regulations banning psyching of conventional bids. At international level too, including European events. I believe the WBF accepts that it is a legitimate form of regulation of conventions. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 10:11:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:11:22 +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 KAA06369 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:11:16 +1000 Received: from [194.222.115.176] ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1013323; 15 Jul 97 1:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:58:08 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <9707140912.aa00689@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9707140912.aa00689@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > (...lots omitted....) >I understand that a lot of people don't like psychs, but the reasoning >that these TD's have come up with is not at all based in reality. I'm >sure there's lots of people who feel the same way I do, that there's >already too much to think about without worrying about partner's >occasional psychs (*frequent* psychs are a different matter). So the >idea that "partner will no doubt make allowance for the psych in the >future" is just as much a fantasy as my belief that if I don't field >psychs, partner will quit making them. > Labeo: I remain to be convinced that the said TDs *have* the reasons with which they are being fitted up. It could just be they are trying to establish what it takes to make the violation of system 'habitual' and then to apply the law to it. I agree that, if true, one swallow does not make a summer and they are being hasty on the draw - maybe it is something to do with history in those parts. Adam makes a case but it has a flaw: the laws are quite uninterested in whether he will make allowance for the psyche; Law 75 simply says that if the *violations of system* are 'habitual' to the extent judged to create an implicit agreement they must be disclosed as part of system. Whereupon they are subject to whatever regulations apply. What is more, if the habitual 'psyche' does not guarantee anything about the hand - and how can a psyche? - it is by definition a convention. An implicit agreement exists not in making allowances for the psyche but in the awareness that can expect it. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 11:26:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:26:33 +1000 Received: from upsmot01.msn.com (upsmot01.msn.com [204.95.110.78]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06626 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:26:28 +1000 Received: from upmajb08 ([204.95.110.71]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id SAA03790; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 18:24:29 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 97 01:18:54 UT From: "Sue O'Donnell" Message-Id: To: Mlfrench@aol.com, "Irwin J Kostal" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Psychs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I posed the 2H-P-2N question to r.g.b. last week and received several replies saying that the 2N bid was not a psych BECASUE it was an asking bid. But if an asking bid cannot be a psych by definition, what did the ACBL have in mind in disallowing "conventional responses to natural openings which are less than 2NT" in the new General Convention Chart? And what about 2H -Dbl-2S holding S-xx H-Jxxxx D-xxx C-xxx, and playing Raise Only Non-Forcing. A natural response, but is it now disallowed by the new language in all three convention charts stating that a disallowed psychic control "(Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)"? Most partnerships agree that a pre-empter may not bid again unless forced, so the responder will be sure they will declare (if at all) at some number of Hearts. Is this the type of "allowance" referred to, or is it an unregulated tactical bid? Sue O'Donnell sodonnell@msn.com ---------- From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au on behalf of Irwin J Kostal Sent: Monday, July 14, 1997 12:07 PM To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs A lot of strangeness in this area is cropping up. In the just-concluded Bridge Week, a pair received 3 imps when they were 'victimized' by a psych. It seems the bidding went 2H-p-2N, and the 2N bidding had a bad hand, and was therefore guilty of psyching a conventional bid, a big no no in the ACBL. At the other table, incidentally, the bidding went 2H-p-3N (!) but this was not penalized, because 3N wasn't conventional. In my experience, the 2N psych is as old as the hills, and I'm really astonished that any player would actually call the director over it. I suppose the ACBL policy didn't really have this in mind, but carelessly devised rules will often have unexpected repercussions. Irv Kostal Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that > once a > person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a > partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt > make > allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further > psych in > that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," > which is > illegal). > > Comments, please. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 12:49:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:49:23 +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 MAA06856 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:49:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0929905; 15 Jul 97 3:48 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 18:34:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote >David Stevenson writes >>Labeo wrote >>> The method said to be adopted by ACBL to regulate >>>non-conventional methods was much earlier used in England, a lot >>>of years ago (since discarded), to regulate minimum standards for >>>opening One-of-suit bids in some contexts. >> Oh? >> >> When was it discarded? >> >> FYI, I understood that it *may* be discussed at the L&EC meeting on >>Wednesday. My understanding is that it is currently in use. >Labeo: I must have overlooked where the regulation is now published? > Or is it a secret? I think it is a secret! However, the minimum permitted opening by agreement in EBU/WBU events is Rule of 19, or 11HCP: for a 1NT opening it is 10 HCP. My understanding is that while not currently published, the legal basis for this was not to allow conventions after a natural bid that did not conform. Speaking *unofficially*, since the minutes of the L&EC meeting have not yet been published, it appears that the L&EC intends to continue this practice, with two provisos. First, that the next set of directives *will* explain that players may play weaker natural bids if they desire, but will not be allowed to play conventions thereafter. Second, that at the higher levels of competition, the minima will be reduced by one point. -- 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 Jul 15 13:30:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:30:17 +1000 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA07016 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:30:12 +1000 From: DBlizzard@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA18874 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:29:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970714232937_-1393269050@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-07-14 15:15:07 EDT, bigfoot@idt.net (Irwin J Kostal) writes: << A lot of strangeness in this area is cropping up. In the just-concluded Bridge Week, a pair received 3 imps when they were 'victimized' by a psych. It seems the bidding went 2H-p-2N, and the 2N bidding had a bad hand, and was therefore guilty of psyching a conventional bid, a big no no in the ACBL. At the other table, incidentally, the bidding went 2H-p-3N (!) but this was not penalized, because 3N wasn't conventional. In my experience, the 2N psych is as old as the hills, and I'm really astonished that any player would actually call the director over it. I suppose the ACBL policy didn't really have this in mind, but carelessly devised rules will often have unexpected repercussions. >> Especially since it depends on how 2NT is defined. It is certainly legal to play it as a forcing bid asking for further description & use it with a weak hand, since you really can't psyche a pure asking bid. However, if you define 2NT as showing a good hand, then it becomes a psyche & illegal in the ACBL (since you aren't allowed to psyche conventional bids). Sure sounds like an overzealous committee. A case where inexperienced players are at a disadvantage. An experienced player (or at least a well informed one) should be able to convince the committee they were wrong, merely by pointing out that the convention doesn't have to guarantee a good hand. Note the ACBL alert procedure states that 2NT responses are not alertable when they ask for further clarification. Nothing is stated about whether they must promise a good hand. David A. Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 13:44:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:44:14 +1000 Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA07087 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:44:09 +1000 From: DBlizzard@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA15292 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970714234246_-1191627108@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-07-14 22:46:49 EDT, SODonnell@msn.com (Sue O'Donnell) writes: << I posed the 2H-P-2N question to r.g.b. last week and received several replies saying that the 2N bid was not a psych BECASUE it was an asking bid. But if an asking bid cannot be a psych by definition, what did the ACBL have in mind in disallowing "conventional responses to natural openings which are less than 2NT" in the new General Convention Chart? >> I won't speak for the ACBL, since they may have intended to disallow "psychic" asking bids (I know certain relay systems were at least partially a concern). However, psychic "splinters", a reoccuring tactic, are now illegal. Psyching Jacoby 2NT is normally illegal, since it typically promises an opening hand or better. You could define it as merely an asking bid, however, that is going to cause problems in constructive auctions where opener has a huge hand. If you play Bergen raises you won't be able to psyche the conventional ones. You also won't be able to psyche strong cuebids to partner's opening/overcall. There are gray areas. Can you psyche a Jacoby transfer? You can't if it promises a certain number of the transfered suit, you can if it merely requests opener to bid the transfered suit. 99% of players play it promises, so you can't. To tell the truth, the only common use of a psychic response that is not an asking bid that I can think of is the psychic splinter. There may be ones in uncommon conventions, or common conventions that hands that would want to psyche are rare. David A. Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 15:28:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:28:31 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07339 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 15:28:23 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1518899; 15 Jul 97 1:00 BST Message-ID: <$28K6TA+sryzEwRb@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:50:22 +0100 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: <199707141215.FAA01468@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707141215.FAA01468@cactus.tc.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@e urope.notes.pw.com writes >Jon C. Brissman wrote > >...Then Stephen Barnfield wrote..... >I agree with Labeo that > >"it is appropriate to regulate for >some levels of bridge in respect of some aspects of what is >technically natural bidding", > >but, (I think) like him, recognise the opposite view is reasonable. > Labeo: yes. Traditional, too: we are the revolutionaries. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 18:38:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:38:20 +1000 Received: from exinis1-1.ms.com (exinis.ms.com [204.254.197.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07893 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:38:15 +1000 Received: (from mail@localhost) by exinis1-1.ms.com (8.8.5/fw v1.22) id EAA00561 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:38:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by exinis1-1.ms.com via smap (V1.3) id sma000455; Tue Jul 15 04:37:32 1997 Received: from lnsun39.morgan.com (lnsun39.morgan.com [140.14.98.39]) by cwmail1.morgan.com (8.8.5/hub v1.50) with ESMTP id JAA15880 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:37:30 +0100 (BST) From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.7.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id JAA01785 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:37:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:37:30 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <9707150937.ZM1783@ms.com> In-Reply-To: "Sue O'Donnell" "RE: Psychs" (Jul 15, 1:18am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Jul 15, 1:18am, Sue O'Donnell wrote: > And what about 2H -Dbl-2S holding S-xx H-Jxxxx D-xxx C-xxx, and playing Raise > Only Non-Forcing. A natural response, but is it now disallowed by the new > language in all three convention charts stating that a disallowed psychic > control "(Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction > with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)"? Most partnerships > agree that a pre-empter may not bid again unless forced, so the responder will > be sure they will declare (if at all) at some number of Hearts. Is this the > type of "allowance" referred to, or is it an unregulated tactical bid? In general, forbidding the pre-emptor to bid again amounts to playing psychic controls. I think this agreement is in fact very rare (perhaps a r.g.b. poll would be interesting?) You may be able to legally protect this psyche by arranging things so that partner can never want to raise, e.g. by forbidding a weak 2H to contain three decent spades or a void and by claiming that 2S shows no more than five low spades. What you can't do is to say that Qxxx/Axxxxx/xx/x should be bid 2H-(Dbl)-2S-(3C)-Pass - this agreement would be a psychic control. A similar case which did the rounds in rgb a while ago was the agreement never to break transfers opposite 1NT (I think it was Meckwell and a 9-12 1NT). The concensus then was that it was OK not to break 1NT-2D with a maximum and prime support, but that if the opponents competed to 2S, then an agreement not to bid 3H was illegal. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 19:10:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 19:10:50 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA07978 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 19:10:44 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id CAA29332; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma029299; Tue, 15 Jul 97 02:21:37 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id CAA03778; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199707150914.CAA03778@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: jonbriss@ix20.ix.netcom.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 15 Jul 97 09:10:31 GMT Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jon C. Brissman wrote: >Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote, inter alia: >> I am afraid I do not agree with Jon C. Brissman, who appears to assume that the >> Laws do not permit restrictions on conventions after the opening of "natural" >> one-level bids. Law80F permits SOs "to publish or announce regulations >> supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws". >> >> Nowhere in the Laws does it prevent an SO from regulating conventions after the >> opening of "natural" one-level bids. Thus an SO can do that. > >Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I never questioned the authority >of a SO to regulate conventions. What concerns me is that an SO may use >(abuse) this authority to prohibit all conventions subsequent to a >natural bid which it disfavors, and the effect is to make the underlying >natural bid unplayable. Thus, a SO may accomplish the end of regulating >natural bids even though the law does not so permit. IMO, the use of a >SO's convention regulation authority in this fashion is in conflict with >the law. Thanks for the clarification. My understanding is: (i) SOs may regulate conventions; (ii) the Laws do not prevent the prohibition of conventional responses or rebids following certain natural one-level openings; (iii) the WBF Laws Commission, or at least some members of it were aware when drafting the 1997 code (and possibly earlier codes) that some SOs use this method of regulation, and have not taken any action to prevent it. It may be that many will think to ban conventional responses and rebids after certain one-level openings is inappropriate. I respect their views. But I think that in certain cases it is appropriate, and perhaps more relevantly, think it is not prevented by the Laws. Perhaps the difference between us is that you think this method is banned because the Laws do not specifically permit it, whereas I think I think it is permitted because it is not banned. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 15 20:36:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 20:36:03 +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 UAA08211 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 20:35:56 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1009684; 15 Jul 97 10:57 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:27:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <33cd85dc.3476779@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote >On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:07:13 -0700, Irwin J Kostal > wrote: > >>A lot of strangeness in this area is cropping up. In the just-concluded >>Bridge Week, a pair received 3 imps when they were 'victimized' by a >>psych. It seems the bidding went 2H-p-2N, and the 2N bidding had a bad >>hand, and was therefore guilty of psyching a conventional bid, a big no >>no in the ACBL. > >L40A: >"A. Right to Choose Call or Play > A player may make any call or play (including an >intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call >or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously >announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, >provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership >understanding." > >This clearly allows a player to make any call whatsoever. SOs >are allowed to regulate _partnership agreements_ - they are not >allowed to regulate psyches. So the ACBL rule forbidding this >2NT call is very obviously illegal. L40D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. [Snip] This is the Law under which psyches of conventional calls are not permitted by an SO - and it looks legal to me. Incidentally, on this question of 2H - 2NT, it clearly is not a psyche if the pair concerned plays that is merely an ask with no minimum. I am sure I read that the BoD realised their mistake and have now produced a supplementary regulation to cover this "loophole". -- 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 Jul 15 22:11:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:11:06 +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 WAA08748 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:10:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1412380; 15 Jul 97 12:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:19:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <970714234246_-1191627108@emout11.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DBlizzard@aol.com wrote >To tell the truth, the only common use of a psychic response that is not an >asking bid that I can think of is the psychic splinter. There may be ones in >uncommon conventions, or common conventions that hands that would want >to psyche are rare. I have heard of a pair that played 1NT - 2D/2H as Transfer - well, maybe! They played 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2NT as a game try with spades [sic]. 1NT - 2H - 2S - 2NT as a game try with hearts [sic]. 1NT - 2D - 2H - 3NT as to play, *not* correctable! 1NT - 2H - 2S - 3NT as to play, *not* correctable! In all other cases they were transfers! -- 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 Jul 15 22:24:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:24:05 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08827 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:24:00 +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 IAA26666 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970715082505.006a50fc@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:25:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <970714234246_-1191627108@emout11.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:43 PM 7/14/97 -0400, David wrote: >To tell the truth, the only common use of a psychic response that is not an >asking bid that I can think of is the psychic splinter. There may be ones in >uncommon conventions, or common conventions that hands that would want >to psyche are rare. The ordinary control-showing cue bid is such a "common convention" that we're overlooking it. Psyching a cue bid in a slam-going auction to inhibit the lead of a suit is a tactic almost as old as the game of bridge. It sounds from this discussion like this routine tactic is now illegal in the ACBL. 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 Jul 15 22:33:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:33:08 +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 WAA08892 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:33:03 +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 IAA27080 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970715083410.006a6310@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:34:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <9707150937.ZM1783@ms.com> References: <"Sue O'Donnell" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:37 AM 7/15/97 +0100, Ed wrote: >A similar case which did the rounds in rgb a while ago was the agreement >never to break transfers opposite 1NT (I think it was Meckwell and a 9-12 >1NT). The concensus then was that it was OK not to break 1NT-2D with a >maximum and prime support, but that if the opponents competed to 2S, then >an agreement not to bid 3H was illegal. This seems ludicrous on its face. Holding a maximum of 12 HCP, knowing that partner would always bid 2D on, say, xx/xxxxx/xxx/xxx, is a player not allowed to never bid again, on the grounds that he's highly averse to bringing back large four-digit minuses to his teammates? Are we really saying that such a habitual practice, once "noticed" by his partner, is an illegal implicit agreement? 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 Jul 16 01:42:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 01:42:38 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11902 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 01:42:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0622112; 15 Jul 97 3:48 BST Message-ID: <$QsEgoAc0syzEwjo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:06:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote >TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that once a >person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a >partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt make >allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further psych in >that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," which is >illegal). > >Comments, please. Well, not a controlled psych, which is something totally different. Anyway, in my view, this position does not accord with the Laws. Labeo wrote > 6. Any suggestion that a psyche of a given kind (e g. 1H - Dbl - >*1S*) is a baby psyche and a matter of general bridge experience does >not stand up. It is not only that there are plenty of players who do >not indulge; it is not the determination of the partnership not to >make allowances for the possibility of a psyche in their auction: the >essential fact is that to be a psyche the call must be grossly at >variance with the disclosed partnership understandings and by >definition is *not* to be foreseen. If it is not this then it is >evidently systemic. Opponents are entitled to be informed of any >partnership understanding without having to work it out for themselves >when it happens. It may be that failure to announce the baby will be >unlikely to damage players beyond the second grade but even when there >is no damage the breach of law is still open to penalty if that kind of >view is taken of it. The principal problem of psyching is that "fielding" a psyche, ie allowing for it in the bidding, is illegal insofar as it suggests a CPU [Concealed Partnership Understanding]. Thus controlled psyches can be legal: if the SO allows their use and their use is known to the opponents then they are legal. However, in all other cases apart from controlled psyches, rulings on the fielding of psyches should be based on whether there is a CPU. In such a case all the available evidence should be considered, and that should include whether it is a well-known psyching position. If the bidding goes [for example] 1H x 1S then with a totally unknown partner the possibility of a psyche might occur. Accordingly therefore the evidence of a CPU is weaker with a regular partner in a known position. General bridge experience is and should be part of the evidence in making such 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 Wed Jul 16 02:14:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 02:14:24 +1000 Received: from math.lsa.umich.edu (null.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12149 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 02:14:18 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id MAA04793; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707151614.MAA15982@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: elandau@cais.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19970715082505.006a50fc@cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Tue, 15 Jul 1997 08:25:05 -0400) Subject: Re: Psychs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > The ordinary control-showing cue bid is such a "common convention" that > we're overlooking it. > Psyching a cue bid in a slam-going auction to inhibit the lead of a suit is > a tactic almost as old as the game of bridge. It sounds from this > discussion like this routine tactic is now illegal in the ACBL. Fortunately, the ACBL hasn't gone that far; psyching of conventions is only forbidden at the opening bid, and (on the GCC) the first response to an opening below 2NT. You can still psyche Blackwood over a 3-level preempt (but not over a weak 2-bid), or psyche a cue-bid later in the auction. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner (may move soon) Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 16 02:15:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 02:15:29 +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 CAA12171 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 02:15:23 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-13-3.innet.be [194.7.13.3]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01399 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:15:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33CB67F0.2261@innet.be> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:07:12 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: FW: 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 I MUST reply to this one, of course. (You have been waiting for it, haven't you - or should that be dreading?) David Martin wrote: (I have reduced him to one >) > > >On Friday, 20th June, Henk wrote: >> >>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%. > >Yes, but 60% of which other pairs? If the board has several Art ASs >then do you get the score for beating 60% of the players who *really* >played the board or the score for beating 60% of the players who should >have* played the board bearing in mind that the real players are being >handicapped by Neuberg and can only beat other *real* players. For >those who really play the board, the original top is no longer available >so is it fair that the AV+ should get 60% of that unattainable top? > >It might be helpful to look at the legal basis of of what I am >suggesting. Law 12C1 does not mention *other pairs* but talks about >"available matchpoints". Law 78A states "In matchpoint scoring each >contestant is awarded, for scores made by different contestants *who >have played* the same board and whose scores are compared with his: two >scoring units (matchpoints or half matchpoints) for each score inferior >to his, one scoring unit for each score equal to his, and zero scoring >units for each score superior to his." No mention is made here or >anywhere else in the Laws of factoring scores. Thus, if a board has >only been played 11 times when it should have been played 21 times then, >going strictly by the wording of the Laws, the maximum number of >matchpoints *available* on that board is 10 (using half matchpoints) and >AV+ and AV- are 6 and 4 matchpoints respectively. > >Clearly, if the movement is incomplete (ie. all boards are not played by >all pairs) then the players of this board could be significantly >disadvantaged if they simply got their unfactored raw matchpoint scores. > As the Laws contain no specific method for factoring scores, most >Sponsoring Organisations use their powers under Law 78D to produce their >own regulations for matchpoint scoring that include some form of >factoring and the Neuberg formula is easily the most commonly used >method when computer scoring is available. > >Most such supplementary regulations that I have seen explain how Neuberg >should be applied to scores but are silent as to how Art ASs are >calculated and my contention is that the Art AS matchpoints should >therefore be awarded at the same time and *on the same basis* as the >real matchpoints (which is consistent with Law 12C1's use of the phrase >"available matchpoints") and from then on treated in the same way as >real matchpoints in terms of factoring up. > >There is of course nothing stopping Sponsoring Organisations from having >*different* supplementary regulations for the calculation of Art ASs >that require the available matchpoints be calculated on the basis that >the board had been fully played by all the players who should have >played it. My suggestion is that this is less fair than the previous >method because AV+ will now give you more matchpoints (12 in your >example) than a real player who beats 60% of his real opponents will get >(11.91 in your example). Similary, AV- will give you fewer matchpoints >than a real player who beats 40% of his real opponents will get. > > OK let's keep the example. You are playing in a field of 12, but for whatever reason, this has to be adjusted to a field of 21. You have an artifical score, so there remain only 11 real scores. Pair X among those score 12 mp out of their possible 20. Their score is Neuberged to : (12+1)/11x21-1 = 23.82 out of 40 = 59.54% For your score there are three possibilities: a) you get 12/20, also Neuberged to 23.82 = 59.54% b) you get 60% of the mp available, that being 22, so that is 13.2/22, Neuberged to 23.85 = 59.625% c) you get 24/40 = 60%. Now of course (I'm Herman De Wael), I prefer D: You get the Neuberged-down score of 60% on an infinite field, which is: d) 60%x42-1 = 24.2. this is always 60% + 0.2. Remark that the scores of 12.2/20, 13.4/22 and 24.2/40 are all Neuberg equivalent. Barring the acceptance of that system, I prefer c). Indeed, most Art scores cannot be attributed to one smaller group or another. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 16 03:52:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 03:52:10 +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 DAA12398 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 03:52:02 +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 KAA21658; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:51:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: "Sue O'Donnell" cc: Mlfrench@aol.com, Irwin J Kostal , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Psychs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Sue O'Donnell wrote: > [...] what did the ACBL have in mind in disallowing "conventional > responses to natural openings which are less than 2NT" in the new General > Convention Chart? Are we sure that we have received clarification from ACBL-HQ as to what exactly they are legislating? This clause could be read two ways, depending on what the "which" refers to. It could mean that conventional responses which are less than 2NT are barred, or it could mean the 2NT response, if conventional, is disallowed if a psych. I recall this coming up several months back, but don't believe we ever received a definitive answer from the "horse's mouth". The ACBL wordsmiths are not the greatest, as we all know. Perhaps in the first draft the "which" clause was set aside by commas, and a reviser removed them as superfluous. Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 16 04:11:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 04:11:29 +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 EAA12481 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 04:11:22 +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 LAA28629; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:11:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: DBlizzard@aol.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <970714234246_-1191627108@emout11.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 DBlizzard@aol.com wrote: > To tell the truth, the only common use of a psychic response that is not an > asking bid that I can think of is the psychic splinter. There may be ones in > uncommon conventions, or common conventions that hands that would want > to psyche are rare. I recall a story Don Oakie told me once. He was playing for the first time with Doug Drury, and they agreed to play Drury, of course. There soon came a hand when Doug opened third hand with a spade, and after hesitant passes on either side of him, Don looked down at his scattered five of six points and four spades, and decided it was their hand, but that maybe he could talk them out of it. "Two clubs!" said Oakie. Another slow pass followed. "Three spades!" said Drury! Well, three spades went down one too many. Don then said to Doug that he didn't think that he was allowed to bid three spades using his convention, and Doug agreed that you weren't, until today!! :) Presumably Oakie's tactical strike would be illegal today!! What absolute rubbish on the part of the ACBL!!! Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 16 07:00:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 07:00:02 +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 GAA13176 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 06:59:55 +1000 Received: from cph58.ppp.dknet.dk (cph58.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.58]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA25386 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:59:41 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:59:40 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33cdddc9.3512811@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 Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:27:16 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >L40D. Regulation of Conventions=20 > The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play > conventions. [Snip] > > This is the Law under which psyches of conventional calls are not=20 >permitted by an SO - and it looks legal to me. Considering the reactions, I'll clearly have to accept that it is not "obviously illegal" to ban psyches of conventional calls. But dropping the "obviously", I still find it illegal. The interpretation of L40D hinges on the words "use of bidding or play conventions". What does it mean to "use" a convention? IMO, using a convention means having it as part of your bidding system. So as I read L40D, SOs can regulate agreements between partners (including implicit agreements created by experience), but they cannot forbid specific calls on specific hands. Assume that I have agreed with partner to play a strong 1C opening: 16+ HCP, any distribution. Whenever I open 1C, I may be said to "use" this convention. As I read L40D, an SO can forbid me to use the convention. I.e., the SO can forbid me to play a strong 1C - but if it does allow me to use that convention at all, then it cannot forbid me to also use it (as a psyche) when I hold certain specific hands (assuming that there is no question of a CPU, of course). L40D could perhaps also be read as allowing SOs to regulate the hands on which a certain convention may be used - but fortunately we have L40A, which IMO makes it clear that this is not the intention. It seems to me to be a basic principle of bridge, specified in L40A, that no limitations can be imposed on the specific hand behind any call. (Repeated occurrences of specific calls on specific hand types can of course serve as evidence of a CPU - but that is a different matter.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 16 10:03:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:03:12 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14021 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:03:07 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1201599; 16 Jul 97 1:01 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:51:51 +0100 To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, smug@bridgeworld.com From: Labeo Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: <970714134423_-1828866513@emout05.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970714134423_-1828866513@emout05.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com writes >Surely the lawmakers did not intend ........etc. "When Senators have had their sport And sealed the Law by vote It little matters what they thought, We hang for what they wrote." Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 16 10:55:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:55:42 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14343 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:55:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1323912; 16 Jul 97 1:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:11:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <33cdddc9.3512811@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote >On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:27:16 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >>L40D. Regulation of Conventions >> The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play >> conventions. [Snip] >> >> This is the Law under which psyches of conventional calls are not >>permitted by an SO - and it looks legal to me. > >Considering the reactions, I'll clearly have to accept that it is >not "obviously illegal" to ban psyches of conventional calls. >But dropping the "obviously", I still find it illegal. > >The interpretation of L40D hinges on the words "use of bidding or >play conventions". What does it mean to "use" a convention? > >IMO, using a convention means having it as part of your bidding >system. So as I read L40D, SOs can regulate agreements between >partners (including implicit agreements created by experience), >but they cannot forbid specific calls on specific hands. > >Assume that I have agreed with partner to play a strong 1C >opening: 16+ HCP, any distribution. Whenever I open 1C, I may be >said to "use" this convention. As I read L40D, an SO can forbid >me to use the convention. I.e., the SO can forbid me to play a >strong 1C - but if it does allow me to use that convention at >all, then it cannot forbid me to also use it (as a psyche) when I >hold certain specific hands (assuming that there is no question >of a CPU, of course). I don't see any of this in L40D. I do not even agree with your use of the word "use" which seems inconsistent. You say >IMO, using a convention means having it as part of your bidding >system. and that is my understanding. So if you have it as part of your bidding system then I can regulate it, by not allowing you to psyche it, or to bid it on Wednesdays, or to play it in pairs contests. You later say >Whenever I open 1C, I may be >said to "use" this convention. but that does not seem such a reasonable approach. Anyway, you cannot have it both ways! >L40D could perhaps also be read as allowing SOs to regulate the >hands on which a certain convention may be used - but fortunately >we have L40A, which IMO makes it clear that this is not the >intention. It seems to me to be a basic principle of bridge, >specified in L40A, that no limitations can be imposed on the >specific hand behind any call. (Repeated occurrences of specific >calls on specific hand types can of course serve as evidence of a >CPU - but that is a different matter.) I am sorry: the total effect of L40A plus L40D does not say you cannot limit the use of calls: it says that you cannot limit the use of natural calls. -- 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 Jul 16 12:03:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:03:13 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA14566 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:03:05 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0908875; 16 Jul 97 2:44 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 02:36:53 +0100 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: jonbriss@ix20.ix.netcom.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls In-Reply-To: <199707150914.CAA03778@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707150914.CAA03778@cactus.tc.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@e urope.notes.pw.com writes (in response to J C Brissman) > >Perhaps the difference between us is that you think this method is banned >because the Laws do not specifically permit it, whereas I think I think it is >permitted because it is not banned. > Labeo: I have some difficulty with that because there are no specifics in the statement in Law 40D. What we have there is simply a bald and unlimited authority to regulate; if it were necessary to specify then the absence of words would stymie us in regard to other regulations applying to conventions. So I do not consider this can be argued. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 16 20:50:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:50:08 +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 UAA16207 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:49:53 +1000 Received: from cph54.ppp.dknet.dk (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA19822 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:49:43 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:49:42 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33ce9de1.465529@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 Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:11:12 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Whenever I open 1C, I may be >>said to "use" this convention. >but that does not seem such a reasonable approach. Anyway, you cannot >have it both ways! Let me try: "use" here in the sense of applying the partnership agreement by letting partner believe I have what the call shows. But I'll admit that I did use "use" somewhat inconsistently. I hoped nobody would notice :-) Have you noticed that in the second sentence of L40D, the words "partnership understandings" are used instead of "use of conventions"? I think that if they really meant very different things by these two wordings, it would have been made more clear. I read "use of conventions" as a shorter way of saying "partnership understandings concerning conventions" - considering that L40A supports that view. (Of course, you will then argue that the wordings differ because the lawmakers actually meant different things.) > I am sorry: the total effect of L40A plus L40D does not say you cannot >limit the use of calls: it says that you cannot limit the use of natural >calls. I seems we simply disagree: I see L40D as being not very clear on the subject of what can be regulated ("use of conventions" is the problem) and I see L40A as quite clearly allowing any psychic call with no exceptions at all. If the laws were meant to allow SOs to limit psyches, why only psyches of conventional calls? Is a psyche in any way less annoying for the opponents because the call has a natural meaning in the system? The distinction seems to me not to make sense - which is also a reason why I suspect that the difference in the wordings of the two first sentences of L40D is accidental. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 16 23:49:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:49:29 +1000 Received: from e4000.star.net.il (e4000.star.net.il [195.8.195.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA16923 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:49:12 +1000 Received: from default (HZ-pri-AS2-110.star.net.il [195.8.208.110]) by e4000.star.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA00830; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:47:03 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <33CCD183.8FE37E18@artaxia.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:49:56 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mlfrench@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <970712131419_-625807030@emout19.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > TDs employed by the ACBL hereabouts (Southwest U. S.) are ruling that > once a > person psychs in a given situation, that automatically introduces a > partnership understanding, which in turn means partner will no doubt > make > allowance for the psych in the future, which in turn means a further > psych in > that situation is illegal (i.e., it becomes a "controlled psych," > which is > illegal). > > Comments, please. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) I have some ideas what should be agreed and forbidden , about "psych". But before I"ll publish it I"ll give a real-life problem : North S= - H= K653 D= QJ9643 Dealer: South West C= K43 East E-W Vul S= QJ65 S= AK732 H= 42 H= 108 D=A10 D= K85 C= AQ932 South C= 1076 S= 10984 H=AQJ97 D= 72 C= J8 Some background : E-W are the highest "formaly" Level players here. N-S are very good new players and "formaly" North 3 levels below , South 6 levels below N-S play a system "Modified 2 ov 1 GF" with Berg Raises on Maj & Min and a lot of conventions , having the CC on the table. The bidding was: N E S W Notes Pass 1C 1S Pass 3C* Double *Alert! = 4card S & 7-9 p. Pass** Pass 3S Pass ** = genuine overcall 8-11p. 4D^ Double 4H^ Pass ^ = Cue- bid Pass Double Pass Pass Pass All these conventions are on CC It is not important for our discussion what exactly happened , but imediately after the last Double , West called the TD and started to complain. I should like to get your opinions if there was something to be done or adjust the scores . Thanks GHINGHIS From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 03:42:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 03:42:14 +1000 Received: from e4000.star.net.il (e4000.star.net.il [195.8.195.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19988 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 03:41:56 +1000 Received: from default (HZ-pri-AS3-166.star.net.il [195.8.208.166]) by e4000.star.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA04927 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:40:13 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <33CD0825.DEE3873D@artaxia.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:43:02 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I understand that the editing I tried produced a total scrambling so I resend my message I have some ideas what should be agreed and forbidden , about "psych". But before I"ll publish it I"ll give a real-life problem : North S= - H= K653 D= QJ9643 Dealer: South West C= K43 East E-W Vul S= QJ65 S= AK732 H= 42 H= 108 D=A10 D= K85 C= AQ932 South C= 1076 S= 10984 H=AQJ97 D= 72 C= J8 Some background : E-W are the highest "formaly" Level players here. N-S are very good new players and "formaly" North 3 levels below , South 6 levels below e-w. N-S play a system "Modified 2 ov 1 GF" with Berg Raises on Maj & Min and a lot of conventions , having the CC on the table. The bidding was: N E S W Notes Pass 1C 1S Pass 3C* Double *Alert! = 4card S & 7-9 p. Pass** Pass 3S Pass **= genuine overcall 8-11p. 4D^ Double 4H^ Pass ^ =Cue- bid Pass Double Pass Pass Pass All these conventions are on CC It is not important for our discussion what exactly happened , but imediately after the last Double , West called the TD and started to complain. I should like to get your opinions if there was something to be done or adjust the scores . Thanks GHINGHIS From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 03:54:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 03:54:15 +1000 Received: from e4000.star.net.il (e4000.star.net.il [195.8.195.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20068 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 03:52:28 +1000 Received: from default (HZ-pri-AS3-166.star.net.il [195.8.208.166]) by e4000.star.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA05052 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:50:26 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <33CD0A92.186CB37F@artaxia.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:53:22 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Psychs Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:43:02 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au I understand that the editing I tried produced a total scrambling so I resend my message I have some ideas what should be agreed and forbidden , about "psych". But before I"ll publish it I"ll give a real-life problem : North S= - H= K653 D= QJ9643 Dealer: South West C= K43 East E-W Vul S= QJ65 S= AK732 H= 42 H= 108 D=A10 D= K85 C= AQ932 South C= 1076 S= 10984 H=AQJ97 D= 72 C= J8 Some background : E-W are the highest "formaly" Level players here. N-S are very good new players and "formaly" North 3 levels below , South 6 levels below e-w. N-S play a system "Modified 2 ov 1 GF" with Berg Raises on Maj & Min and a lot of conventions , having the CC on the table. The bidding was: N E S W Notes Pass 1C 1S Pass 3C* Double *Alert! = 4card S & 7-9 p. Pass** Pass 3S Pass **= genuine overcall 8-11p. 4D^ Double 4H^ Pass ^=Cue- bid Pass Double Pass Pass Pass All these conventions are on CC It is not important for our discussion what exactly happened , but imediately after the last Double , West called the TD and started to complain. I should like to get your opinions if there was something to be done or adjust the scores . Thanks GHINGHIS From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 09:02:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:02:42 +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 JAA21062 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:02:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0926716; 16 Jul 97 23:55 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 18:22:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <33CCD183.8FE37E18@artaxia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DANY HAIMOVICI wrote Please try to restrict your use of tabs. I think that is the reason that your post has come out unreadable. No matter: here it is edited: >I have some ideas what should be agreed and forbidden , about "psych". >But before I"ll publish it I"ll give a real-life problem : > > North > S= - Dealer: South > H= K653 E-W Vul > D= QJ9643 > West C= K43 East >S= QJ65 S= AK732 >H= 42 H= 108 >D= A10 D= K85 >C= AQ932 South C= 1076 > S= 10984 > H= AQJ97 > D= 72 > C= J8 > >Some background : E-W are the highest "formaly" Level players here. > N-S are very good new players and "formaly" > North 3 levels below , South 6 levels below > >N-S play a system "Modified 2 ov 1 GF" with Berg Raises on Maj & Min >and a lot of conventions , having the CC on the table. > >The bidding was: > N E S W Notes > Pass 1C > 1S Pass 3C* Double *Alert! = 4card S & 7-9 p. > Pass** Pass 3S Pass ** = genuine overcall 8-11p. > 4D^ Double 4H^ Pass ^ = Cue- bid > Pass Double Pass Pass > Pass > >All these conventions are on CC > >It is not important for our discussion what exactly happened , but >imediately after the last Double , West called the TD and started to >complain. > >I should like to get your opinions if there was something to be done or >adjust the scores . > >Thanks GHINGHIS By the way, Ghingis, where is here? Which country? Psyches are legal unless there is evidence of a CPU. The bidding seems routine until South's final pass. I think in England/Wales we might classify this one as Amber: a slight smell of fish in that pass, but not enough to adjust the score - unless it is repeated. -- 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 Jul 17 09:26:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:26:47 +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 JAA21255 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:26:41 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wodZc-0005WK-00; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:33:32 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-51-21.btinternet.com [195.99.51.21]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA17302; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:26:59 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707162326.AAA17302@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Labeo" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:25:39 +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 ---------- > From: Labeo > To: Mlfrench@aol.com > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; smug@bridgeworld.com > Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls > Date: 16 July 1997 00:51 > > In message <970714134423_-1828866513@emout05.mail.aol.com>, > Mlfrench@aol.com writes > >Surely the lawmakers did not intend ........etc. > > "When Senators have had their sport > And sealed the Law by vote > It little matters what they thought, > We hang for what they wrote." > > Labeo "The papers they had finished lay In piles of blue and white. They answered everything they could, And wrote with all their might, But though they wrote it all by rote, They did not write it right." A.C.Hilton, "The Vulture and the Husbandman" From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 09:38:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:38:53 +1000 Received: from irvine.com ([192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21307 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:38:47 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa13093; 16 Jul 97 16:38 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Psychs In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Jul 1997 18:22:00 PDT." Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:38:12 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9707161638.aa13093@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > DANY HAIMOVICI wrote > > >I have some ideas what should be agreed and forbidden , about "psych". > >But before I"ll publish it I"ll give a real-life problem : > > > > North > > S= - Dealer: South > > H= K653 E-W Vul > > D= QJ9643 > > West C= K43 East > >S= QJ65 S= AK732 > >H= 42 H= 108 > >D= A10 D= K85 > >C= AQ932 South C= 1076 > > S= 10984 > > H= AQJ97 > > D= 72 > > C= J8 > > > >Some background : E-W are the highest "formaly" Level players here. > > N-S are very good new players and "formaly" > > North 3 levels below , South 6 levels below > > > >N-S play a system "Modified 2 ov 1 GF" with Berg Raises on Maj & Min > >and a lot of conventions , having the CC on the table. > > > >The bidding was: > > N E S W Notes > > Pass 1C > > 1S Pass 3C* Double *Alert! = 4card S & 7-9 p. > > Pass** Pass 3S Pass ** = genuine overcall 8-11p. > > 4D^ Double 4H^ Pass ^ = Cue- bid > > Pass Double Pass Pass > > Pass > Psyches are legal unless there is evidence of a CPU. The bidding > seems routine until South's final pass. I think in England/Wales we > might classify this one as Amber: a slight smell of fish in that pass, > but not enough to adjust the score - unless it is repeated. Maybe it's because I have a cold, but I don't smell anything in South's final pass. So far, South has been under the impression that they were going to play in spades, and his 4H was a cue-bid on the way to the spade game. But North's pass of 4H was certainly unexpected. (I wouldn't call it routine.) Even if South were barred from suspecting North of a psych, South would have to conclude that North is willing to play in hearts even though there's a known spade fit. So I don't see why South should do anything but what he did over the double. His spades weren't any better than expected; his hearts were much better than expected. I think pass should convey this exact hand type clearly, letting partner decide which major-suit game to play in. All this is assuming that North's pass of 4H is a "possible" action in a normal auction. Actually, it doesn't seem like a possible action to me, since South could be cue-bidding on, say, a stiff ace. Question: If one partner commits an impossible action, is it legitimate and ethical for the other partner to assume or suspect a psych at that point? E.g. in this auction: N(dealer) E S W 1C pass 1H pass pass Since North passed a forcing bid, I'd think it OK for South to play North for a psych at this point, regardless of how many times this type of auction has come up previously. (Of course, South should *not* consider the possibility of the psych when making his first-round response.) But do the Laws or regulations say differently? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 09:45:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:45:39 +1000 Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21354 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:45:32 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id TAA23771; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970716194443_1014639693@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: Dburn@btinternet.com, Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Regulation of Conventional and Natural Calls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-07-16 19:29:09 EDT, Dburn@btinternet.com (David Burn) writes: << "The papers they had finished lay In piles of blue and white. They answered everything they could, And wrote with all their might, But though they wrote it all by rote, They did not write it right." A.C.Hilton, "The Vulture and the Husbandman" >> This could (and perhaps should) have been written by Lewis Carroll.. it is a real brain tickler. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 10:35:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:35:52 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21569 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:35:47 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0604291; 17 Jul 97 1:27 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:24:49 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > [...........much cut.........] > I am sorry: the total effect of L40A plus L40D does not say you cannot >limit the use of calls: it says that you cannot limit the use of natural >calls. > Labeo: The point may be rather fine but I think what the laws actually say is that a player may make any call or play without disclosure subject to certain conditions as to special partnership understandings. Law 40 goes on to authorize regulation of disclosure of special partnership understandings (we have not considered, openly, what further regulatory 'opportunities' this might afford :-( ). Next is given unlimited power to regulate the use of conventions. This is not made subject to any condition relating to the earlier segments of Law 40. Whilst players have freedom to make calls, even with special understandings, provided the rules of disclosure are met, this freedom is not extended to allow them to adopt conventions without compliance with whatever regulations are introduced to govern their use. It is my opinion that the statement authorizing regulation of conventions is so absolute in its phrasing that it takes in even those which are (Law 40A) 'commonly accepted', although I could see a conflict if there are any such - Stayman? (or are there those who do not play even that?). ...Is there anything in bridge which is commonly accepted? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 12:26:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:26:17 +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 MAA21895 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:26:11 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0912910; 17 Jul 97 3:23 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 02:01:23 +0100 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <33ce9de1.465529@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33ce9de1.465529@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes ...[lots omitted]... >Have you noticed that in the second sentence of L40D, the words >"partnership understandings" are used instead of "use of >conventions"? I think that if they really meant very different >things by these two wordings, it would have been made more clear. >I read "use of conventions" as a shorter way of saying >"partnership understandings concerning conventions" - considering >that L40A supports that view. (Of course, you will then argue >that the wordings differ because the lawmakers actually meant >different things.) Labeo: 1. When reading the laws interpretation must follow the defined meanings of words where these are provided (e.g. 'convention') and the natural English meaning otherwise. 2. This applies unless the promulgating authority issues guidance. We are not here to invent meanings based upon our "interpretation" of what we think the legislators meant. Legislators are stuck with what they have written (and with their assertion that what they have written is English). Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 12:26:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:26:42 +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 MAA21902 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:26:36 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1101044; 17 Jul 97 3:23 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 03:22:01 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Jesper Dybdal wrote >>On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:27:16 +0100, David Stevenson >> wrote: >>>L40D. Regulation of Conventions >>> The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. [Snip] >>> >>> This is the Law under which psyches of conventional calls are not >>>permitted by an SO - and it looks legal to me. >> .......and Jesper responded: >>Considering the reactions, I'll clearly have to accept that it is >>not "obviously illegal" to ban psyches of conventional calls. >>But dropping the "obviously", I still find it illegal. >> ....... ( omission),,,,,, > I am sorry: the total effect of L40A plus L40D does not say you cannot >limit the use of calls: it says that you cannot limit the use of natural >calls. > Labeo: It is important to abide with the laws as they are actually written. Please recall the WBF dictum (Geneva) that Law 80E is not subordinate to Law 80F. It is regulations made under Law 80F that must not conflict with other parts of the laws. There is no such restriction on the powers to regulate given in Laws 80E, 40D (where a different restriction is established in the second sentence, applying to what is there authorized additionally to what is authorized in the first sentence); these specific powers to regulate are given separately from the more general powers established in 80F. There is reference to regulation in 40B but I do not read this section as conferring in itself such powers. 2. Jesper finds it difficult to accept the possibility that powers to ban psyches of conventions can have been granted if similar powers are not granted to ban psyches of natural calls. This non sequitur is prompted by his own thinking that it should not have happened so it cannot have happened. In settling laws whatever powers the legislators think fit to grant can be granted. They do not necessarily give reasons, nor need they defend the basis of what they do. Once again let me say we are not able to enter into the minds of those who write the laws, nor are we required to speculate; the laws stand as they are written. One could imagine that legislators, or some of them, might perhaps have thought there was good reason to provide differently in respect of conventional calls; if so, they did not have to say but only to do. And they did. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 12:28:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:28:45 +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 MAA21929 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:28:39 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1317698; 17 Jul 97 3:23 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 02:09:08 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >DANY HAIMOVICI wrote > ...(cut),,, >>and David Stevenson wrote >>........(again cut)........... >> > " Psyches are legal unless there is evidence of a CPU. " Labeo: or unless there is a habit of psyching that is judged to amount to an implicit understanding (which is not quite the same thing, since it does not require evidence of collusive action by partner). Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 13:35:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:35:10 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22134 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:35:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0627380; 17 Jul 97 4:20 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 02:57:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <9707161638.aa13093@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> DANY HAIMOVICI wrote >> >> >I have some ideas what should be agreed and forbidden , about "psych". >> >But before I"ll publish it I"ll give a real-life problem : >> > >> > North >> > S= - Dealer: South >> > H= K653 E-W Vul >> > D= QJ9643 >> > West C= K43 East >> >S= QJ65 S= AK732 >> >H= 42 H= 108 >> >D= A10 D= K85 >> >C= AQ932 South C= 1076 >> > S= 10984 >> > H= AQJ97 >> > D= 72 >> > C= J8 >> > >> >Some background : E-W are the highest "formaly" Level players here. >> > N-S are very good new players and "formaly" >> > North 3 levels below , South 6 levels below >> > >> >N-S play a system "Modified 2 ov 1 GF" with Berg Raises on Maj & Min >> >and a lot of conventions , having the CC on the table. >> > >> >The bidding was: >> > N E S W Notes >> > Pass 1C >> > 1S Pass 3C* Double *Alert! = 4card S & 7-9 p. >> > Pass** Pass 3S Pass ** = genuine overcall 8-11p. >> > 4D^ Double 4H^ Pass ^ = Cue- bid >> > Pass Double Pass Pass >> > Pass > >> Psyches are legal unless there is evidence of a CPU. The bidding >> seems routine until South's final pass. I think in England/Wales we >> might classify this one as Amber: a slight smell of fish in that pass, >> but not enough to adjust the score - unless it is repeated. > >Maybe it's because I have a cold, but I don't smell anything in >South's final pass. So far, South has been under the impression that >they were going to play in spades, and his 4H was a cue-bid on the way >to the spade game. But North's pass of 4H was certainly unexpected. >(I wouldn't call it routine.) Even if South were barred from >suspecting North of a psych, South would have to conclude that North >is willing to play in hearts even though there's a known spade fit. >So I don't see why South should do anything but what he did over the >double. His spades weren't any better than expected; his hearts were >much better than expected. I think pass should convey this exact hand >type clearly, letting partner decide which major-suit game to play in. Yes, I know this is going to sound silly, but despite the fact that I tidied up the auction, I then misread it. *sob* On a re-read there is nothing at all wrong with the auction, and no adjustment is justified. >All this is assuming that North's pass of 4H is a "possible" action in >a normal auction. Actually, it doesn't seem like a possible action to >me, since South could be cue-bidding on, say, a stiff ace. Question: >If one partner commits an impossible action, is it legitimate and >ethical for the other partner to assume or suspect a psych at that >point? E.g. in this auction: > > N(dealer) E S W > 1C pass 1H pass > pass > >Since North passed a forcing bid, I'd think it OK for South to play >North for a psych at this point, regardless of how many times this >type of auction has come up previously. (Of course, South should >*not* consider the possibility of the psych when making his >first-round response.) But do the Laws or regulations say >differently? Of course this shows a psyche! -- 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 Jul 17 14:40:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:40:22 +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 OAA22317 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:40:18 +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 OAA04347 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:40:20 +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 OAA07607 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:40:17 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:40:17 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199707170440.OAA07607@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: Concealed Partnership Understanding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:12 AM 14/07/97 -0400, you wrote: >At 07:49 PM 7/13/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: > >>In message <970712131424_646860492@emout02.mail.aol.com>, >>Mlfrench@aol.com writes >>>.omitted.... >>...more taken out... >>>My question is, if special partnership understandings must be disclosed, is >>>the weak declarer's LHO obligated to tell him, upon leading a low card, that >>>partner's discard of a high card in the suit showed the queen, or that a low >>>card showed the ace? Gary Blaiss, Chief Director of the ACBL, tells me yes. Surely not. Opponents are certainly entitled to know the signalling and discarding methods of opponents. Including, if necessary the information that partner may frequently (or infrequently) falsecard in certain standard positions, or against either good or poor opponents. In the case in question, I think it would be quite improper for the declarer to ask LHO whether his partner was showing the Ace or the Queen, and I think it would be improper for the LHO to reply " My partner is showing the Queen", especially since the said card could be residing in LHO's hand. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 18:18:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:18:11 +1000 Received: from bkinis1-1.ms.com (bkinis.ms.com [204.254.196.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA23978 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:18:05 +1000 Received: (from mail@localhost) by bkinis1-1.ms.com (8.8.5/fw v1.22) id EAA27387; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 04:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis1-1.ms.com via smap (V1.3) id sma027370; Thu Jul 17 04:17:47 1997 Received: from lnsun39.morgan.com (lnsun39.morgan.com [140.14.98.39]) by cwmail1.morgan.com (8.8.5/hub v1.50) with ESMTP id JAA09314; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:17:45 +0100 (BST) From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.7.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id JAA04446; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:17:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:17:45 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <9707170917.ZM4444@ms.com> In-Reply-To: Labeo "Re: Psychs" (Jul 17, 3:22am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Jul 17, 3:22am, Labeo wrote: > Subject: Re: Psychs > In message , David Stevenson > writes > >Jesper Dybdal wrote > >>On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:27:16 +0100, David Stevenson > >> wrote: > >>>L40D. Regulation of Conventions > >>> The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or > play conventions. [Snip] > >>> > >>> This is the Law under which psyches of conventional calls are not > >>>permitted by an SO - and it looks legal to me. > > >> .......and Jesper responded: > >>Considering the reactions, I'll clearly have to accept that it is > >>not "obviously illegal" to ban psyches of conventional calls. > >>But dropping the "obviously", I still find it illegal. > >> > ....... ( omission),,,,,, > > > I am sorry: the total effect of L40A plus L40D does not say you cannot > >limit the use of calls: it says that you cannot limit the use of natural > >calls. > > > Labeo: It is important to abide with the laws as they are actually > written. > Please recall the WBF dictum (Geneva) that Law 80E is not > subordinate to Law 80F. It is regulations made under Law 80F that > must not conflict with other parts of the laws. > There is no such restriction on the powers to regulate > given in Laws 80E, 40D (where a different restriction is established in > the second sentence, applying to what is there authorized additionally > to what is authorized in the first sentence); these specific powers to > regulate are given separately from the more general powers established > in 80F. > There is reference to regulation in 40B but I do not read this > section as conferring in itself such powers. > > 2. Jesper finds it difficult to accept the possibility that > powers to ban psyches of conventions can have been granted if similar > powers are not granted to ban psyches of natural calls. This non > sequitur is prompted by his own thinking that it should not have > happened so it cannot have happened. > In settling laws whatever powers the legislators think fit > to grant can be granted. They do not necessarily give reasons, nor > need they defend the basis of what they do. Once again let me say we > are not able to enter into the minds of those who write the laws, nor > are we required to speculate; the laws stand as they are written. My reading of the Laws is this: 40A You can make any call you like, as long as you don't have a CPU. [ bad news for GIB, perhaps? ] 40D SOs may regulate which conventions you incorporate into your system. SOs may not regulate which natural bids you incorporate into your bidding system, except in the case of one-level openings, when... Furthermore, while disallowing psyches of artificial bids may seem reasonable to some people, this law allows SOs to require that if a pair use Stayman, they must open the bidding with 1S on the next board, which seems contrary to the spirit of the Laws... I think we can at least conclude that the laws here are badly and ambiguously phrased. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 21:04:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:04:39 +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 VAA25028 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:04:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1018316; 17 Jul 97 11:58 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 04:25:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote >In message , David Stevenson > writes >>DANY HAIMOVICI wrote >> ...(cut),,, >>>and David Stevenson wrote >>>........(again cut)........... >>> >> " Psyches are legal unless there is evidence of a CPU. " > >Labeo: or unless there is a habit of psyching that is judged to >amount to an implicit understanding (which is not quite the same >thing, since it does not require evidence of collusive action by >partner). Stap me vitals, a CIU! -- 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 Jul 17 21:09:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:09:52 +1000 Received: from e4000.star.net.il (e4000.star.net.il [195.8.195.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA25091 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:09:44 +1000 Received: from default (HZ-pri-AS1-15.star.net.il [195.8.208.15]) by e4000.star.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA18479 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:08:01 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <33CDFDC1.E260C7CF@artaxia.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:10:57 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychs X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I appologize for the unreadble messege. I understand that the editing I tried still produced a total scrambling so I resend my message , hope this time readble !!! I have some ideas what should be agreed and forbidden , about "psych". But before I"ll publish it I"ll give a real-life problem : North East South West S= - AK732 10984 QJ65 H= K653 108 AQJ 42 D=QJ9643 K85 72 A10 C= K43 1076 J8 AQ932 Dealer: South ; E-W vul Some background : E-W are the highest "formaly" Level players here. N-S are very good new players and "formaly" North 3 levels below e-w, South 6 levels below e-w. N-S play a system "Modified 2 ov 1 GF" with Berg Raises on Maj & Min and a lot of conventions , having the CC on the table. The bidding was: N E S W Notes Pass 1C 1S Pass 3C* Dbl *Alert!= 4card S & 7-9 p. Pass** Pass 3S Pass **=genuine overcall 8-11p. 4D^ Dbl 4H^ Pass ^=Cue-bid Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass All conventions are on CC It is not important for our discussion what exactly happened , but imediately after the last Double , West called the TD and started to complain. I should like to get your opinions if there was something to be done or adjust the scores ( maybe background , bidding and CC suggest the items will be the "backbone" of my proposition ). Thanks GHINGHIS From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 17 21:36:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:36:12 +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 VAA25269 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:36:04 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA29320 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:35:29 +0200 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:35:28 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Got this problem from a colleague yesterday. Teams, expert level, south plays 7NT on this layout: AKQJT AKT xxx xx xxxxx x xxx QJxx xx QJTx xxx QJTx xx xxx AK9x AK9x The opening lead is a heart, won by the ace. Declarer then plays 4 rounds of spades, east playing a small spade, NOTHING, a small diamond and a small club. At trick 11, east realizes that he has a card more than the other players. The director is called and applies 67B1b. Declarer made 11 tricks before 67B1b was applied. South points out that he could have made the contract if east had followed to all spade leads. Now what? 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 Jul 17 23:16:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:16:00 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26023 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:12:43 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-1.ime.net [207.242.17.10]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA15371; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970717091232.30971038@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: Psychs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 7/16/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >DANY HAIMOVICI wrote > > Please try to restrict your use of tabs. I think that is the reason >that your post has come out unreadable. No matter: here it is edited: > >>I have some ideas what should be agreed and forbidden , about "psych". >>But before I"ll publish it I"ll give a real-life problem : >> >> North >> S= - Dealer: South >> H= K653 E-W Vul >> D= QJ9643 >> West C= K43 East >>S= QJ65 S= AK732 >>H= 42 H= 108 >>D= A10 D= K85 >>C= AQ932 South C= 1076 >> S= 10984 >> H= AQJ97 >> D= 72 >> C= J8 >> >>Some background : E-W are the highest "formaly" Level players here. >> N-S are very good new players and "formaly" >> North 3 levels below , South 6 levels below >> >>N-S play a system "Modified 2 ov 1 GF" with Berg Raises on Maj & Min >>and a lot of conventions , having the CC on the table. >> >>The bidding was: >> N E S W Notes >> Pass 1C >> 1S Pass 3C* Double *Alert! = 4card S & 7-9 p. >> Pass** Pass 3S Pass ** = genuine overcall 8-11p. >> 4D^ Double 4H^ Pass ^ = Cue- bid >> Pass Double Pass Pass >> Pass > Psyches are legal unless there is evidence of a CPU. The bidding >seems routine until South's final pass. I think in England/Wales we >might classify this one as Amber: a slight smell of fish in that pass, >but not enough to adjust the score - unless it is repeated. South's final pass came AFTER north passed a cue-bid -- north had already offered to play in 4H. When north passed the cue-bid everyone at the table had information that something fishy was going on. Isn't south allowed to use this information? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 18 04:28:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 04:28:35 +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 EAA01083 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 04:28:28 +1000 Received: from cph37.ppp.dknet.dk (cph37.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.37]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA12681 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:28:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Psychs Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:28:18 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33d16384.3675515@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, 17 Jul 1997 03:22:01 +0100, Labeo wrote: > In settling laws whatever powers the legislators think fit=20 >to grant can be granted. They do not necessarily give reasons, nor=20 >need they defend the basis of what they do. Once again let me say we=20 >are not able to enter into the minds of those who write the laws, nor >are we required to speculate; the laws stand as they are written. This is the way it _should_ be - but not the way it is. The bridge laws are - like many other documents produced by committees - so badly written and so unclear that they cannot be used literally. As an example, let me just mention L11B of the 1987 laws - do you really believe that we should rule according to that law as it is written? When called at the end of a board by a player who says "my opponent revoked in trick three", should I say "Sorry, you've forfeited your right to penalize the revoke by playing on after the revoke", as L11B quite unambiguously instructs me to do? Assuming that we agree that we do not follow L11B literally for the simple reason that it does not make sense, then why should we not be allowed to evaluate the sense that other laws make? And when we need to interpret an unclear text, should we not be allowed to speculate as to what the intention behind the unclear wording is? How else can we get some meaning out of an unclear text? David says that to him L40 clearly states one thing; I say that to me it clearly states something else; I conclude from this that L40 is not clear, and then try to find a meaning behind it, preferably a meaning that is consistent with (a) other laws, (b) generally accepted ideas of what Bridge is and should be, and (c), admittedly, my ideas of what Bridge is and should be. (Yes, I know that L11B fortunately disappears now - I mention it anyway because it is the most obvious example of what I'm talking about.) And if we do accept your principle of following the law as it is written - which I certainly agree we should do as far as reasonably possible - then why should that principle apply to L40D more than to L40A? I see no hint of the possibility of a restriction of psyches in L40A - in fact, it seems to me that L40A explicitly says that there can be no such restrictions. Let me repeat my position, hopefully more clearly: The "Definitions" section has a definition of "convention", but it does not have a definition of "use of a convention". I believe that "use" of a convention naturally means "have that convention as part of a system" or "make a call with that conventional meaning", and that to "regulate the use of a convention" means to allow or forbid the "use" in this sense of that convention. "Using" a strong club means playing a system where a 1C opening shows a strong hand, and "regulating the use" of this convention means allowing or forbidding players to open 1C with that meaning - regardless of the hand they hold. Contrary to the other interpretation of "use", this one (a) makes L40D consistent with L40A and (b) makes sense. It is therefore IMO the correct interpretation. And this is not a case of not following the laws "as they are written" - on the contrary, it is a case of carefully choosing between two possible interpretations of an unclear L40D the one that is consistent with L40A as it is written. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 18 04:53:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 04:53:18 +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 EAA01200 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 04:53:11 +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 UAA13187 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:53:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199707171853.UAA13187@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:54:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Defective Trick Was: nothing Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:35:28 +0200 (MET DST) > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Got this problem from a colleague yesterday. > > Teams, expert level, south plays 7NT on this layout: > > AKQJT > AKT > xxx > xx > xxxxx x > xxx QJxx > xx QJTx > xxx QJTx > xx > xxx > AK9x > AK9x > > The opening lead is a heart, won by the ace. Declarer then plays > 4 rounds of spades, east playing a small spade, NOTHING, a small > diamond and a small club. At trick 11, east realizes that he has > a card more than the other players. The director is called and > applies 67B1b. Declarer made 11 tricks before 67B1b was applied. > > South points out that he could have made the contract if east > had followed to all spade leads. Now what? L67B1b says that he is deemed to have revoked. IMO, this is enough to allow the Director, should he be so inclined, to apply L64C. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 18 05:40:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 05:40:27 +1000 Received: from math.lsa.umich.edu (null.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01347 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 05:40:20 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id PAA19567; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707171940.PAA26257@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: henk@ripe.net CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (henk@ripe.net) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Teams, expert level, south plays 7NT on this layout: > AKQJT > AKT > xxx > xx > xxxxx x > xxx QJxx > xx QJTx > xxx QJTx > xx > xxx > AK9x > AK9x > The opening lead is a heart, won by the ace. Declarer then plays > 4 rounds of spades, east playing a small spade, NOTHING, a small > diamond and a small club. At trick 11, east realizes that he has > a card more than the other players. The director is called and > applies 67B1b. Declarer made 11 tricks before 67B1b was applied. > South points out that he could have made the contract if east > had followed to all spade leads. Now what? The problem here is with the statement of the Law: If the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among the played cards, and (penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick - he may be subject to the one-trick penalty of Law 64. The penalty is specified as only one trick. This seems to imply that Law 64A2 cannot be invoked to impose a two-trick penalty, even though East won a trick with a card that could have been legally played to the revoke trick (since he could have legally played anything). However, I would rule that Law 64C takes precedence, under the general principle that is is necessary to restore equity, Now, we must rule whether it was likely that South would make the contract without the infraction. I don't see any other reasonable line to make the contract once declarer takes the HK at trick one; he could have finessed the ten and played for a simple squeeze on East in the minor (which fails as the cards lie), but he has already given up on that line. Therefore, I rule that declarer would have taken 13 tricks without the revoke, and he gets to keep them. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner (may move soon) Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 18 23:03:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:03:06 +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 XAA05086 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:03:00 +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 JAA01794 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:02:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970718090427.006ad9f0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 09:04:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Concealed Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <199707170440.OAA07607@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Any bridge player above the novice level understands that, whatever signalling methods one uses on defense, it is important for defenders to evaluate each potential signalling situation and either use the signal or not use it depending on his judgment as to whether the signal is more likely to be of help to partner or to declarer. This is surely not debatable. One occasional partner of mine resolves marginal questions of whether or not to signal by signalling quite freely against opponents who have taken no apparent interest in our signaling methods, but being quite stingly with his signals against opponents who have either inquired about our carding methods or visibly inspected the relevant portion of our CC. This is, for him, a way to resolve (in close cases) "whether the signal is more likely to be of help to partner or to declarer". Does the fact that I have observed this behavior make it an "implicit partnership understanding"? If so, is it a legal understanding? If so, must it be disclosed to the opponents? If so, how is this disclosure to be accomplished? Doesn't any satisfactory form of disclosure obviate the assumption behind the practice, thus rendering it useless, so that there is no practical difference between banning the agreement and requiring that it be disclosed? The view espoused by Mr. Blaiss and the ACBL would seem to lead us to the conclusion that the protection provided by L75C -- "a player... need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience" -- specifically does not apply to inferences drawn from his observation of his partner's "general knowledge and experience". In other words, that the latter is not "general knowledge and experience", but rather "implicit partnership understanding". If I spot a situation in which I know that partner is likely (as would be any other expert, but not, perhaps, my opponents of the moment) to falsecard, am I obligated to inform the opponents that partner's signal is most likely a falsecard? If my partner ducks a trick to rectify the count for a possible squeeze (perhaps knowing that whether or not the squeeze will materialize depends on what the defense returns), and I know from past experience with this partner that that is what he is doing, am I obligated to say to the opponents, "Watch out, he's trying to set up a squeeze against you!"? 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 Jul 19 00:02:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:02:36 +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 AAA05267 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:02:28 +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 KAA18607 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970718100358.006ad880@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:03:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <33d16384.3675515@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:28 PM 7/17/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: >And if we do accept your principle of following the law as it is >written - which I certainly agree we should do as far as >reasonably possible - then why should that principle apply to >L40D more than to L40A? I see no hint of the possibility of a >restriction of psyches in L40A - in fact, it seems to me that >L40A explicitly says that there can be no such restrictions. > >Let me repeat my position, hopefully more clearly: > >The "Definitions" section has a definition of "convention", but >it does not have a definition of "use of a convention". I >believe that "use" of a convention naturally means "have that >convention as part of a system" or "make a call with that >conventional meaning", and that to "regulate the use of a >convention" means to allow or forbid the "use" in this sense of >that convention. "Using" a strong club means playing a system >where a 1C opening shows a strong hand, and "regulating the use" >of this convention means allowing or forbidding players to open >1C with that meaning - regardless of the hand they hold. > >Contrary to the other interpretation of "use", this one (a) makes >L40D consistent with L40A and (b) makes sense. It is therefore >IMO the correct interpretation. And this is not a case of not >following the laws "as they are written" - on the contrary, it is >a case of carefully choosing between two possible interpretations >of an unclear L40D the one that is consistent with L40A as it is >written. I fully agree with Jesper's insight that the key to the problems we've been discussing is the meaning of the phrase "use of bidding or play conventions" in L40D, and, in particular, since the Laws explicitly define "convention", the meaning in this context of the word "use". I also agree with his conclusion. I'm surprised that nobody has yet commented on the parenthetical statement in L40A: "A player may make any call or play (including... a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention)..." This seems quite clear to me. I am rather befuddled, for example, trying to figure out what rationale the ACBL might be using to justify the legality of their declaring that the psyching of a conventional call can be outlawed in the face of what appears to be an explicit statement to the contrary. L40D and L40A in combination are quite clear up to a point: "The SO may regulate the use of... conventions", but "a player may make any... call or play that departs from [such] use of a convention". If we adopt a narrow interpretation of "use" (such as Jesper's) this makes perfect sense. If we adopt a broad interpretation of "use" (such as the ACBL's), the latter sentence is meaningless nonsense. I prefer to believe that the Laws make sense, or at least that the lawmakers haven't gone out of their way to introduce deliberate meaninglessness or inconsistency. If we accept a definition of "use" that's broad enough to provide a rationale for the ACBL's practice of banning the use of conventions in an auction subsequent to a 9-12 1NT opening, any such definition could equally well provide a similar rationale for such policies as banning pairs who use the 9-12 NT from playing any conventions in any auction. If the ACBL can ban only pairs who use perfectly legal mini-NT methods from using particular (or any) conventions, what's to stop them from placing a similar ban on any pair whom they don't like for any other reason? 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 Jul 19 00:12:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:12:35 +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 AAA06305 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:12:28 +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 KAA19153 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970718101358.006ad880@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:13:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <199707171940.PAA26257@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:40 PM 7/17/97 -0400, David wrote: >The problem here is with the statement of the Law: > >If the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he >chooses any card to place among the played cards, and (penalty) he is >deemed to have revoked on the defective trick - he may be subject to the >one-trick penalty of Law 64. > >The penalty is specified as only one trick. This seems to imply that >Law 64A2 cannot be invoked to impose a two-trick penalty, even though >East won a trick with a card that could have been legally played to the >revoke trick (since he could have legally played anything). However, I >would rule that Law 64C takes precedence, under the general principle >that is is necessary to restore equity, > >Now, we must rule whether it was likely that South would make the >contract without the infraction. I don't see any other reasonable line >to make the contract once declarer takes the HK at trick one; he could >have finessed the ten and played for a simple squeeze on East in the >minor (which fails as the cards lie), but he has already given up on >that line. Therefore, I rule that declarer would have taken 13 tricks >without the revoke, and he gets to keep them. I agree. The key here is that L67B1(b) refers to "the one-trick penalty of Law 64" and not to "the one-trick penalty of Law 64A". The "one-trick penalty of Law 64" is given by L64A1 but subject to modification by L64C, which tells us that the "one-trick penalty" may in fact be a penalty of more than one trick if the director makes the appropriate determination. I would therefore rule that L64C applies in this situation and that therefore, based on reasoning similar to David's, above, declarer is entitled to his contract. 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 Jul 19 00:44:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:44:32 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA07720 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:44:27 +1000 Received: from lizard (56k-port4005.ime.net [209.90.195.15]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA21247; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970718104455.344f6b80@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: Concealed Partnership Understanding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:04 AM 7/18/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >If my partner ducks a trick to rectify the count for a possible squeeze >(perhaps knowing that whether or not the squeeze will materialize depends >on what the defense returns), and I know from past experience with this >partner that that is what he is doing, am I obligated to say to the >opponents, "Watch out, he's trying to set up a squeeze against you!"? While I realize Eric says this in part with tongue in cheek, there is a big difference between defensive agreements (or understandings) and declarer technique. The primary consideration in unathorized information or concealed partnership understanding cases is that partner may be making a decision based upon unauthorized information or information not available to the opponents. Dummy will not be making any decisions, so what he knows about declarer's technique is irrelevant -- the knowledge will be of no possible benefit to dummy (except perhaps to prevent him from sweating). As an aside, I once heard about a partnership (of international fame, I believe) which had the following agreement. When they were declaring a doubled contract, declarer would call for a non-lowest spot card from dummy at his earliest convenience. This unnecessary play was a message to partner that everything was OK -- either sacrifice was good or the contract was likely to be made. When declarer did not signal it meant they were headed for a bad result. I don't know how much of this is true, but I thought it fit in nicely with this discussion. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 19 01:33:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:33:37 +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 BAA07945 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:33:29 +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 LAA23596 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970718113500.0068ae30@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:35:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Concealed Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970718104455.344f6b80@ime.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:44 AM 7/18/97 -0400, Tim wrote: >At 09:04 AM 7/18/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>If my partner ducks a trick to rectify the count for a possible squeeze >>(perhaps knowing that whether or not the squeeze will materialize depends >>on what the defense returns), and I know from past experience with this >>partner that that is what he is doing, am I obligated to say to the >>opponents, "Watch out, he's trying to set up a squeeze against you!"? > >While I realize Eric says this in part with tongue in cheek, there is a big >difference between defensive agreements (or understandings) and declarer >technique. The primary consideration in unathorized information or >concealed partnership understanding cases is that partner may be making a >decision based upon unauthorized information or information not available to >the opponents. Dummy will not be making any decisions, so what he knows >about declarer's technique is irrelevant -- the knowledge will be of no >possible benefit to dummy (except perhaps to prevent him from sweating). But the dummy, legally and properly, is required under certain circumstances to reveal partnership understandings about bidding agreements after the conclusion of the auction, when he will no longer be in a position to make any decisions based on these understandings. And L40 and L75 are quite carefully worded to make no distinctions with regard to regulation or disclosure of partnership understandings between bidding and play. Still, if it matters, we can assume that my partner is defending, and attempting to set up a squeeze against declarer or dummy. My point was that there is no clear and sharp distinction between "inferences drawn from... general knowledge and experience" [L75C] on the subject of when it might be appropriate to duck a trick to rectify the count for a squeeze and, OTOH, on the subject of when it might be appropriate to give a deliberate falsecard. 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 Jul 19 02:15:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:15:29 +1000 Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com (pimaia4w.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08332 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:15:23 +1000 Received: from mime3.prodigy.com (mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.253.27]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA23410 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:15:19 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA11568 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:11:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199707181611.MAA11568@mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:11:38, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Aside: Partnership Understanding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: As an aside, I once heard about a partnership (of international fame, I believe) which had the following agreement. When they were declaring a doubled contract, declarer would call for a non-lowest spot card from dummy at his earliest convenience. This unnecessary play was a message to partner that everything was OK -- either sacrifice was good or the contract was likely to be made. When declarer did not signal it meant they were headed for a bad result. I don't know how much of this is true, but I thought it fit in nicely with this discussion. ==================================== I had a partner that did something like that, but he is totally unconcious of the fact that he does it. We have moved to different parts of the country and no longer play, but it went as follows. When he was declarer, if he was in a bad position on a difficult hand, he would think, but not move about. If the hand was difficult, but he thought he was about to make a doubled contract or a good result, and he wanted to play the hand carefully and not mess up, he woud push his chair away from the table, put his elbows on his legs and stare deeply into his hand and think. To most people the last behavior would terrify you, and it terrified me at first too, until I realized that this meant we he was actually going to make the hand. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 19 10:00:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:00:14 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10197 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:00:06 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1518961; 19 Jul 97 0:47 BST Message-ID: <7B5l7FAwAA0zEwSJ@rbarden.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:45:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My partner and I were discussing our defence to the sequence: Them Us Them Us 2H (weak two) P 2S ? We agreed that if 2S is non-forcing, then double should be penalties, since otherwise we are too vulnerable to a psyche. But we decided that when it's forcing double is better as take-out. So we agreed to play it like that. That evening, we sat down at our club pairs and that very sequence came up. "Forcing or non-forcing?" I asked. "No agreement", they answered. Carelessly, we hadn't decided what to do in this case. I guessed that by default it should be forcing, and doubled for take-out. My partner guessed the opposite and passed. Disaster. So we came to an extra agreement, that when they had no agreement we should treat it as non-forcing. The following week the same sequence occurred. "Forcing or non- forcing?" I asked. "It's probably forcing but we have no clear agreement" they answered. "Forcing" thought I, and doubled for take- out. "No agreement" thought my partner, and passed my penalty double. Another disaster. Actually I made all this up. But do the Laws provide any protection in cases like this. And if not, should they? -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 19 10:07:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:07:13 +1000 Received: from mail.netvision.net.il (mail.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10221 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:07:06 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts042p16.pop3b.netvision.net.il [199.203.203.18]) by mail.netvision.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA08280 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 03:06:56 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 03:06:56 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199707190006.DAA08280@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re:Defective trick Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:13 AM 18/7/97 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 03:40 PM 7/17/97 -0400, David wrote: > >>The problem here is with the statement of the Law: >> >>If the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he >>chooses any card to place among the played cards, and (penalty) he is >>deemed to have revoked on the defective trick - he may be subject to the >>one-trick penalty of Law 64. >> >>The penalty is specified as only one trick. This seems to imply that >>Law 64A2 cannot be invoked to impose a two-trick penalty, even though >>East won a trick with a card that could have been legally played to the >>revoke trick (since he could have legally played anything). However, I >>would rule that Law 64C takes precedence, under the general principle >>that is is necessary to restore equity, >> >>Now, we must rule whether it was likely that South would make the >>contract without the infraction. I don't see any other reasonable line >>to make the contract once declarer takes the HK at trick one; he could >>have finessed the ten and played for a simple squeeze on East in the >>minor (which fails as the cards lie), but he has already given up on >>that line. Therefore, I rule that declarer would have taken 13 tricks >>without the revoke, and he gets to keep them. > >I agree. The key here is that L67B1(b) refers to "the one-trick penalty of >Law 64" and not to "the one-trick penalty of Law 64A". The "one-trick >penalty of Law 64" is given by L64A1 but subject to modification by L64C, >which tells us that the "one-trick penalty" may in fact be a penalty of >more than one trick if the director makes the appropriate determination. I >would therefore rule that L64C applies in this situation and that >therefore, based on reasoning similar to David's, above, declarer is >entitled to his contract. I agree with your reasoning that Law 64C could apply in such a situation, but I am not sure that it should apply here. L64C restores equity for a non-offending side - but is declarer really a non-offending side deserving of equity? Declarer played a card before RHO had played a card and perhaps shares enough responsibility for the defective trick to justify relying on the law only and not restoring equity. Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 19 10:08:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:08:42 +1000 Received: from mail.netvision.net.il (mail.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10239 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:08:36 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts042p16.pop3b.netvision.net.il [199.203.203.18]) by mail.netvision.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA08760 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 03:08:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 03:08:28 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199707190008.DAA08760@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: New Law 83 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:58 AM 3/7/97 +0100, you wrote: >Herman > >[snip of previous argument] > >> We could add : >> >> (d) the TD rules in favour of a side that has nothing to win or lose, >> but feels that the matter is complex enough to merit an appeal. In the >> past, we relied on the 'winning' side to appeal in order to protect the >> field, whereas now the TD can call the AC in. I agree with Herman. see my remarks later. >> >> Example recently in Montecatini : last round, first half, match GB-NL, >> TD ruled in favour of GB. GB were lying eighth, NL fifth. GB appealed >> (David Burn knows all about it) even though they had nothing to win or >> lose. One of the reasons may well have been to protect France's >> intrests. >> note : The Brits did that anyway, by blitzing NL 25-5 to keep them out >> of the Bermuda Bowl. Typo, Herman. The TD ruled in favour of NL as is obvious from the context. > >Ob Note: if the GB-Netherlands ruling had gone our way, we would in fact >have qualified for Tunisia provided that Italy beat France by more than >19-11 (since we would then have passed both the Netherlands, who finished >6th, and the French, who finished 5th). We had plenty to "win or lose" >(though in the first half of the match, we led the Netherlands by only 8 >IMPs needing 60 to defeat them 25-4, so it may have appeared at the time >that we were doing only the "honourable" thing in appealing). > [Snip of hand discussion] > We appealed because - and only because - our player believed that he had the >right of it. There was not - nor should there have been - any question of >proteting the French, or damaging the Dutch, or looking after the interests >of the men from Timbuktu. I too am sure the GB appeal was made because the player believed he was right. (However I do think there was a general impression that GB was doing the 'honourable thing' as the AC made the remark that they thought the appeal was without merit and GB would normally have forfeited the deposit, but because of the circumstances (last round, key match etc.) they felt the appeal was proper.) As the director concerned I was aware that this ruling in the final round could determine who would qualify for the Bermuda Bowl, and I was therefore pleased when GB decided to appeal. But assume for the sake of new law 83 that GB had decided not to appeal (either because they were mathematically not contenders for one of the five top positions, or for any other reason). This is a case where the TD could feel that he must protect the interests of the men from Timbuktu and refer the matter himself to the AC. In the case under discussion the argument is even stronger because (as David Burn points out) there is a case to be made out for a split score, or even a "varied assigned score" which only an AC and not a TD is authorized to award. (footnote to old law 12, new law 12C3). Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 19 10:42:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:42:14 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA10351 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:42:08 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0526901; 19 Jul 97 1:11 BST Message-ID: <1SXIDBAVi$zzEwby@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:13:25 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Concealed Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970718090427.006ad9f0@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970718090427.006ad9f0@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >Any bridge player above the novice level understands that, whatever >signalling methods one uses on defense, it is important for defenders to >evaluate each potential signalling situation and either use the signal or >not use it depending on his judgment as to whether the signal is more >likely to be of help to partner or to declarer. This is surely not debatable. ... and more. Labeo :.... I would be surprised to hear we were debating that. My discussion has been concerned with meanings for signals which are part of a partnership's agreements. Mlfrench produced examples of agreements of specific matters and these his opponents are entitled to share. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 19 11:17:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:17:02 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA10463 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:16:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0607822; 19 Jul 97 1:53 BST Message-ID: <1cxeTiAZ5A0zEwyQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:46:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: <199707190006.DAA08280@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote >At 10:13 AM 18/7/97 -0400, Eric wrote: >>At 03:40 PM 7/17/97 -0400, David wrote: >> >>>The problem here is with the statement of the Law: >>> >>>If the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he >>>chooses any card to place among the played cards, and (penalty) he is >>>deemed to have revoked on the defective trick - he may be subject to the >>>one-trick penalty of Law 64. >>> >>>The penalty is specified as only one trick. This seems to imply that >>>Law 64A2 cannot be invoked to impose a two-trick penalty, even though >>>East won a trick with a card that could have been legally played to the >>>revoke trick (since he could have legally played anything). However, I >>>would rule that Law 64C takes precedence, under the general principle >>>that is is necessary to restore equity, >>> >>>Now, we must rule whether it was likely that South would make the >>>contract without the infraction. I don't see any other reasonable line >>>to make the contract once declarer takes the HK at trick one; he could >>>have finessed the ten and played for a simple squeeze on East in the >>>minor (which fails as the cards lie), but he has already given up on >>>that line. Therefore, I rule that declarer would have taken 13 tricks >>>without the revoke, and he gets to keep them. >> >>I agree. The key here is that L67B1(b) refers to "the one-trick penalty of >>Law 64" and not to "the one-trick penalty of Law 64A". The "one-trick >>penalty of Law 64" is given by L64A1 but subject to modification by L64C, >>which tells us that the "one-trick penalty" may in fact be a penalty of >>more than one trick if the director makes the appropriate determination. I >>would therefore rule that L64C applies in this situation and that >>therefore, based on reasoning similar to David's, above, declarer is >>entitled to his contract. > >I agree with your reasoning that Law 64C could apply in such a situation, >but I am not sure that it should apply here. L64C restores equity for a >non-offending side - but is declarer really a non-offending side deserving >of equity? Declarer played a card before RHO had played a card and perhaps >shares enough responsibility for the defective trick to justify relying on >the law only and not restoring equity. Let me get this straight. A defender commits an infraction. Declarer does not notice. As a result you wish to treat declarer as offending? Certainly not. Why on earth would that make him offending? This is an incredibly harsh point of view. Consider a similar case. A defender follows suit after not following to the previous trick. The revoke is established when the next trick is played, but declarer notices nothing and goes many off when his suit in dummy does not run. You would not give him equity because he played on without noticing the revoke. If an infraction is committed, the Law calls the side that committed it "offending" and the other side "non-offending". For both sides to be "offending" there needs to be two infractions. I cannot seriously believe that failure to notice opponent's infractions should be considered an infraction in itself. -- 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 Jul 19 15:08:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 15:08:07 +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 PAA10989 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 15:08:02 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbac1.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.129]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA08082; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707190507.BAA08082@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Defective trick Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:02:43 -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: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Defective trick > Date: Friday, July 18, 1997 8:46 PM > > Eitan Levy wrote > >At 10:13 AM 18/7/97 -0400, Eric wrote: > >>At 03:40 PM 7/17/97 -0400, David wrote: > >> (SNIP) > Let me get this straight. A defender commits an infraction. Declarer > does not notice. As a result you wish to treat declarer as offending? > > Certainly not. Why on earth would that make him offending? This is > an incredibly harsh point of view. > > Consider a similar case. A defender follows suit after not following > to the previous trick. The revoke is established when the next trick is > played, but declarer notices nothing and goes many off when his suit in > dummy does not run. You would not give him equity because he played on > without noticing the revoke. > > If an infraction is committed, the Law calls the side that committed > it "offending" and the other side "non-offending". For both sides to be > "offending" there needs to be two infractions. I cannot seriously > believe that failure to notice opponent's infractions should be > considered an infraction in itself. > Didn't Declarer play a card out of turn at trick 3? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 19 18:42:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA11416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 18:42:57 +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 SAA11410 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 18:42:47 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA19625 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:42:04 +0200 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 10:42:04 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: <199707190507.BAA08082@brickbat9.mindspring.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > Let me get this straight. A defender commits an infraction. Declarer > > does not notice. As a result you wish to treat declarer as offending? > > Certainly not. Why on earth would that make him offending? This is > > an incredibly harsh point of view. > > Consider a similar case. A defender follows suit after not following > > to the previous trick. The revoke is established when the next trick is > > played, but declarer notices nothing and goes many off when his suit in > > dummy does not run. You would not give him equity because he played on > > without noticing the revoke. > > If an infraction is committed, the Law calls the side that committed > > it "offending" and the other side "non-offending". For both sides to be > > "offending" there needs to be two infractions. I cannot seriously > > believe that failure to notice opponent's infractions should be > > considered an infraction in itself. > Didn't Declarer play a card out of turn at trick 3? No, declarer believed that everybody had followed to the trick with the missing card, then called for the next spade lead. 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 Jul 19 19:33:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 19:33:01 +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 TAA11497 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 19:32:54 +1000 Received: from default (cph39.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.39]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA17907 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:32:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199707190932.LAA17907@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:33:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Paul Barden > Reply-to: Paul Barden > Subject: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding > My partner and I were discussing our defence to the sequence: > > Them Us Them Us > 2H (weak two) P 2S ? > > We agreed that if 2S is non-forcing, then double should be penalties, > since otherwise we are too vulnerable to a psyche. But we decided that > when it's forcing double is better as take-out. So we agreed to play it > like that. > > That evening, we sat down at our club pairs and that very sequence came > up. "Forcing or non-forcing?" I asked. "No agreement", they answered. > Carelessly, we hadn't decided what to do in this case. I guessed that > by default it should be forcing, and doubled for take-out. My partner > guessed the opposite and passed. Disaster. > > So we came to an extra agreement, that when they had no agreement we > should treat it as non-forcing. > > The following week the same sequence occurred. "Forcing or non- > forcing?" I asked. "It's probably forcing but we have no clear > agreement" they answered. "Forcing" thought I, and doubled for take- > out. "No agreement" thought my partner, and passed my penalty double. > Another disaster. > > Actually I made all this up. But do the Laws provide any protection in > cases like this. And if not, should they? Called to the table, I would rule that the laws do not protect you. Further, I think this is as it should be. In both cases, the opponents have provided you with full disclosure, and that is what the game is all about. Your methods are are based on assumptions about the way typical opponents' agreements work; your assumptions are deficient; your problem. I suppose that the supporters of the concept of "convention disruption" might disagree with me here. By the way, something similar has happened to me in real life! My carrot club partner and I play the double in 1NT - (2D) - x as "negative" when 2D just shows diamonds, as penalty when 2D shows diamonds and another suit, but as "negative" when 2D does not show any well-defined suit (e.g.: when 2D shows either diamonds or the three other suits). Recently an opponent answered "no agreement, but the choice is obviously between 2D natural or 2D Ripstra (both majors with diamonds as the better minor)". I doubled, partner alerted, was asked, and explained that the D was negative or penalty, depending on how I had interpreted the explanation. Everything was fine: we had both taken the "not well defined" choice and interpreted the double as negative; and we have now discussed this type of situation. Why we play negative doubles over 1NT I hear you ask? Because we play a wide-range 13-17 1NT opener, which has the drawback of making life a little more difficult for responder after intervention. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 20 07:04:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 07:04:53 +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 HAA15916 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 07:04:40 +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 RAA19578 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:04:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970719170521.0068b260@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:05:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding In-Reply-To: <7B5l7FAwAA0zEwSJ@rbarden.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:45 AM 7/19/97 +0100, Paul wrote: >My partner and I were discussing our defence to the sequence: > >Them Us Them Us >2H (weak two) P 2S ? > >We agreed that if 2S is non-forcing, then double should be penalties, >since otherwise we are too vulnerable to a psyche. But we decided that >when it's forcing double is better as take-out. So we agreed to play it >like that. > >That evening, we sat down at our club pairs and that very sequence came >up. "Forcing or non-forcing?" I asked. "No agreement", they answered. >Carelessly, we hadn't decided what to do in this case. I guessed that >by default it should be forcing, and doubled for take-out. My partner >guessed the opposite and passed. Disaster. > >So we came to an extra agreement, that when they had no agreement we >should treat it as non-forcing. > >The following week the same sequence occurred. "Forcing or non- >forcing?" I asked. "It's probably forcing but we have no clear >agreement" they answered. "Forcing" thought I, and doubled for take- >out. "No agreement" thought my partner, and passed my penalty double. >Another disaster. > >Actually I made all this up. But do the Laws provide any protection in >cases like this. And if not, should they? No, and no. The Laws require your opponents to reveal the extent and nature of their agreements, but do not require that they have agreements to reveal. "No agreement", assuming it's TTTWTANBTT (that one's for David's list), is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate response. "It's probably forcing but we have no clear agreement" is technically irregular inasmuch as it suggests to partner that you might like it to be treated as forcing, and could raise a UI issue, but there's no misinformation or any other irregularity that might be related to your ensuing disaster. I don't believe they should. Others (notably Bobby Wolff) have argued that the ethical strictures require players to have clear-cut agreements for situations that they should expect to face at their level of play, but I think that this is generally considered a fringe position. I personally dislike it because it represents yet another barrier between inexperienced players and high-level competition. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 20 08:33:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:33:20 +1000 Received: from mail.netvision.net.il (mail.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16255 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:33:14 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts014p11.pop3b.netvision.net.il [199.203.201.13]) by mail.netvision.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA03399 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 01:33:05 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 01:33:05 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <199707192233.BAA03399@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: Defective trick Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:42 AM 19/7/97 +0200, you wrote: >On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> > From: David Stevenson > >> > Let me get this straight. A defender commits an infraction. Declarer >> > does not notice. As a result you wish to treat declarer as offending? > >> > Certainly not. Why on earth would that make him offending? This is >> > an incredibly harsh point of view. > >> > Consider a similar case. A defender follows suit after not following >> > to the previous trick. The revoke is established when the next trick is >> > played, but declarer notices nothing and goes many off when his suit in >> > dummy does not run. You would not give him equity because he played on >> > without noticing the revoke. > This is not analogous at all. Declarer has done nothing wrong here. In the case under discussion declarer has played out of turn. There would be no defective trick if he had waited for RHO to play. By playing out of turn he has in effect caused the defective trick. RHO should notice this (and of course usually does which is why defective trick is so rare) but by not noticing this and by not playing contributes to the chain of infractions leading to a defective trick. >> > If an infraction is committed, the Law calls the side that committed >> > it "offending" and the other side "non-offending". For both sides to be >> > "offending" there needs to be two infractions. I cannot seriously >> > believe that failure to notice opponent's infractions should be >> > considered an infraction in itself. > There have been two infractions, play out of turn and not playing a card to a trick. >> Didn't Declarer play a card out of turn at trick 3? > >No, declarer believed that everybody had followed to the trick with >the missing card, then called for the next spade lead. > >Henk > If declarer played out of turn what matters is that RHO had not played and not whether declarer believed RHO had played. My point is that by declarer playing out of turn he, as it were, establishes the defective trick, or at least bears some responsibility for it and thus is not entitled to an adjusted score restoring equity. Eitan From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 20 12:24:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:24:32 +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 MAA16688 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:24:00 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbac5.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.133]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA03067; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 22:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707200223.WAA03067@brickbat8.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Defective trick Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 22:17:24 -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: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: Defective trick > Date: Saturday, July 19, 1997 4:42 AM > > On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > > > Let me get this straight. A defender commits an infraction. Declarer > > > does not notice. As a result you wish to treat declarer as offending? > > > > Certainly not. Why on earth would that make him offending? This is > > > an incredibly harsh point of view. > > > > Consider a similar case. A defender follows suit after not following > > > to the previous trick. The revoke is established when the next trick is > > > played, but declarer notices nothing and goes many off when his suit in > > > dummy does not run. You would not give him equity because he played on > > > without noticing the revoke. > > > > If an infraction is committed, the Law calls the side that committed > > > it "offending" and the other side "non-offending". For both sides to be > > > "offending" there needs to be two infractions. I cannot seriously > > > believe that failure to notice opponent's infractions should be > > > considered an infraction in itself. > > > Didn't Declarer play a card out of turn at trick 3? > > No, declarer believed that everybody had followed to the trick with > the missing card, then called for the next spade lead. > Notwithstanding declarer's errant belief system, on the facts you presented, declarer played from his own hand at trick 3 before his RHO had played a card, which is a card played out of turn as I understand the laws. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 20 19:47:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:47:05 +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 TAA17281 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 19:46:56 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA26792 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:45:38 +0200 Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:45:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: <199707192233.BAA03399@mail.netvision.net.il> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Eitan Levy wrote: > >> > Consider a similar case. A defender follows suit after not following > >> > to the previous trick. The revoke is established when the next trick is > >> > played, but declarer notices nothing and goes many off when his suit in > >> > dummy does not run. You would not give him equity because he played on > >> > without noticing the revoke. > > > This is not analogous at all. Declarer has done nothing wrong here. In the > case under discussion declarer has played out of turn. There would be no > defective trick if he had waited for RHO to play. By playing out of turn he > has in effect caused the defective trick. RHO should notice this (and of > course usually does which is why defective trick is so rare) but by not > noticing this and by not playing contributes to the chain of infractions > leading to a defective trick. But if it is a lead out of turn, then the defenders have accepted it. The sequence of events was: N E S W SA ??? S2 S3 SK S4 S played out of turn in trick 1, W accepted that, E did nothing to correct this, S asked for the SK out of turn, E accepted that by playing the S4. If you are in the south seat, it can easily appear that you are cashing the spade suit and east is a bit slow with turning around his cards. > >> > If an infraction is committed, the Law calls the side that committed > >> > it "offending" and the other side "non-offending". For both sides to be > >> > "offending" there needs to be two infractions. I cannot seriously > >> > believe that failure to notice opponent's infractions should be > >> > considered an infraction in itself. > > > There have been two infractions, play out of turn and not playing a card to > a trick. No, if this statement was correct, then a defective trick could never occur, as any lead to the trick following the defective trick would have been a lead out of turn. 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 Sun Jul 20 20:26:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:26:21 +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 UAA17339 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:26:15 +1000 Received: from isdn131.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <23891-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:25:53 +0000 Message-ID: <33D1E8BA.5712@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:30:18 +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: Archive of this Mailing-list? References: <1cxeTiAZ5A0zEwyQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, just a short question: Is there an archive of this mailing-list where old mails are available? I need the mails which have been written with the topic: "what I=B4doing here???" thanks a lot -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 20 22:27:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:27:10 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA17571 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:27:03 +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 OAA18257 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 14:26:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Archive of this Mailing-list? Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 14:26:54 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33d303e7.647170@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <1cxeTiAZ5A0zEwyQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <33D1E8BA.5712@uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <33D1E8BA.5712@uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.01/32.397 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:30:18 +0200, Richard Bley wrote: >Is there an archive of this mailing-list where old mails are available? >I need the mails which have been written with the topic: >"what I=B4doing here???" I've sent Richard a copy of those articles. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 21 04:32:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 04:32:07 +1000 Received: from smtp2.nwnexus.com (smtp2.nwnexus.com [198.137.231.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA21318 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 04:32:00 +1000 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp2.nwnexus.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA03597; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:31:48 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:31:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: "Michael S. Dennis" cc: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: <199707200223.WAA03067@brickbat8.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > Notwithstanding declarer's errant belief system, on the facts you > presented, declarer played from his own hand at trick 3 before his RHO had > played a card, which is a card played out of turn as I understand the laws. And LHO played after declarer, leading declarer to believe the trick was complete. What about the duty bestowed upon both RHO and LHO to call attention to the irregularity that declarer has inadvertently not noticed? Sure, it is not correct procedure, but we all know several players who do play before their RHO sometimes quite regularly [except on OKB! :)] Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 21 07:41:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 07:41:14 +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 HAA21661 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 07:41:04 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA21635; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 13:40:42 -0800 Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 13:40:42 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: "Barbara B. Odlin" Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Barbara B. Odlin wrote: [snip] > And LHO played after declarer, leading declarer to believe the trick was > complete. What about the duty bestowed upon both RHO and LHO to call > attention to the irregularity that declarer has inadvertently not noticed? > > Sure, it is not correct procedure, but we all know several players who do > play before their RHO sometimes quite regularly [except on OKB! :)] > > Rich Odlin This brings up an interesting ancillary point. If I'm playing against a hasty and sloppy declarer, who plays from both hands, then doesn't bother to notice if I have played a card -- to what extent am I allowed to take advantage of declarer's actions to my own benefit? Is the answer to this question the same from a legal and an ethical standpoint? Suppose dummy leads and declarer immediately plays his card before I play a card. At a minimum, I can inspect declarer's card, and, for example, play a king if he has played a queen out of turn intending to finesse against me. (I have never actually had this opportunity. But I would play the king with a clear conscience if I ever did.) Do I have any additional rights besides seeing declarer's card ahead of time? Does my partner? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 21 14:23:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:23:05 +1000 Received: from smtp2.nwnexus.com (smtp2.nwnexus.com [198.137.231.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA24213 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:22:58 +1000 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (chinook.halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by smtp2.nwnexus.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA24011; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 21:22:39 -0700 Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 21:22:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: "G. R. Bower" cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, G. R. Bower wrote: > This brings up an interesting ancillary point. If I'm playing against a > hasty and sloppy declarer, who plays from both hands, then doesn't bother > to notice if I have played a card -- to what extent am I allowed to take > advantage of declarer's actions to my own benefit? Is the answer to this > question the same from a legal and an ethical standpoint? > > Suppose dummy leads and declarer immediately plays his card before I play > a card. At a minimum, I can inspect declarer's card, and, for example, > play a king if he has played a queen out of turn intending to finesse > against me. (I have never actually had this opportunity. But I would play > the king with a clear conscience if I ever did.) Do I have any additional > rights besides seeing declarer's card ahead of time? Does my partner? I am sure that if you want to wait just a second longer you may see partner's card, as he is perfectly at liberty to play it after declarer has played. rbo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 21 18:01:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:01:20 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA24833 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:01:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1315160; 18 Jul 97 23:56 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 22:13:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970718100358.006ad880@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote >I'm surprised that nobody has yet commented on the parenthetical statement >in L40A: "A player may make any call or play (including... a call or play >that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a >convention)..." This seems quite clear to me. I am rather befuddled, for >example, trying to figure out what rationale the ACBL might be using to >justify the legality of their declaring that the psyching of a conventional >call can be outlawed in the face of what appears to be an explicit >statement to the contrary. All right, I'll unbefuddle you. I believe that the use of a convention [as mentioned in L40A *for example*] is subject to regulation as stated without ambiguity in L40D. -- 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 Jul 21 18:25:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:25:05 +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 SAA24908 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:24:58 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1317749; 19 Jul 97 1:11 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:10:45 +0100 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <33d16384.3675515@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33d16384.3675515@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 03:22:01 +0100, Labeo > wrote: >> In settling laws whatever powers the legislators think fit >>to grant can be granted. They do not necessarily give reasons, nor >>need they defend the basis of what they do. Once again let me say we >>are not able to enter into the minds of those who write the laws, nor >>are we required to speculate; the laws stand as they are written. >....... and Jesper then wrote ..... >This is the way it _should_ be - but not the way it is. The >bridge laws are - like many other documents produced by >committees - so badly written and so unclear that they cannot be >used literally. > >And when we need to interpret an unclear text, should we not be >allowed to speculate as to what the intention behind the unclear >wording is? How else can we get some meaning out of an unclear >text? > We part company if whatever method you use to 'interpret' a law fails to conform to the law as it is written (subject to any guidance as to meaning given by the promulgating authority). You cannot introduce a speculative view of an intention and use it to to override what the law actually says. The first sentence of 40D issues an unqualified power to regulate conventions and you cannot say that such unlimited power does not exist because you imagine it cannot have been intended. Law 40D is not subject to the limitation which is present in 80F and there was guidance in the Geneva decision of a joint meeting of the WBF Executive and its Rules and Regulations Committee. This established that specific regulatory powers given in other sections of the laws (the case concerned 80E) are not subordinate to the provision in 80F. Thus regulations made under 40D may conflict with and have precedence over what is stated in 40A. It should be noted that not only the ACBL but various other international and zonal authorities have regulated on the basis of this ruling. And probably there are national authorities also. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 21 19:28:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:28:38 +1000 Received: from exinis1-1.ms.com (exinis.ms.com [204.254.197.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA25076 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 19:28:27 +1000 Received: (from mail@localhost) by exinis1-1.ms.com (8.8.5/fw v1.22) id FAA25367 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 05:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by exinis1-1.ms.com via smap (V1.3) id sma025353; Mon Jul 21 05:27:57 1997 Received: from lnsun39.morgan.com (lnsun39.morgan.com [140.14.98.39]) by cwmail1.morgan.com (8.8.5/hub v1.50) with ESMTP id KAA22563 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:27:56 +0100 (BST) From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.7.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id KAA01098 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:27:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:27:56 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <9707211027.ZM1096@ms.com> In-Reply-To: Eric Landau "Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding" (Jul 19, 5:05pm) References: <3.0.1.32.19970719170521.0068b260@cais.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Jul 19, 5:05pm, Eric Landau wrote: > Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding > At 12:45 AM 7/19/97 +0100, Paul wrote: > > >My partner and I were discussing our defence to the sequence: > > > >Them Us Them Us > >2H (weak two) P 2S ? > > > >We agreed that if 2S is non-forcing, then double should be penalties, > >since otherwise we are too vulnerable to a psyche. But we decided that > >when it's forcing double is better as take-out. So we agreed to play it > >like that. > > > >That evening, we sat down at our club pairs and that very sequence came > >up. "Forcing or non-forcing?" I asked. "No agreement", they answered. > >Carelessly, we hadn't decided what to do in this case. I guessed that > >by default it should be forcing, and doubled for take-out. My partner > >guessed the opposite and passed. Disaster. > > > >So we came to an extra agreement, that when they had no agreement we > >should treat it as non-forcing. > > > >The following week the same sequence occurred. "Forcing or non- > >forcing?" I asked. "It's probably forcing but we have no clear > >agreement" they answered. "Forcing" thought I, and doubled for take- > >out. "No agreement" thought my partner, and passed my penalty double. > >Another disaster. > > > >Actually I made all this up. But do the Laws provide any protection in > >cases like this. And if not, should they? > > No, and no. The Laws require your opponents to reveal the extent and > nature of their agreements, but do not require that they have agreements to > reveal. "No agreement", assuming it's TTTWTANBTT (that one's for David's > list), is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate response. "It's probably > forcing but we have no clear agreement" is technically irregular inasmuch > as it suggests to partner that you might like it to be treated as forcing, > and could raise a UI issue, but there's no misinformation or any other > irregularity that might be related to your ensuing disaster. > > I don't believe they should. Others (notably Bobby Wolff) have argued that > the ethical strictures require players to have clear-cut agreements for > situations that they should expect to face at their level of play, but I > think that this is generally considered a fringe position. I personally > dislike it because it represents yet another barrier between inexperienced > players and high-level competition. I have been ruled against on the basis that a box on a convention card indicates an obligation to have an agreement. In my case, it was the point range box for a weak two - it was ruled that writing weak didn't count as properly filling in the CC (even though this was our agreement - we were a new partnership, and the board the ruling was on was the first that either of us had opened a weak two). I disagreed with this at the time, but it makes some sort of sense now :) If your opponents left the box for responses to 2H blank or wrote 'NAT', then I don't think they've filled their card in correctly. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 21 22:37:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:37:04 +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 WAA25753 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:36:26 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA05715 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970721083712.00690eac@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:37:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970718100358.006ad880@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:13 PM 7/18/97 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>I'm surprised that nobody has yet commented on the parenthetical statement >>in L40A: "A player may make any call or play (including... a call or play >>that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a >>convention)..." This seems quite clear to me. I am rather befuddled, for >>example, trying to figure out what rationale the ACBL might be using to >>justify the legality of their declaring that the psyching of a conventional >>call can be outlawed in the face of what appears to be an explicit >>statement to the contrary. > > All right, I'll unbefuddle you. I believe that the use of a >convention [as mentioned in L40A *for example*] is subject to regulation >as stated without ambiguity in L40D. But this begs the question of the ambiguity of the term "use of a convention" (L40A; L40D uses "use of bidding or play conventions"). It seems to me that however we interpret "use" here, we should (if possible) do so in such a way as to be able to apply both L40A and L40D straightforwardly, i.e. so as not to create an apparent contradiction between them. That means that "use" must be something that (a) SOs can regulate, and (b) players are free to "depart from", without creating conflict between these granted rights. Jesper's interpretation of "use" fits that criterion, while the ACBL's clearly does 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 Mon Jul 21 22:59:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:59:37 +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 WAA25837 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:59:27 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA07039 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 08:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970721090010.006ad488@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:00:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding In-Reply-To: <9707211027.ZM1096@ms.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19970719170521.0068b260@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:27 AM 7/21/97 +0100, Edward wrote: >I have been ruled against on the basis that a box on a convention card >indicates an obligation to have an agreement. In my case, it was the >point range box for a weak two - it was ruled that writing weak didn't >count as properly filling in the CC (even though this was our agreement - >we were a new partnership, and the board the ruling was on was the first >that either of us had opened a weak two). > >I disagreed with this at the time, but it makes some sort of sense now :) >If your opponents left the box for responses to 2H blank or wrote 'NAT', >then I don't think they've filled their card in correctly. I think the ruling against you was misguided. A convention card is a device to promote disclosure of your agreements; this is the first time I've ever heard it suggested that it does double duty as a quasi-legal list of the areas in which partnerships are required to have agreements. As much as the ACBL would like them to, the Laws absolutely do not require that all partnership methods be based on the 4-3-2-1 point count, hence a requirement that a bid be described in terms of point range (as opposed to in the terms of the actual partnership agreement) would force partnerships who don't choose to use 4-3-2-1 to misdescribe their actual agreements. When a partnership adopts a method (whether or not conventional) they have presumably reached an understanding about how the method works in in some most common or straightforward situation in which it is used (e.g. auctions in which the opponents do not bid). There is a legitimate question as to whether they then have a further obligation to: (a) create understandings to cover common variations, (b) create understandings to cover any variation which they can reasonably expect to encounter in practice, or even (c) create understandings to cover any variation whatsoever. The answer to this may be (a), (b), (c), or none of the above (my choice), but I'm confident that the answer isn't different for different methods depending on whether or not they are included on this year's version of the convention card. 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 Jul 22 02:48:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:48:47 +1000 Received: from math.lsa.umich.edu (null.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.61.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29355 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:48:36 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id MAA05926; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:48:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707211648.MAA24051@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9707211027.ZM1096@ms.com> (message from Edward Sheldon on Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:27:56 +0100 (BST)) Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Sheldon writes: > I have been ruled against on the basis that a box on a convention card > indicates an obligation to have an agreement. In my case, it was the > point range box for a weak two - it was ruled that writing weak didn't > count as properly filling in the CC (even though this was our agreement - > we were a new partnership, and the board the ruling was on was the first > that either of us had opened a weak two). If this is a general principle, then about 1/4 of the players in most ACBL tournaments are violating it. It's common for players to leave blank the section on opening leads from various suits, or possibly just circle the K or A from AKx. Such players apparently have no agreement on what to lead from three small, an area in which there is no standard. As declarer, I often ask such players after the lead; I sometimes hear "no agreement" and at other times hear one of the three agreements. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner (may move soon) Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 22 03:15:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 03:15:44 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29447 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 03:15:32 +1000 Received: from lizard (56k-port4033.ime.net [209.90.195.43]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA24835; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:15:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:15:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970721131542.400f1a80@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: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:00 AM 7/21/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I think the ruling against you was misguided. A convention card is a >device to promote disclosure of your agreements; this is the first time >I've ever heard it suggested that it does double duty as a quasi-legal list >of the areas in which partnerships are required to have agreements. As >much as the ACBL would like them to, the Laws absolutely do not require >that all partnership methods be based on the 4-3-2-1 point count, hence a >requirement that a bid be described in terms of point range (as opposed to >in the terms of the actual partnership agreement) would force partnerships >who don't choose to use 4-3-2-1 to misdescribe their actual agreements. This thread is taking on a topic which is probably inappropriate for the Bridge Laws Mailing List, so excuse me, but it is an area which I have particular interest. Here is a section of the system notes from one of my partnerships: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hand evaluation is not a matter of simple arith-metic: in bridge, there is no substitute for judgment. Still, there are well-recognized and useful tools for assisting in the process. Quick Tricks (QT) AK = 2 AQ = 1 1/2 A = KQ = 1 K = 1/2 High-card Tricks (HT) A = 1 K = 3/4 Q = 1/2 J = 0 You may find it convenient to convert these values to "points," thus eliminating fractions. If 1/4-trick = 1 point, then A = 4, K = 3, Q = 2, and J = 0. These look like traditional "high-card points," except that the jack counts zero. However, the adjustments described below make it clear that high-card tricks are a different language, not a HCP dialect. Add 1/2-trick (2 points) for HH (two honors in combination). Add 1 trick (4 points) for HHH. Subtract 1/4-trick (1 point) for no H. Add 1/4-trick (1 point) for HT or HHT. Subtract 1/4-trick (1 point) for KQ, KJ, or QJ doubleton. Add 1/4-trick (1 point) for any two of A, AT, AJT, AQT. Add up the tricks; round up to the next 1/2-trick from 1/4, and to the next trick from 3/4. (Or add up the points and divide by four, then round up.) The high-card-tricks table derives from Pierre Collet, Introduction au Bridge Scientifique (1964). High-card tricks differ from Culbertson honor-tricks in that they more accurately reflect the values of honors in combination. Moreover, Culbertson (and his contemporaries) failed to appreciate (or quantify) the crucial fact that a suit with no honors has negative value. No adjustments appear in the table for singleton honors, because high-card tricks are used mainly for notrump bidding. There will be occasions when an unbalanced hand has to raise notrump or even bid notrump itself. In such cases, high-card tricks are relevant (but not controlling), and you should subtract 1/4-trick (1 point) for a singleton K, Q, or J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Our 1NT opening bid shows 6-6 1/2 high-card tricks. I don't know exactly what this comes out to in HCP, we haven't played this specific range in an ACBL event, but we will put 'about 18-22' on the convention card if it ever comes up. There are certainly hands that fall outside that range that will qualify for a 1NT opening bid (and hands that fall within that range that will not), but they will be extreme cases. My question is: how do we cope with the ACBL regulation that no conventions may be used after a 1NT opening which has a range of more than 5 HCPs? (We don't employ any conventions after 1NT opening bids, BTW.) Not only might ACBL force us to misdescribe our agreements by forcing us to describe them in terms if HCPs, it also makes it rather difficult to understand how our system is regulated by the General Convention Chart. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 22 05:02:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 05:02:18 +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 FAA29938 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 05:02:08 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1314000; 18 Jul 97 23:25 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:23:45 +0100 To: ardelm@ozemail.com.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Concealed Partnership Understanding In-Reply-To: <199707170440.OAA07607@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707170440.OAA07607@oznet07.ozemail.com.au>, ardelm@ozemail.com.au writes >At 09:12 AM 14/07/97 -0400, you wrote: >>At 07:49 PM 7/13/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >> >>>In message <970712131424_646860492@emout02.mail.aol.com>, >>>Mlfrench@aol.com writes >>>>.omitted.... >>>...more taken out... >>>>My question is, if special partnership understandings must be disclosed, is >>>>the weak declarer's LHO obligated to tell him, upon leading a low card, that >>>>partner's discard of a high card in the suit showed the queen, or that a low >>>>card showed the ace? Gary Blaiss, Chief Director of the ACBL, tells me yes. > Tony Musgrove's opinion was : >Surely not. Opponents are certainly entitled to know the signalling and >discarding methods of opponents. Including, if necessary the information >that partner may frequently (or infrequently) falsecard in certain standard >positions, or against either good or poor opponents. In the case in >question, I think it would be quite improper for the declarer to ask LHO >whether his partner was showing the Ace or the Queen, and I think it would >be improper for the LHO to reply >" My partner is showing the Queen", especially since the said card could be >residing in LHO's hand. > > Labeo: Well now, let's stop and think. Maybe I have misunderstood what Mlfrench was saying. What I heard was that he knew partner would play high *only* if he held the Q. So the meaning of a high card, if that is the partnership understanding, is "I have the Queen". So that is the answer when opponent says "tell me about your signals in this situation please". Next question: how is he able to say this? Many of us will believe that he has talked with partner about it. All of us will be prepared to believe that, if they have played together for any length of time, experience of what happens in the partnership will have taught him what partner will do. Either way it is an agreement, explicit or implicit respectively. What else? Well is this the general practice, so widely followed that he can claim it is not special to the partnership? How many say it is the general understanding? If, as you realize I believe, it is a special arrangement followed only in this and perhaps some other partnerships, then it has to be disclosed. And as it has been expressed it clearly goes beyond merely an arrangement to encourage and discourage; it has some specifics as to when to encourage and when not, and opponents are *entitled* to know about them. I am not saying all partnerships do come clean about their arrangements, some of them choose to remain tainted, but the requirement is clear enough. Some, of course, have yet to learn their duties to opponents. One further point: again I may have misunderstood, but was there not a suggestion that the partnership practice changed according to whether opponents were strong or less so? Where such variation is permitted it must also be disclosed. Not that you need tell opponent whether you consider her 'strong' - general bridge experience will probably tell her this. [Permitted? oh, yes: these signals are conventions and may be regulated.] 'Her' or him. Finally not to get hung up on saying, if asked to describe the partnership signalling methods in this situation, "he plays high with any holding that includes the Queen", and this despite the fact that we are looking at the Q in our own hand. We are all clear, I think, it is the true meaning of the signal we must tell, not whether we have reason to know it cannot be fact. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 22 07:39:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:39:39 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA00648 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 07:39:31 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0926272; 20 Jul 97 16:44 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 16:38:45 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970718100358.006ad880@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970718100358.006ad880@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 08:28 PM 7/17/97 +0200, Jesper wrote: > >> ...cut... >>Let me repeat my position, hopefully more clearly: > ...cut... > I am rather befuddled, for >example, trying to figure out what rationale the ACBL might be using to >justify the legality of their declaring that the psyching of a conventional >call can be outlawed in the face of what appears to be an explicit >statement to the contrary. > > Labeo comments: In parallel comments I have reminded readers of the time and place in which it was authoritatively tested and confirmed that the conditions in Law 80F apply only to regulations made under 80F and not to regulations made under other sections of the laws. The appellant had argued that a regulation instituted under Law 80E was ultra vires because it violated Law 80F; the Hearing denied that argument on grounds inter alia that the powers to regulate were conferred separately from those conferred by 80F. Eric also says: ...cut... >If we accept a definition of "use" that's broad enough to provide a rationale for the ACBL's practice of banning the use of conventions in an auction subsequent to a 9-12 1NT opening, any such definition could equally well provide a similar rationale for such policies as banning pairs who use the 9-12 NT from playing any conventions in any auction. If the ACBL can ban only pairs who use perfectly legal mini-NT methods from using particular (or any) conventions, what's to stop them from placing a similar ban on any pair whom they don't like for any other reason? > Labeo: So? Eric is here arguing what might be desirable in the laws. This is not relevant to any determination of what they currently are. To say what something ought to be, as a matter of opinion, does nothing to alter what it actually is. But any regulation does not apply to one pair only - that suggestion is unfairly introduced - regulations apply to all who participate. We should also take note that regulation under 40D is regulation of a defined area of subject matter; the same for 80E. Any regulation outside of these areas is done under Law 80F. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 22 08:38:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:38:20 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA00820 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:38:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1312422; 21 Jul 97 10:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 02:29:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: <199707192233.BAA03399@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote >At 10:42 AM 19/7/97 +0200, you wrote: >>On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>> > From: David Stevenson >> >>> > Let me get this straight. A defender commits an infraction. Declarer >>> > does not notice. As a result you wish to treat declarer as offending? >> >>> > Certainly not. Why on earth would that make him offending? This is >>> > an incredibly harsh point of view. >> >>> > Consider a similar case. A defender follows suit after not following >>> > to the previous trick. The revoke is established when the next trick is >>> > played, but declarer notices nothing and goes many off when his suit in >>> > dummy does not run. You would not give him equity because he played on >>> > without noticing the revoke. >> >This is not analogous at all. Declarer has done nothing wrong here. In the >case under discussion declarer has played out of turn. There would be no >defective trick if he had waited for RHO to play. By playing out of turn he >has in effect caused the defective trick. RHO should notice this (and of >course usually does which is why defective trick is so rare) but by not >noticing this and by not playing contributes to the chain of infractions >leading to a defective trick. > >>> > If an infraction is committed, the Law calls the side that committed >>> > it "offending" and the other side "non-offending". For both sides to be >>> > "offending" there needs to be two infractions. I cannot seriously >>> > believe that failure to notice opponent's infractions should be >>> > considered an infraction in itself. >> >There have been two infractions, play out of turn and not playing a card to >a trick. > >>> Didn't Declarer play a card out of turn at trick 3? >> >>No, declarer believed that everybody had followed to the trick with >>the missing card, then called for the next spade lead. >> >>Henk >> >If declarer played out of turn what matters is that RHO had not played and >not whether declarer believed RHO had played. > >My point is that by declarer playing out of turn he, as it were, establishes >the defective trick, or at least bears some responsibility for it and thus >is not entitled to an adjusted score restoring equity. I now understand what is being said, though I still do not agree. In my experience defective tricks do not always mean someone has played out of turn. They usually tend to mean that a card was played but not quitted, either being played to the next trick as well, or being put back in the players' hand. The stated assertion that a card *was* played out of turn I find disturbing. That merely suggests a TD who has made a presumption which might easily be fallacious. If it were necessary to know whether a card out of turn was played then further investigation would be required. Since any card played out of turn has been condoned the only reason to enquire into this would be for the purpose of proving the opponents of the original offenders were also offenders. I do not believe that our approach to rulings at the game of bridge should be based on an attempt to prove both sides offending. This seems against the spirit of the game and the ethics of the Tournament direction profession, and I find it quite distasteful. -- 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 Jul 22 10:21:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:21:48 +1000 Received: from pimaia2w.prodigy.com (pimaia2w.prodigy.com [198.83.19.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA01266 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:21:38 +1000 Received: from mime3.prodigy.com (mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.253.27]) by pimaia2w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA36756 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:21:29 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA124808 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:20:06 -0400 Message-Id: <199707220020.UAA124808@mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:20:06, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The ACBL's position on psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This note is a non-answer, it is meant as information. The subject of the this discussion was give to Gary Blaiss, who is now in Albuquerque. I tried to get him to write a reply before he left, but that didn't happen. We will try to remind him after the nationals, or maybe some kind person can remind us to remind him! Gary and I spoke at great length about this, but he wanted to be the one to write an answer about the ACBL's position. All I will say, for the benefit of those going to Albuquerque and need to know where they stand is that Gary felt that even if you explained your partnership agreement to 2H ->Pass->2NT as 2NT does not promise anything, but is just an asking bid and you do this with a weak hand, he felt this still qualified as a psych. Please do not argue with me, I am not the interpreter, merely the message carrier. Take it up with Gary. Gary's position was that anytime you make a bid that distorts the shape or strength of your hand it is psyching, no matter if it was the opening call or a later call. He is the one who will write a note quoting laws, regulations and explanations for this decision and it probably won't happen until after the nationals. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 22 10:30:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:30:22 +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 KAA01318 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:30:16 +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 UAA25576 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970721203052.006a869c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:30:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970721131542.400f1a80@ime.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:15 PM 7/21/97 -0400, Tim wrote: >Our 1NT opening bid shows 6-6 1/2 high-card tricks. I don't know exactly >what this comes out to in HCP, we haven't played this specific range in an >ACBL event, but we will put 'about 18-22' on the convention card if it ever >comes up. There are certainly hands that fall outside that range that will >qualify for a 1NT opening bid (and hands that fall within that range that >will not), but they will be extreme cases. My question is: how do we cope >with the ACBL regulation that no conventions may be used after a 1NT opening >which has a range of more than 5 HCPs? (We don't employ any conventions >after 1NT opening bids, BTW.) Not only might ACBL force us to misdescribe >our agreements by forcing us to describe them in terms if HCPs, it also >makes it rather difficult to understand how our system is regulated by the >General Convention Chart. Tim probably has a better feel for this than I do, but if I took this agreement to an ACBL game I'd write this range as "6-6 1/2 High-Card Tricks (approx. 18-22 HCP)", and I'd feel free, with my 5 "HCP-equivalent range", to use conventions. As a low-level ACBL TD, I'd have no problem with anyone doing this in a game I was working. But I wouldn't be surprised, in these litigious times, if some committee wound up making some kind of ruling as a result of this being a "highly unusual" agreement, with unpredictable result. 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 Jul 22 15:18:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 15:18:51 +1000 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA02614 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 15:18:43 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA14123 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970722011808_75908017@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The ACBL's position on psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gary Blaiss, says Chyah Burghard, "feels" that a bluff 2NT response to a weak two bid is a psych, even though it does not satisfy the definition of a psych as given in the Laws. If he feels that way, he should get the lawmakers to change the definition and not foist his feelings on ACBL members. A psych is a gross misstatement of strength, and asking bids do not "state" anything. They only ask!!! Not that I'm admitting the right of the ACBL BOD to outlaw the psych of a conventional call in violation of L40A (Sorry, David). If given that right, the BOD could prevent psychs of all conventions by merely creating a regulation to that effect. Was that the intent of the lawmakers? I am certainly going to feel free to respond to a 2H opening with 4NT, Blackwood, holding S-void H-Qxxxxx D-xx C-xxxxx, regardless of Gary's "feelings," and if his TDs say this is an illegal psych I'll appeal that decision to the Laws Commission of the ACBL. Or will I? Gary is the person who screens appeals to the Laws Commission. That means I have to go through him for an appeal of his interpretations.Now there's a conflict of interest! Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 22 15:22:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 15:22:51 +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 PAA02641 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 15:22:42 +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 BAA09203; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 01:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970722012057_104854963@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: john.strauch@juno.com, wbartley@qualcomm.com Subject: END THE MORATORIUM ON ACBL ALERT REGS!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I recently spent a great deal of time summarizing the current ACBL Alert Procedure, using the outdated material on the ACBL web site, augmented by information gleaned from BOD minutes. The result may be viewed on David Stevenson's great web site. In doing this task, I found that the Alert regulations were complicated, inconsistent, contradictory, incomplete, ambiguous, and erroneous. To document those opinions, I wrote a critique entitled "What Hath BOD Wrought?" that I will send to anyone interested. Just ask. The Alert Procedure simply must be modified to make it less complicated, more consistent, "uncontradictory," complete, unambiguous, and error-free, even though the BOD has declared a 3-year moratorium on changes. I remember when the ACBL had a moratorium on conventions, yet an additional convention was added to a new version of the official ACBL convention card during the moratorium period. That was the Precision-style opening of 1D with a doubleton, which constituted a convention at the time (not guaranteeing three cards or high card value). When I complained to Edgar Kaplan about this, he merely said that it was a "fait accompli" that could not be corrected. As I said in a Bridge World article outlining a defense vs the Precision 1D opening, "You and I would not stand a Chinaman's chance of having OUR new convention accepted during the moratorium." Of course that sentence was edited out. Anyway, there is no law saying that a moratorium can't be lifted. At least the BOD can clarify ambiguities, resolve contradictions, and correct errors without "violating" the moratorium. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 22 16:20:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:44 +1000 Received: from pimaia2y.prodigy.com (pimaia2y.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA02885 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:20:37 +1000 Received: from mime3.prodigy.com (mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.253.27]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA68814 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:20:32 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id CAA126454 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:17:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199707220617.CAA126454@mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:17:09, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The ACBL's position on psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: Gary Blaiss, says Chyah Burghard, "feels" that a bluff 2NT response to a weak two bid is a psych, even though it does not satisfy the definition of a psych as given in the Laws. If he feels that way, he should get the lawmakers to change the definition and not foist his feelings on ACBL members. A psych is a gross misstatement of strength, and asking bids do not "state" anything. They only ask!!! ============ Please, Please, Please get this part right! It is not Gary says that Chyah feels! It is that Chyah says that Gary feels! I try to be very clear when I voice a personal opinion and when I share that which has come from ACBL HQ. So please don't confuse the two, then it gets me into trouble. I really don't want to further the discussion on this. I wanted folks to know that the matter had been brought before Gary's attention and he wishes to write the ACBL official answer which will then be posted as "From Gary". The reason I even brought this up was because the Albuquerque North American Championships start this Thursday. If people take an action, they should know how their "action" is going to be viewed according to the way Gary is interpreting whatever it is that applies to this situation. While ACBL staff are at the nationals, they get very busy and Gary simply forgot to write the reply before he left. Kent and I will also get into a pattern where we jump on the Internet, post some scores or notices about the nationals and then go back to work and we'll in all likelihood not monitor the lists that we normally read for the benefit of increasing the communication level between the ACBL and interested members of the Internet community. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 22 19:45:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 19:45:31 +1000 Received: from e4000.star.net.il (e4000.star.net.il [195.8.195.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA03669 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 19:45:19 +1000 Received: from default (HZ-pri-AS3-164.star.net.il [195.8.208.164]) by e4000.star.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA09536; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:42:46 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <33D48154.E0E88708@artaxia.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:45:57 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Goodwin CC: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19970721131542.400f1a80@ime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 09:00 AM 7/21/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >I think the ruling against you was misguided. A convention card is a > > >device to promote disclosure of your agreements; this is the first > time > >I've ever heard it suggested that it does double duty as a > quasi-legal list > >of the areas in which partnerships are required to have agreements. > As > >much as the ACBL would like them to, the Laws absolutely do not > require > >that all partnership methods be based on the 4-3-2-1 point count, > hence a > >requirement that a bid be described in terms of point range (as > opposed to > >in the terms of the actual partnership agreement) would force > partnerships > >who don't choose to use 4-3-2-1 to misdescribe their actual > agreements. > > This thread is taking on a topic which is probably inappropriate for > the > Bridge Laws Mailing List, so excuse me, but it is an area which I have > > particular interest. Here is a section of the system notes from one > of my > partnerships: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Hand evaluation is not a matter of simple arith-metic: in bridge, > there > is no substitute for judgment. Still, there are well-recognized and > useful > tools for assisting in the process. > > Quick Tricks (QT) > AK = 2 AQ = 1 1/2 A = KQ = 1 K = 1/2 > High-card Tricks (HT) > A = 1 K = 3/4 Q = 1/2 J = 0 > > You may find it convenient to convert these values to "points," thus > eliminating fractions. If 1/4-trick = 1 point, then A = 4, K = 3, Q = > 2, > and J = 0. These look like traditional "high-card points," except > that the > jack counts zero. However, the adjustments described below make it > clear > that high-card tricks are a different language, not a HCP dialect. > > Add 1/2-trick (2 points) for HH (two honors in combination). > Add 1 trick (4 points) for HHH. > Subtract 1/4-trick (1 point) for no H. > Add 1/4-trick (1 point) for HT or HHT. > Subtract 1/4-trick (1 point) for KQ, KJ, or QJ doubleton. > Add 1/4-trick (1 point) for any two of A, AT, AJT, AQT. > > Add up the tricks; round up to the next 1/2-trick from 1/4, and to > the > next trick from 3/4. (Or add up the points and divide by four, then > round up.) > The high-card-tricks table derives from Pierre Collet, Introduction > au > Bridge Scientifique (1964). High-card tricks differ from Culbertson > honor-tricks in that they more accurately reflect the values of honors > in > combination. Moreover, Culbertson (and his contemporaries) failed to > appreciate (or quantify) the crucial fact that a suit with no honors > has > negative value. > No adjustments appear in the table for singleton honors, because > high-card tricks are used mainly for notrump bidding. There will be > occasions when an unbalanced hand has to raise notrump or even bid > notrump > itself. In such cases, high-card tricks are relevant (but not > controlling), > and you should subtract 1/4-trick (1 point) for a singleton K, Q, or > J. > ~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Our 1NT opening bid shows 6-6 1/2 high-card tricks. I don't know > exactly > what this comes out to in HCP, we haven't played this specific range > in an > ACBL event, but we will put 'about 18-22' on the convention card if it > ever > comes up. There are certainly hands that fall outside that range that > will > qualify for a 1NT opening bid (and hands that fall within that range > that > will not), but they will be extreme cases. My question is: how do we > cope > with the ACBL regulation that no conventions may be used after a 1NT > opening > which has a range of more than 5 HCPs? (We don't employ any > conventions > after 1NT opening bids, BTW.) Not only might ACBL force us to > misdescribe > our agreements by forcing us to describe them in terms if HCPs, it > also > makes it rather difficult to understand how our system is regulated by > the > General Convention Chart. > > Tim If you are interested to know more about some "scientific trials" to evaluate hands - please read David Morgan's article , "Bid like my computer" published in Bridge Today - Nov-Dec 96 - Page 52 . GHINGHIS From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 23 02:07:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 02:07:42 +1000 Received: from pimaia2y.prodigy.com (pimaia2y.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA07908 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 02:07:34 +1000 Received: from mime3.prodigy.com (mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.253.27]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA51664 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:07:29 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA123734 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:02:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199707221602.MAA123734@mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:02:24, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: position on psyches:apology Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My apologies to Marv French for not reading between the commas. I guess I have to be more careful reading notes when extremely tired. He and I were on the same wavelength, I just read the note wrong. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 23 06:58:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 06:58:38 +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 GAA08840 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 06:58:31 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbac2.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.130]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA26692; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707222058.QAA26692@brickbat8.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Defective trick Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 16:52:11 -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 (Pre-quel snipped) > >There have been two infractions, play out of turn and not playing a card to > >a trick. > > > >>> Didn't Declarer play a card out of turn at trick 3? > >> > >>No, declarer believed that everybody had followed to the trick with > >>the missing card, then called for the next spade lead. > >> > >>Henk > >> > >If declarer played out of turn what matters is that RHO had not played and > >not whether declarer believed RHO had played. > > > >My point is that by declarer playing out of turn he, as it were, establishes > >the defective trick, or at least bears some responsibility for it and thus > >is not entitled to an adjusted score restoring equity. > > I now understand what is being said, though I still do not agree. In > my experience defective tricks do not always mean someone has played out > of turn. They usually tend to mean that a card was played but not > quitted, either being played to the next trick as well, or being put > back in the players' hand. The stated assertion that a card *was* > played out of turn I find disturbing. That merely suggests a TD who has > made a presumption which might easily be fallacious. > > If it were necessary to know whether a card out of turn was played > then further investigation would be required. Since any card played out > of turn has been condoned the only reason to enquire into this would be > for the purpose of proving the opponents of the original offenders were > also offenders. I do not believe that our approach to rulings at the > game of bridge should be based on an attempt to prove both sides > offending. This seems against the spirit of the game and the ethics of > the Tournament direction profession, and I find it quite distasteful. > But the "original offender" on the hand was evidently the declarer, if Henk's statement of the facts is correct (i.e., declarer's RHO played NOTHING to the spade led from dummy at Trick 3). It may be that Henk meant that RHO had played a card and later spirited it back into his hand, but that is not at all evident from his description. Assuming that RHO did not play a card to trick 3, then declarer broke Law 44B ("After the lead, each other in turn plays a card...") and for good measure Law 45G ("No player shall turn his card face down until all 4 players have played to the trick."). Up until declarer's illegal play to Trick 3, RHO was at worst guilty of slow play. I'm not sure what latitude the laws allow the director in trying to restore equity here. It seems that all parties share some responsibility for this farce. The 1-trick penalty specified in the Laws is meaningless in this case, and that result does seem unduly harsh to the declaring side. On the other hand, awarding them a grand slam that they neither made nor are clearly entitled to under the letter of the law seems rather too generous if declarer couldn't be bothered to watch the opponents' cards during the play, and if in fact the original offense was his. Would it be legal to throw the board out (or redeal it, if not already played at the other table)? Mike From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 23 09:30:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:30:14 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA09410 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:30:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1508698; 23 Jul 97 0:19 BST Message-ID: <6P21HaAq9T1zEwK1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 00:16:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: <199707222058.QAA26692@brickbat8.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >But the "original offender" on the hand was evidently the declarer, if >Henk's statement of the facts is correct (i.e., declarer's RHO played >NOTHING to the spade led from dummy at Trick 3). It may be that Henk meant >that RHO had played a card and later spirited it back into his hand, but >that is not at all evident from his description. Do you really believe that this happened? Really? You are declarer: you play out of turn: that's it: nobody notices and play goes on? I shall bet you a triple Glen Morangie that that is *not* what happened. >Would it be legal to throw the board out (or redeal it, if not already >played at the other table)? No. -- 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 Jul 23 13:33:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:33:41 +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 NAA10473 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:33:33 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (user-37kbac3.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.169.131]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA11570; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 23:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707230332.XAA11570@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Defective trick Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 23:26:53 -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 > >But the "original offender" on the hand was evidently the declarer, if > >Henk's statement of the facts is correct (i.e., declarer's RHO played > >NOTHING to the spade led from dummy at Trick 3). It may be that Henk meant > >that RHO had played a card and later spirited it back into his hand, but > >that is not at all evident from his description. > > Do you really believe that this happened? Really? You are declarer: > you play out of turn: that's it: nobody notices and play goes on? I > shall bet you a triple Glen Morangie that that is *not* what happened. I have absolutely no independent opinion of what actually happened, or indeed whether any of this REALLY happened or was simply a figment of Henk's (or his colleague's) imagination. We are both relying completely on Henk's reporting of the facts, which included the statement that declarer's RHO did not play a card to trick 3 (to be precise, that RHO played "NOTHING"). Subsequent to RHO's non-play, which is to say illegally, declarer is reported to have followed with a low spade followed by one from LHO, with play continuing uninterrupted for the subsequent seven tricks. Did this REALLY happen? I have no more idea than you. Could it have happened? Absolutely! Indeed it seems quite as probable as any other explanation for the imbalance. Is Henk to be relied upon as a source? Well you've obviously been on this mailing list longer than I have, so I suppose your guess is better than mine on that score at least. But it does seem silly to base any kind of argument on a version of the facts contrary to that offered by the original poster. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 23 19:03:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:03:34 +1000 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.72.6.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA11750 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:03:23 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wqxQv-00038g-00; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:10:09 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-46-165.btinternet.com [195.99.46.165]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id KAA23718; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:03:30 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707230903.KAA23718@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: END THE MORATORIUM ON ACBL ALERT REGS!! Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:58:28 +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 Marvin French wrote: > > I recently spent a great deal of time summarizing the current ACBL Alert > Procedure, using the outdated material on the ACBL web site, augmented by > information gleaned from BOD minutes. The result may be viewed on David > Stevenson's great web site. > > In doing this task, I found that the Alert regulations were complicated, > inconsistent, contradictory, incomplete, ambiguous, and erroneous. To > document those opinions, I wrote a critique entitled "What Hath BOD Wrought?" > that I will send to anyone interested. Just ask. > > The Alert Procedure simply must be modified to make it less complicated, more > consistent, "uncontradictory," complete, unambiguous, and error-free, even > though the BOD has declared a 3-year moratorium on changes. No, it mustn't. Our experience in England may be helpful here. In about 1987, we introduced an alerting procedure that was, and is, just about as arbitrary as the ACBL's. (All alerting procedures are going to be complicated, inconsistent, incomplete, ambiguous, and error-ridden in the opinion of at least a substantial portion of the membership. If you don't believe me, send me whatever alerting procedure you like, and I will drive a coach and horses through it.) The 1987 procedure *has not materially altered since*, with the result that it is now well understood and more or less wholly accepted by the membership at large. If we tried to alter it, there would be uproar. (There's uproar anyway from people who claim that it changes all the time - it does not, but the slightest hint that it might is sufficient to provoke Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells to the acme of curmudgeonly dudgeon.) Whatever you've got does not matter. Nothing you could replace it with would be much better. Just leave it alone, and let the people come to terms with it! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 23 19:08:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:08:13 +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 TAA11767 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:08:07 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA17137 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:07:21 +0200 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:07:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: <199707230332.XAA11570@brickbat9.mindspring.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > Did this REALLY happen? I have no more idea than you. Could it have > happened? Absolutely! Indeed it seems quite as probable as any other > explanation for the imbalance. Like I wrote in my first posting, I got this problem from another TD who I think is good enough to sort out what has happened. He determined that east did not play a card in trick 3, this was not noticed by any of the other players and east did nothing to indicate to the rest of the table that he still had to play a card in trick 3 (and/or that declarers small spade in trick 3 was played out of turn). Period. Geez, I think I should have simply asked "does 64C apply after 67B1b instructs the TD to give the 1 trick penalty from 64A?". Henk. ps. David, did I just win a triple Glen Morangie :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Jul 24 10:59:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:59:52 +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 KAA17923 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:59:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1117159; 24 Jul 97 1:55 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:39:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Defective trick In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote >On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >> Did this REALLY happen? I have no more idea than you. Could it have >> happened? Absolutely! Indeed it seems quite as probable as any other >> explanation for the imbalance. > >Like I wrote in my first posting, I got this problem from another TD >who I think is good enough to sort out what has happened. > >He determined that east did not play a card in trick 3, this was not >noticed by any of the other players and east did nothing to indicate >to the rest of the table that he still had to play a card in trick >3 (and/or that declarers small spade in trick 3 was played out of >turn). Period. > >Geez, I think I should have simply asked "does 64C apply after 67B1b >instructs the TD to give the 1 trick penalty from 64A?". > >Henk. > >ps. David, did I just win a triple Glen Morangie :-) Nope, I am not convinced - yet. -- 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 Jul 25 09:22:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:22:16 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA25259 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:22:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1222530; 25 Jul 97 0:20 BST Message-ID: <4QldQzAOw81zEwbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:41:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> Jeff Goldsmith wrote >> >Regardless of whether or not the ACBL's posture is >> >legal or not, it's clearly a case of rules finagling. >> >(Or "rules sleazing" or "rules lawyering.") I am concerned >> >that bridge in America is run by an organization that >> >condones rules finagling, indeed even participates >> >in it. The ACBL posture towards Law 40 (and others) >> >suggests to me that the organization feels that it >> >is acceptable for players to try to gain advantage >> >by exercising loopholes in the laws. I disagree. >> >I think that players should not be encouraged to >> >do this, that such behavior is reprehensible. For >> >the sponsoring organization to do it says to me that >> >they condone it. To state otherwise seems hypocritical. >> I am never happy when people use emotive words in arguments. It is >> not clearly a case of `rules finagling. (Or "rules sleazing" or "rules >> lawyering.")' The ACBL has taken a position. The arguments Jeff >> referred to on BLML suggest that some authorities there agree with the >> position, some do not. It therefore is somewhat insulting to make >> reference to the ACBL's decision in this way. When there are two sides >> to an argument, to refer to using one of them as `rules finagling' is >> very unfortunate. >No, David, they didn't just take a position. They chose >to implement a rule knowing that it was of dubious legality. >That it is possible to argue that it is legal, even though >on the face of it, it seems not to be, is the essence of >rules lawyering. If this were a case of just two sides to >a question, then your claim is reasonable, but that's not >what is happening. The ACBL had a few goals in mind (restricting >use of very light NT opening bids, restricting psychs, etc.) and >came up with rules to implement them, even though the original >goals seem to fly in the face of the Laws. I am afraid that your position in this paragraph appears to have moved away from your original position in this thread. It is not a rule of dubious legality. It is an interpretation of the Laws that several people consider correct. If as a result the ACBL can then take decisions that they believe are in the interests of the membership there is nothing wrong with that per se. >> >I conclude that the ban on psyches of some conventional >> >calls is a violation of the principles of active ethics >> >and sets a poor example for players. >> >> The ACBL's job inter alia is to do their best for the membership. If >> the ban on psyches will help the membership and if it is justifiable on >> some readings of an ambiguous Law, then it is far from a violation of >> the principle of active ethics: it is actually upholding it. Active >> ethics means doing the fairest things for your opponents, not just what >> the Law requires. If the ban on psyches is good for the ACBL >> membership, then active ethics requires them to institute such a ban: >> the ambiguity of the Law position is analogous to a player doing more >> than the Laws require. > >So, setting a good example is not one of the ACBL's jobs? >Let's say I find an odd loophole in the laws and find a >way to use it to my advantage in a tournament. Is that >not violating active ethics? I think it is. I think >that's more or less what the ACBL is doing. I don't. Part of the job of SOs is to interpret the Laws. They do that in the case of L40 and then take further decisions based on their interpretations. What is wrong with that? >David, have you played any games with very complicated >rules? Try Magic: the Gathering if you haven't. Play >against someone who knows the loopholes and takes advantage >of them, who finds situations in which the rules are ambiguous >and uses them to his advantage. You will have met a rules >lawyer. I warn you that this is a very unpleasant experience. I am sure you are right. The tales of Bridge Lawyers are bad enough, a breed that is growing in numbers, and appears to be flourishing in NAmerica. However, I do *not* consider the ACBL's position analogous. There *is* an interpretation that allows the actions by the ACBL to be legal. That interpretation *is* supported by some authorities. There is nothing wrong in the ACBL attempting to better the game using this interpretation. ----------------- Of course, one could argue that the ACBL's decisions are not for the benefit of the membership, but that is a different argument to the one that forms the basis of this thread. ----------------- While I do not object to continuing this discussion in attempt to resolve it here in RGB, I would have thought it was more suited to BLML. Since I believe in letting everyone else decide, I have copied it from RGB. -- 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 Jul 25 11:53:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:53:55 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25860 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:53:47 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1013769; 25 Jul 97 2:48 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 02:08:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: <4QldQzAOw81zEwbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff said that I could decide whether to forward this to BLML. I have no idea whether anyone else is interested, but it seems reasonable to offer it to you. From: David Stevenson |Jeff Goldsmith wrote |>David Stevenson wrote: |>> Jeff Goldsmith wrote | |>> >Regardless of whether or not the ACBL's posture is |>> >legal or not, it's clearly a case of rules finagling. |>> >(Or "rules sleazing" or "rules lawyering.") I am concerned |>> >that bridge in America is run by an organization that |>> >condones rules finagling, indeed even participates |>> >in it. The ACBL posture towards Law 40 (and others) |>> >suggests to me that the organization feels that it |>> >is acceptable for players to try to gain advantage |>> >by exercising loopholes in the laws. I disagree. |>> >I think that players should not be encouraged to |>> >do this, that such behavior is reprehensible. For |>> >the sponsoring organization to do it says to me that |>> >they condone it. To state otherwise seems hypocritical. | |>> I am never happy when people use emotive words in arguments. It is |>> not clearly a case of `rules finagling. (Or "rules sleazing" or "rules |>> lawyering.")' The ACBL has taken a position. The arguments Jeff |>> referred to on BLML suggest that some authorities there agree with the |>> position, some do not. It therefore is somewhat insulting to make |>> reference to the ACBL's decision in this way. When there are two sides |>> to an argument, to refer to using one of them as `rules finagling' is |>> very unfortunate. | |>No, David, they didn't just take a position. They chose |>to implement a rule knowing that it was of dubious legality. |>That it is possible to argue that it is legal, even though |>on the face of it, it seems not to be, is the essence of |>rules lawyering. If this were a case of just two sides to |>a question, then your claim is reasonable, but that's not |>what is happening. The ACBL had a few goals in mind (restricting |>use of very light NT opening bids, restricting psychs, etc.) and |>came up with rules to implement them, even though the original |>goals seem to fly in the face of the Laws. | | I am afraid that your position in this paragraph appears to have moved |away from your original position in this thread. It is not a rule of |dubious legality. It is an interpretation of the Laws that several |people consider correct. If as a result the ACBL can then take |decisions that they believe are in the interests of the membership there |is nothing wrong with that per se. I disagree. It's an interpretation that some people think is probably consistent with the Laws, some people think is inconsistent, and some don't know. That seems almost to be a definition of "dubious legality" to me. It is almost totally obviously clear that the "interpretation" is one to skirt around a different law. That's what's central to my point. |>> >I conclude that the ban on psyches of some conventional |>> >calls is a violation of the principles of active ethics |>> >and sets a poor example for players. |>> |>> The ACBL's job inter alia is to do their best for the membership. If |>> the ban on psyches will help the membership and if it is justifiable on |>> some readings of an ambiguous Law, then it is far from a violation of |>> the principle of active ethics: it is actually upholding it. Active |>> ethics means doing the fairest things for your opponents, not just what |>> the Law requires. If the ban on psyches is good for the ACBL |>> membership, then active ethics requires them to institute such a ban: |>> the ambiguity of the Law position is analogous to a player doing more |>> than the Laws require. |> |>So, setting a good example is not one of the ACBL's jobs? |>Let's say I find an odd loophole in the laws and find a |>way to use it to my advantage in a tournament. Is that |>not violating active ethics? I think it is. I think |>that's more or less what the ACBL is doing. | | I don't. Part of the job of SOs is to interpret the Laws. They do |that in the case of L40 and then take further decisions based on their |interpretations. What is wrong with that? "Twisting" is closer than "interpreting." If you were to take the laws at face value, that is, to read them without express attention to detail in order to figure out if these regulations are legal, what would your general take on these regulations be? I think anyone would think, "that's illegal." Only once they delved into the laws and came up with a complicated scheme to get around a direct prohibition could they do what they did. Let's use an example. If I want to play 9-11 NTs in ACBL competition, I cannot use any conventions after them. In 1st chair, that effectively bans the usage of this natural bid. The laws expressly state that SOs cannot regulate the use of (most, including these) natural bids, so they can't ban 9-11 NTs. Instead, they hamstring them---isn't that an attempt to skirt the Laws? Isn't it a "sleaze?" Is it not "rules lawyering?" If a player attempted to skirt the laws, wouldn't his actions be subject to some scrutiny? Let's look at this another way. If you were reading the laws with the express intent to find out whether banning 9-11 NTs was legal, wouldn't your conclusion be, "no, we can't do that." If, indeed, your goal were to decide what the laws really said, wouldn't you stop there? Of course you would. But if your goal were to ban them, you might come up with the idea that if we disallow conventions after...that's the same as banning them, more or less, and it seems that we are not prohibited from doing that! Basically, at some point, we need to consider intent. The point of these rules is to get around Laws that the ACBL doesn't like. It's not to "interpret" them differently, it's to accomplish goals that are illegal. Only one does them in (perhaps) legal ways. This is the job of a good sleazy lawyer in general. Let's pursue the analogy to active ethics. An "ethical" player plays by the rules. When he commits an infraction, he pays the penalty; he doesn't take advantage of anything that the laws address. An "actively ethical" player not only does that, but tries to avoid taking unfair advantage of opponents in ways that are not covered by the laws. He avoids finding loopholes (like Barry Crane's, "no, YOU forgot" incident) that will let him get away with infractions that the laws seem intended to prevent. For the sake of argument, let's assume these ACBL regulations are "legal." Are they "actively legal?" |>David, have you played any games with very complicated |>rules? Try Magic: the Gathering if you haven't. Play |>against someone who knows the loopholes and takes advantage |>of them, who finds situations in which the rules are ambiguous |>and uses them to his advantage. You will have met a rules |>lawyer. I warn you that this is a very unpleasant experience. | | I am sure you are right. The tales of Bridge Lawyers are bad enough, |a breed that is growing in numbers, and appears to be flourishing in |NAmerica. However, I do *not* consider the ACBL's position analogous. | There *is* an interpretation that allows the actions by the ACBL to be |legal. That interpretation *is* supported by some authorities. There |is nothing wrong in the ACBL attempting to better the game using this |interpretation. But there are plenty of interpretations that suggest that these actions are illegal. Should a governing body do something that might or might not be illegal? I think not---they should determine if the actions are legal. (How? Ask Edgar, of course! :)) If they are deemed as such, write it down and carry on. If not, don't. | Of course, one could argue that the ACBL's decisions are not for the |benefit of the membership, but that is a different argument to the one |that forms the basis of this thread. That's a different question entirely and is open to serious doubt, but is irrelevant to the question I raised. It's possible that the membership doesn't want to see 8-10 NT openings. I doubt they care much, by the way, but it's possible. In Southern California, roughly 50% of the Flight A field uses 10-12s some of the time, so it's patently obvious that that portion of the membership is not in favor of that rule. But requiring a good hand to respond 2NT to a weak two bid, is that to the benefit of the membership? Of course not. I don't think one player in ten thinks that rule is anything but silly. | While I do not object to continuing this discussion in attempt to |resolve it here in RGB, I would have thought it was more suited to BLML. |Since I believe in letting everyone else decide, I have copied it from |RGB. OK. There seems to have been little interest on RGB. You are the only one who has responded. I'm not sure it belongs on BLML, either, since it's a metalegal argument, one that considers the intent behind regulations, not the regulations themselves. I was more interested in suggesting to the ACBL that they consider whether their actions are ethical than provoking a scholarly argument about whether or not they are. I am convinced that a player who attempted similar actions/reasoning would be branded as unethical, and that's the point I was trying to make. If you want to forward this to BLML, you are welcome, but I'm not at all sure I see the point to it. --Jeff # Is a standing committee one with no chair? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 10:24:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:24:01 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00311 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:23:54 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1124172; 27 Jul 97 11:05 BST Message-ID: <0cEowlANqx2zEwTF@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:53:17 +0100 To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's position on psyches In-Reply-To: <970722011808_75908017@emout15.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970722011808_75908017@emout15.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com writes ..cut.. >Not that I'm admitting the right of the ACBL BOD to outlaw the psych of a >conventional call in violation of L40A (Sorry, David). If given that right, >the BOD could prevent psychs of all conventions by merely creating a >regulation to that effect. Was that the intent of the lawmakers? > ..cut.. Labeo: In answer to the question: Yes, apparently, since it has been done without challenge over many years by various leading authorities. See parallel comments in message to DS. But why has this discussion started up now? Is it that the ACBL regulations have recently adopted something that has been the experience elsewhere for a long time off and on ? If so, many of the ACBL players who have played internationally for any length of time will be likely to have met such situations previously. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 10:41:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:41:47 +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 KAA00623 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:41:41 +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 JAA20074 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:05:28 -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-1997Jul25.205800.1189.118046; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:01:21 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Jul25.205800.1189.118046@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, 25 Jul 1997 09:01:21 -0600 Subject: FW: The ACBL's apparent attitude toward Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 1997 10:16 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude toward Note I, for one, am enjoying reading this discussion. The fact that I have not been contributing posts should not be interpreted as lack of interest in the posts which are taking place. Let me throw in my own 2 cents. The concept of "Bridge-Lawyer" has made its way into the discussion. I'll provide a graphic example of what I consider rules-lawyering. The Wilkosz 2D opening is my favorite artificial gadget. This 2D opening promises ~ 7-11 HCP and a 2 suited hand (at least 5-5 shape) with one of the suits being a major. I find that the bid is extremely helpful for both constructive and preemptive purposes. Unfortunately, since the opening bid does not promise a known suit, it clearly belongs to a class of bids which the ACBL and other organizations have been trying to restrict for years. However, consider the following argument. The ACBL mid-chart allows an opening 2D bid to a show a weak 2 bid in either major (including addition strong [15+ HCP] meanings. Many people commonly open 7-11 HCP 5-5 hands with a weak 2 bid in the corresponding major. If decide to use a treatment that a weak two bid in a major MUST include an additional five card suit, and then use a Multi 2D opening, I have recreated the Wilkosz 2D opening bid, and done so in a manner which COULD be interpreted as being legal under the Midchart. I certainly know of tournament directors who would accept this argument. I think everyone would agree that it would be a better thing for bridge if individual players would not attempt to twist the laws and the convention charts to their own advantage as in the example above. Players should be expected to follow the spirit of the laws rather than obeying them to the letter. I won't comment about whether or not the ACBL's position regarding 9-11 HCP 1N openings or 2N asking bids following weak 2 bids is legal or not. Both Jeff and David know much more about the laws of bridge that I pretend to. The problem is that to many players, the ACBL's actions appear to be in the same catagory as the Wilkosz 2D example which I cited above, and this promotes a "Why not do the same" attitude among players. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 10:53:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:53:23 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00923 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:53:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1528174; 25 Jul 97 16:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:31:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: A claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- 6 2 7 7 -- -- A AQ 5 -- -- A -- K 63 South is in 3NT. At this point, with the lead in Dummy, declarer says "They're all yours". He then calls the TD and says that there is an established revoke, West having failed to follow suit some tricks earlier to a spade. West agrees that this is true. South asks for two tricks to be transferred to him. West has not won any other spade tricks. This caused some fun at the last EBU County TD's Refresher 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 Mon Jul 28 10:56:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:56:15 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00952 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:56:05 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0612869; 25 Jul 97 16:50 BST Message-ID: <0GcmlMAP2K2zEwir@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:43:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: New L63B MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 63 - Establishment of a Revoke B. Attention Is Illegally Drawn When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. Right. I have already given my views on this Law [and received a thick ear from Labeo as a result]. Now perhaps we might just consider this to make sure it is clear. In Europe, defenders are not allowed to ask each other "Having none?" per L61B. If they do, then it is UI if there is no revoke. However, if there is a revoke L63B comes into action. The defender revokes by playing the S3 on a heart. Partner says "Having none?" and the player finds a heart king, which [a] wins the trick [b] loses to the heart ace In case [b] the defender wins a later trick with: [c] a heart [d] a spade [e] both [f] neither How many tricks are transferred? Is it obvious? More fun from the EBU County TD's Refresher 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 Mon Jul 28 11:05:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:05:53 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA01019 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:05:47 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0913051; 27 Jul 97 11:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:32:09 +0100 To: CHYAH E BURGHARD Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's position on psyches In-Reply-To: <199707220020.UAA124808@mime3.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707220020.UAA124808@mime3.prodigy.com>, CHYAH E BURGHARD writes >This note is a non-answer, it is meant as information. (cut) > >All I will say, for the benefit of those going to >Albuquerque and need to know where they >stand is that Gary felt that even if you >explained your partnership agreement to >2H ->Pass->2NT as 2NT does not promise >anything, but is just an asking bid and you >do this with a weak hand, he felt this still >qualified as a psych. ....[again cut].. > Labeo writes: Not arguing with the messenger but commenting on the message, whether a psyche has occurred is settled in relation to the meanings of calls as announced by the partnership. To describe a call as a psyche when it is used exactly in accordance with the announced methods is a misnomer. The question in that event is whether the partnership agreement is legal, and if not then the call is an illegal call not a psyche. If ACBL regulations say this conventional 2NT bid may not be made on a hand of a strength less than 'x' then the partnership agreement is illegal but is incorrectly described as psychic since it is understood by all players at the table - and by the Director too. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 11:09:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:09:46 +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 LAA01060 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:09:41 +1000 Received: from cph10.ppp.dknet.dk (cph10.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.10]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA09449 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:35:34 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:35:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33deff39.8994683@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <4QldQzAOw81zEwbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4QldQzAOw81zEwbg@blakjak.demon.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, 24 Jul 1997 22:41:34 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >It is an interpretation of the Laws that several=20 >people consider correct. If as a result the ACBL can then take=20 >decisions that they believe are in the interests of the membership there= =20 >is nothing wrong with that per se. I agree with David here. A month ago I had a different view of the ACBL position, but since then the BLML discussion has taught me that (even after my attempts to argue against it) the ACBL interpretation of L40 is not only the ACBL's interpretation; it is shared by other people (including some whose opinions I respect). I still personally believe that the ACBL's interpretation of L40 is wrong, and that the ACBL's regulation - regardless of its legality - is a bad idea. But if the ACBL believes that interpretation to be correct and believes that such a regulation will be good for North American Bridge, then it is quite reasonable for the ACBL to create the regulation. However, there is another point on which I do share Jeff's opinion that the ACBL is using loopholes in the laws: I believe that the ACBL has a regulation that forbids the use of any convention in reply to a very weak 1NT opening. This is a way to circumvent the requirement of L40 that such openings cannot be banned, but that conventions can. Though literally legal, it is IMO obviously against the intentions of the laws. I believe that this could be called an example of bridge lawyering by the NCBO. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 11:14:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:14:55 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA01113 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:14:50 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0908765; 26 Jul 97 23:40 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:54:14 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970721090010.006ad488@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970721090010.006ad488@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 10:27 AM 7/21/97 +0100, Edward wrote: > >>I have been ruled against on the basis that a box on a convention card >>indicates an obligation to have an agreement. ....etc.... and Eric Landau wrote: > >I think the ruling against you was misguided. A convention card is a >device to promote disclosure of your agreements; this is the first time >I've ever heard it suggested that it does double duty as a quasi-legal list >of the areas in which partnerships are required to have agreements. > Labeo: Two points : (a)The *Laws* do not specify but they remit to the SO the power to regulate disclosure of special partnership understandings - i.e. those which are not common to all partnerships. The CC is one method of disclosure. It is not correctly described as a device to "promote" disclosure: it is the instrument provided by which disclosure is to be effected. (b) Prima facie the presence of a box on the CC indicates that it is considered the agreement is by definition one needing to be disclosed if you have anything to write in there. If you have no agreement, explicit or implicit, to write in there, you can hardly enter it, but it is to be expected you will have developed one after the first experience by the partnership of the situation. And if on the first occasion the position arises both members of the partnership attribute the same meaning to a call it is a legitimate question to enquire how they are able to do this if it is not a meaning universally adopted. To answer all the questions raised we need to have the regulation in front of us. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 11:54:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:54:33 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA01541 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:54:26 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1306260; 27 Jul 97 11:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 09:30:55 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: <4QldQzAOw81zEwbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <4QldQzAOw81zEwbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Jeff Goldsmith wrote >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> Jeff Goldsmith wrote > >>> >Regardless of whether or not the ACBL's posture is >>> >legal or not, it's clearly a case of rules finagling. >>> >(Or "rules sleazing" or "rules lawyering.") >>> >I conclude that the ban on psyches of some conventional >>> >calls is a violation of the principles of active ethics >>> >and sets a poor example for players. > .....(a lot cut).... > and David Stevenson said - much else omitted: > There *is* an interpretation that allows the actions by the ACBL to be >legal. That interpretation *is* supported by some authorities. There >is nothing wrong in the ACBL attempting to better the game using this >interpretation. > Labeo comments: On occasions both the European Bridge League and the World Bridge Federation have used the absolute power given in the laws (Law 40D is not subordinate to Law 80F) in making it a condition of the use of conventions that they shall not be psyched. So have other organizations. I do not know just how long the ACBL has been doing it but they seem to have come late to the party. In any event those who are now debating the subject have certainly come at it very late. It is years since the WBF Laws Committee became aware of regulations of this kind and they have raised no challenge. The question of legality has long been settled by the bridge authorities. What is now being discussed is who likes it and who does not - a harmless discussion, no doubt, having not the least bearing on the already decided (by those who have the power to decide) question of legality. As for "finagling", bridge authorities, World, Zonal and National, are entitled to make use of any powers given them to regulate the game in its best interests as they see them. It should also be noted by those who raise the subject of active ethics that it is appropriate to play duplicate bridge strictly in accordance with the laws (as the laws themselves state) which is why the wording of the laws as they are written has an importance not to be overridden by speculation as to the intention of the erstwhile legislator. The ACBL, and other bridge organizations, are also entitled to extend this principle to their own actions in regulating and otherwise. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 13:04:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:04:10 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA02299 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:04:04 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1008516; 27 Jul 97 11:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:12:20 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Mlfrench@aol.com, Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: END THE MORATORIUM ON ACBL ALERT REGS!! In-Reply-To: <199707230903.KAA23718@snow.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707230903.KAA23718@snow.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes >Marvin French wrote: > >> >> I recently spent a great deal of time summarizing the current ACBL Alert Procedure, using the outdated material on the ACBL web site, augmented by information gleaned from BOD minutes. The result may be viewed on David Stevenson's great web site. >> >> In doing this task, I found that the Alert regulations were complicated, inconsistent, contradictory, incomplete, ambiguous, and erroneous. >(....cut.......) and David Burn responded (again cut): > Our experience in England may be helpful here. In about >1987, we introduced an alerting procedure that was, and is, just about as >arbitrary as the ACBL's. All alerting procedures are going to be >complicated, inconsistent, incomplete, ambiguous, and error-ridden in the >opinion of at least a substantial portion of the membership. > Labeo adds: Well, of course they are. Settling alerting requirements is an arbitrary procedure - as is all regulation. There is no naturally 'right' answer. And the ACBL and others would have a membership less than human if they did not get at least 200,000 different opinions as to what would be better. Someone has to make the decisions and when they have done so people should just get on with the game, accepting that they have some rules to follow, being grateful they are only as much as they are, and letting the procedure laid down become a habit with them. Forming the habit is an important part of the process and constant chopping and changing deprives players of the chance to do it, without - as David says - any hope that some splendid golden set of rules will emerge to be universally praised. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 14:05:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:05:11 +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 OAA02590 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:05:01 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wruBL-0005Pd-00; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:53:59 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-45-72.btinternet.com [195.99.45.72]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA24980 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:47:06 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707252347.AAA24980@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Cutting out the dead wood Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:45:36 +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 People I have been a subscriber to BLML for long enough, and (having just had the first birthday that does not count - 41 - I am old enough) to attempt to call a moratorium. I propose that: Whatever the rights or wrongs of the case may be, no further purpose is served by debating *whether or not* SOs have the right to (effectively) ban natural opening bids that they don't like by preventing users thereof from playing conventions in response - or at all. Call it 80E versus 80F, call it 40A versus 40D, call it common sense versus pettifoggery. Call it sad, call it funny - but it's better than even money - that some NBO's only doing it for the (perceived) benefit of the membership. If you have not seen "Guys and Dolls", what the above paragraph means is this: For practical purposes, it may as well be accepted as fact that SOs have the power to (in effect) ban bids they do not like. The WBF has said so. The EBL (in defiance of the WBF originally, but now in compliance) says so. The things that you're liable to read in the Bible are a lot less so than this is. Now, can we move on? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 14:05:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:05:17 +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 OAA02594 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:05:08 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wrt7M-0003zJ-00; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:45:48 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-45-72.btinternet.com [195.99.45.72]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA15390 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:39:09 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707252239.XAA15390@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Deep waters Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:37:37 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BC9953.BC436540" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01BC9953.BC436540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your hand as West at love all is: AK10632 62 QJ643 None and the bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your right. You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods and that's what you choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call do you make? I have omitted nothing material from the problem statement. 1H was natural (five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, so was 2S, and so (as far as you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what call do you make? The Swede who held this hand in the recent European Championships doubled. This was a decision he would regret, for the full deal was: None AKQ103 A1097 KQ76 AK10632 Q98 62 J75 QJ643 K852 None J108 J754 984 None A95432 His opponents extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, South bid 5C, North bid 6C, and South bid 7C. Now, suppose that West complained to you, the TD, that had he been on the same side of the screen as North, he would have passed out 4S. How would you rule? One word of caution. By deep, I mean deep. ------=_NextPart_000_01BC9953.BC436540 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Your hand as West at love all = is:

AK10632  62  QJ643  None

and the = bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your = right.

You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods = and that's what you choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call = do you make?

I have omitted nothing material from the problem = statement. 1H was natural (five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, = so was 2S, and so (as far as you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what = call do you make?

The Swede who held this hand in the recent = European Championships doubled. This was a decision he would regret, for = the full deal was:

=      None
=      AKQ103
=      A1097
=      KQ76
AK10632 =     Q98
62 =          J75
QJ643 =       K852
None =        J108
=      J754
=      984
=      None
=      A95432

His opponents = extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, South bid 5C, = North bid 6C, and South bid 7C.

Now, suppose that West complained = to you, the TD, that had he been on the same side of the screen as = North, he would have passed out 4S. How would you rule?

One word = of caution. By deep, I mean deep.


------=_NextPart_000_01BC9953.BC436540-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 14:12:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:12:04 +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 OAA02625 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:11:58 +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 JAA04633 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970725094018.006ae848@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:40:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: <4QldQzAOw81zEwbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:41 PM 7/24/97 +0100, David wrote: >Jeff Goldsmith wrote >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> Jeff Goldsmith wrote > >>> >Regardless of whether or not the ACBL's posture is >>> >legal or not, it's clearly a case of rules finagling. >>> >(Or "rules sleazing" or "rules lawyering.") I am concerned >>> >that bridge in America is run by an organization that >>> >condones rules finagling, indeed even participates >>> >in it. The ACBL posture towards Law 40 (and others) >>> >suggests to me that the organization feels that it >>> >is acceptable for players to try to gain advantage >>> >by exercising loopholes in the laws. I disagree. >>> >I think that players should not be encouraged to >>> >do this, that such behavior is reprehensible. For >>> >the sponsoring organization to do it says to me that >>> >they condone it. To state otherwise seems hypocritical. > >>> I am never happy when people use emotive words in arguments. It is >>> not clearly a case of `rules finagling. (Or "rules sleazing" or "rules >>> lawyering.")' The ACBL has taken a position. The arguments Jeff >>> referred to on BLML suggest that some authorities there agree with the >>> position, some do not. It therefore is somewhat insulting to make >>> reference to the ACBL's decision in this way. When there are two sides >>> to an argument, to refer to using one of them as `rules finagling' is >>> very unfortunate. > >>No, David, they didn't just take a position. They chose >>to implement a rule knowing that it was of dubious legality. >>That it is possible to argue that it is legal, even though >>on the face of it, it seems not to be, is the essence of >>rules lawyering. If this were a case of just two sides to >>a question, then your claim is reasonable, but that's not >>what is happening. The ACBL had a few goals in mind (restricting >>use of very light NT opening bids, restricting psychs, etc.) and >>came up with rules to implement them, even though the original >>goals seem to fly in the face of the Laws. > > I am afraid that your position in this paragraph appears to have moved >away from your original position in this thread. It is not a rule of >dubious legality. It is an interpretation of the Laws that several >people consider correct. If as a result the ACBL can then take >decisions that they believe are in the interests of the membership there >is nothing wrong with that per se. I'm on Jeff's side on this one. An ethical regulatory body starts with the Law, interprets it as best they can, and then decides what the practical consequences of their interpretation are. A sleazy one starts with what they desire the real-life consequences of the Laws to be, and then finds an interpretation that will bridge the gap between the Laws and the desired results, even when that interpretation is so convoluted as to be clearly at odds with any kind of straightforward interpretation of the sort that a group going the Laws-to-interpretation-to-practice route would never come up with. The case of the ACBL and the mini-NT is instructive. When they decided that they didn't like 1NT openings on 9 HCP, they simply banned them by fiat. When the resulting outcry made it clear to all and sundry that what they had done was flatly illegal, they set their minds to poring over the Laws until they could find some way to interpret them to achieve the desired effect. Today the 9 HCP 1NT is not used in North America because the "rules lawyers" at the ACBL were able to create a loophole by which, based on an obviously arguable rationale (we're arguing about it, after all), they managed to justify, from a legal perspective, taking an action which, when taken directly without benefit of the loophole, was consensually accepted as illegal. That is the essense of what Jeff calls "rules finagling". It seems obvious that if banning the 9 HCP 1NT was within the spirit of the Laws, the Laws wouldn't prohibit SOs from doing so directly. It is ridiculous to think that the writers of the Laws deliberately wrote L40 to appear to prohibit such a ban, then carefully selected language that would allow clever SOs to implement one but only after "discovering" that the precise wording of the Law left room for an "interpretation" which would permit them to do so. Jeff is quite right. The ACBL preaches active ethics, but when it comes to L40, they clearly give the letter of the Law precedence over the spirit and intent of the Law, and the lesson of their example is not lost on their members. 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 Jul 28 21:14:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:14:18 +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 VAA04325 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:14:11 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-13-18.innet.be [194.7.13.18]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA12589 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:14:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33DC7CF3.661274EA@innet.be> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 12:05:23 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK, I'll take the bait. David Stevenson wrote: > > -- > 6 > 2 > 7 7 -- > -- A > AQ 5 > -- -- A > -- > K > 63 > > South is in 3NT. At this point, with the lead in Dummy, declarer > says > "They're all yours". He then calls the TD and says that there is an > established revoke, West having failed to follow suit some tricks > earlier to a spade. West agrees that this is true. South asks for > two > tricks to be transferred to him. West has not won any other spade > tricks. > > This caused some fun at the last EBU County TD's Refresher Course. And will no doubt caused some fun here. OK, here goes : 1) the claim is done, play ceases, the cards are shown, and south discovers that the spade is with west, not east. 2) the revoke has become established, since there has been play since. 3) revoker did not make the trick of the revoke offenders did make a later trick - that's one returned 4) could revoker make a trick with the spade ? yes : heart, west throws a diamond, diamond to the ace, spade. 5) did he in fact make that trick - not necessarily, as there are other possibilities for east-west to make three tricks. I do not believe L64A1 is enough to give NS 2 tricks - the second trick has not been made. Let's assume that an equitable score by L64C would not give NS 2 tricks, or the problem would be solved. So we must go for the claim! South has conceded three tricks. He gets one of these tricks back by virtue of the revoke. He asks another one, within the short period, so we are at L71B. "TD shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards". One normal play would be for EW to cash their three aces, in which case the conceded trick is lost, so no second penalty trick. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 22:25:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:25:44 +1000 Received: from icarus.ihug.co.nz (icarus.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04828 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:25:39 +1000 Received: from PATRICKC (ppp-515.ihug.co.nz [207.213.218.5]) by icarus.ihug.co.nz (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA15836 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:20:30 +1200 (NZST) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:20:30 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199707281220.AAA15836@icarus.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: re: Deep Waters Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This seems like a fairly clear case. EW are entitled to both the correct systemic agreement of NS or, failing that, any information that South might have based on previous experience with that partner. You are not entitled to information from South's general bridge experience. Firstly, I would find it hard to believe that NS actually have an agreement to cover this particular situation, or that it might have occurred before in previous partnership experience, as the bid of 2S in this sequence to show spades is, to say the least, unusual. Therefore, West is unable to claim that he is entitled to information from those sources. If South has offered the information that the bid of 4S is covered by partnership agreement as being natural, then that may be another story. If West has quizzed South on what he expects the 4S bid to show, and South has said he believes it to be natural, then there is no damage as this would not have been represented as a partnership agreement, and besides, by the time it gets to West it is perfectly obvious what South 'thought' it was. The fact that if the screen had been placed SW-NE instead of SE-NW is completely irrelevant. It may be true that West might have been able to ask questions of the person who made the bid as opposed to their partner, but North would have been completely within his rights to simply reply "NO PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT." In addition to that, I have never seen any rule proposed that suggested the advantage of being able to ask the bidder rather than the partner be extended to involve situations where the person on the other side of the screen was involved in making the crucial decision. In brief, no adjustment whatsoever, except in the unlikely event that South represented 4S, on enquiry from West as definitely natural by partnership agreement, EVEN IN AN AUCTION OF THIS TYPE. Patrick Carter Chairman, NZCBA, Laws & Ethics Director, Auckland Bridge Club. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 23:43:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:43:24 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA05149 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:43:19 +1000 Received: from lizard (56k-port4001.ime.net [209.90.195.11]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA07808; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970728094406.32b71eb0@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: patrick carter , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: re: Deep Waters Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 AM 7/29/97 +1200, patrick carter wrote: > Firstly, I would find it hard to believe that NS actually have an >agreement to cover this particular situation, or that it might have occurred >before in previous partnership experience, as the bid of 2S in this sequence >to show spades is, to say the least, unusual. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think a natural 2S would be considered standard on this sequence. It is natural in BWS, for instance. I think the West player could look at his hand and suspect that North was splintering, and even if he was not, there must be a better place for the opponents to play this hand than 4S. In my opinion, doubling was like shooting himself in the foot. Perhaps he thought he had a double shot available -- either he beats 4S a ton or a committee would award him some sort of adjusted score. If sitting on a committee, I would have no sympathy for West. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 28 23:47:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:47:29 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05170 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:47:23 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1516506; 28 Jul 97 14:36 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:35:28 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: michael amos Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: <199707252239.XAA15390@snow.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707252239.XAA15390@snow.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes >Your hand as West at love all is: > >AK10632 62 QJ643 None > >and the bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your right. > >You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods and that's what you >choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call do you make? > >I have omitted nothing material from the problem statement. 1H was natural >(five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, so was 2S, and so (as far as >you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what call do you make? > >The Swede who held this hand in the recent European Championships doubled. >This was a decision he would regret, for the full deal was: > > None > AKQ103 > A1097 > KQ76 >AK10632 Q98 >62 J75 >QJ643 K852 >None J108 > J754 > 984 > None > A95432 > >His opponents extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, >South bid 5C, North bid 6C, and South bid 7C. > >Now, suppose that West complained to you, the TD, that had he been on the >same side of the screen as North, he would have passed out 4S. How would >you rule? > >One word of caution. By deep, I mean deep. > I'd like to know what was said on the other side of the screen before I made my ruling :) Partner said natural? North said cue? Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 00:55:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:55:12 +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 AAA07744 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:55:02 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id PAA16247 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:54:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 15:51 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Deep waters 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: <199707252239.XAA15390@snow.btinternet.com> "David Burn" wrote: > Your hand as West at love all is: > > AK10632 62 QJ643 None > > and the bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your > right. > > You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods and that's what > you > choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call do you make? Pass seems obvious, I have no real defence to NT/H/C. > > I have omitted nothing material from the problem statement. 1H was > natural > (five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, so was 2S, and so (as far > as > you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what call do you make? Not as far as I can "ascertain". Obviously south has informed me that it is natural (and believes it to be so). However, I can assume that the pack contains the standard 13 spades. I have six and south has four and I can deduce that a) there is no holding for North consistent with a natural bid. or b) South has psyched a spade and passed in panic Either way I am happy - even seven off undoubled vs 4S our way is not a disaster at teams. > > The Swede who held this hand in the recent European Championships > doubled. > This was a decision he would regret, for the full deal was: > > None > AKQ103 > A1097 > KQ76 > AK10632 Q98 > 62 J75 > QJ643 K852 > None J108 > J754 > 984 > None > A95432 > > His opponents extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, > South bid 5C, North bid 6C, and South bid 7C. > > Now, suppose that West complained to you, the TD, that had he been on > the > same side of the screen as North, he would have passed out 4S. How would > you rule? I agree with the complainant - on receiving an explanation such as "cue bid/asking partner for a suit" then he would undoubtably have passed. However this is no reason to give a ruling. Screen position (relative to the cards dealt) is purely a matter of luck. No player is "entitled" to an explanation from the bidder. If West wishes to request an adjustment due to misinformation I think that is reasonable but even if the "natural" explanation was incorrect/misleading the 4S bid comes into the category I call "egregious" (a bid that any partner should be entitled to shoot you for making). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 02:30:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:30:08 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08442 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 02:29:52 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA10451 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:29:17 GMT Message-Id: <199707281629.QAA10451@cadillac.meteo.fr> Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA14832; Mon, 28 Jul 97 16:29:16 GMT Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 16:29:16 GMT X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Deep waters Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:30:58 >To: "David Burn" >From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >Subject: Re: Deep waters > >At 23:37 25/07/97 +0100, you wrote: >>Your hand as West at love all is: >> >>AK10632 62 QJ643 None >> >>and the bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your right. >> >>You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods and that's what you >>choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call do you make? >> >>I have omitted nothing material from the problem statement. 1H was natural >>(five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, so was 2S, and so (as far as >>you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what call do you make? >> >>The Swede who held this hand in the recent European Championships doubled. >>This was a decision he would regret, for the full deal was: >> >> None >> AKQ103 >> A1097 >> KQ76 >>AK10632 Q98 >>62 J75 >>QJ643 K852 >>None J108 >> J754 >> 984 >> None >> A95432 >> >>His opponents extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, >>South bid 5C, North bid 6C, and South bid 7C. >> >>Now, suppose that West complained to you, the TD, that had he been on the >>same side of the screen as North, he would have passed out 4S. How would >>you rule? >> >>One word of caution. By deep, I mean deep. >> > We know the end of the story: Everybody (and the TD) laughed at the West player, but I think you can't ask for us to rule without giving the whole description of facts: all the alerts, requests of explanations and explanations made by the four players. > >JP Rocafort > ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 03:27:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:27:06 +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 DAA08734 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:26:53 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1300201; 28 Jul 97 14:47 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:46:17 +0100 To: patrick carter Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Deep Waters In-Reply-To: <199707281220.AAA15836@icarus.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707281220.AAA15836@icarus.ihug.co.nz>, patrick carter writes > This seems like a fairly clear case. EW are entitled to both the correct >systemic agreement of NS or, failing that, any information that South might >have based on previous experience with that partner. You are not entitled to >information from South's general bridge experience. > > Firstly, I would find it hard to believe that NS actually have an >agreement to cover this particular situation, or that it might have occurred >before in previous partnership experience, as the bid of 2S in this sequence >to show spades is, to say the least, unusual. Therefore, West is unable to >claim that he is entitled to information from those sources. If South has >offered the information that the bid of 4S is covered by partnership >agreement as being natural, then that may be another story. > > If West has quizzed South on what he expects the 4S bid to show, and >South has said he believes it to be natural, then there is no damage as this >would not have been represented as a partnership agreement, and besides, by >the time it gets to West it is perfectly obvious what South 'thought' it was. > > The fact that if the screen had been placed SW-NE instead of SE-NW is >completely irrelevant. It may be true that West might have been able to ask >questions of the person who made the bid as opposed to their partner, but >North would have been completely within his rights to simply reply "NO >PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT." In addition to that, I have never seen any rule >proposed that suggested the advantage of being able to ask the bidder rather >than the partner be extended to involve situations where the person on the >other side of the screen was involved in making the crucial decision. > > In brief, no adjustment whatsoever, except in the unlikely event that >South represented 4S, on enquiry from West as definitely natural by >partnership agreement, EVEN IN AN AUCTION OF THIS TYPE. > > > >Patrick Carter >Chairman, NZCBA, Laws & Ethics >Director, Auckland Bridge Club. > > > > > > > I've asked David to clarify what was said on the other side of the screen, bvt I am not sure that Patrick is correct. My general impression,where a pair disagree about the meaning of a bid is to assume that we follow the misexplanation line - so I think that with screens a player is entitled to know BOTH players explanations as it were "after" the event - in this case if West knows that North intends 4S to be a cue then clearly he will pass - I think that the non-offenders are entitled to the benefit of the doubt here as in other situations - if NS disagree about their system here this is an example of misinformation - I rule 4S to be the final contract - minus whatever (seven???) (although I reserve my right to change my mind in view of David's reply :)) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 08:56:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:56:45 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA10294 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:56:37 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0513681; 28 Jul 97 23:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 05:18:18 +0100 To: Edward Sheldon Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding In-Reply-To: <9707211027.ZM1096@ms.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9707211027.ZM1096@ms.com>, Edward Sheldon writes >On Jul 19, 5:05pm, Eric Landau wrote: >> Subject: Re: Overt Partnership lack of Understanding >> > .....cut... Edward Sheldon said: >....(cut)..... >I have been ruled against on the basis that a box on a convention card >indicates an obligation to have an agreement. In my case, it was the >point range box for a weak two - it was ruled that writing weak didn't >count as properly filling in the CC (even though this was our agreement - >we were a new partnership, and the board the ruling was on was the first >that either of us had opened a weak two). > >I disagreed with this at the time, but it makes some sort of sense now :) >If your opponents left the box for responses to 2H blank or wrote 'NAT', >then I don't think they've filled their card in correctly. Labeo writes: The possible justification for the 'must state' requirement in the case of the values for an opening bid is that where the bid has a value statement attached to it, such as 'weak', it seems unlikely that a partnership completing its convention cards will fail to enquire of each other what they understand by 'weak'. If they are content just to write 'weak' it suggests they have a common understanding, possibly arising from widespread practice where they play, of the value. In their club they may well regard that value as general bridge knowledge; if they go outside of their club to play it is an implicit understanding and a special one because not shared with all other players. Certainly in the latter case they cannot claim to have no agreement. Where the SO has a regulation limiting the values for a specified opening bid to, say, a five points range, players who value their hands by other methods than the Milton Work Count will need to consider the weakest and the strongest hands they can have and what the values of these would be on the Milton Work method. If these values are more than the stipulated number of points apart some trimming is required - and, strangely, in the course of the exercise they will have established a points range they can show on the card! I have not seen a card on which the player has written in a box "no agreement" [:-) !] Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 09:06:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:06:21 +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 JAA10396 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:06:15 +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 BAA05968 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:06:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 01:06:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33e3244d.5105761@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:31:49 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > South is in 3NT. At this point, with the lead in Dummy, declarer says= =20 >"They're all yours". He then calls the TD and says that there is an=20 >established revoke, West having failed to follow suit some tricks=20 >earlier to a spade. West agrees that this is true. South asks for two=20 >tricks to be transferred to him. West has not won any other spade=20 >tricks. L70A: "..., but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". L70D: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful." A normal, not very successful, line of play is to play a club or a heart from dummy. If S does this, it requires a specific and not very natural-looking play from EW for W to get a spade trick. So S gets only one trick (assuming, of course, that L64C is not relevant). It seems quite easy - what have I overlooked, David? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 09:09:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:09:03 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10421 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:08:57 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0629587; 28 Jul 97 23:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 06:40:08 +0100 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: <33deff39.8994683@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33deff39.8994683@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:41:34 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >>It is an interpretation of the Laws that several >>people consider correct. If as a result the ACBL can then take >>decisions that they believe are in the interests of the membership there >>is nothing wrong with that per se. and Jesper responded: > >I agree with David here. A month ago I had a different view of >the ACBL position, but .....etc..... ....etc.... > But if the ACBL believes that >interpretation to be correct and believes that such a regulation >will be good for North American Bridge, then it is quite >reasonable for the ACBL to create the regulation. > >However, there is another point on which I do share Jeff's >opinion that the ACBL is using loopholes in the laws: I believe >that the ACBL has a regulation that forbids the use of any >convention in reply to a very weak 1NT opening. This is a way to >circumvent the requirement of L40 that such openings cannot be >banned, but that conventions can. Though literally legal, it is >IMO obviously against the intentions of the laws. I believe that >this could be called an example of bridge lawyering by the NCBO. Labeo: Jesper has arrived at a very understandable position. However,the phrase "intentions of the laws" presupposes that they have "intentions". A committee is a complex affair in which individuals combine to reach a given result for various individual ends. When fifteen people at a table all say "yes" they may all have different reasons for being content with the proposal. In the case in question I could well believe that the person bringing the proposal forward thought very much as Jesper, or even more strongly believed that Law80F would be deemed to govern all regulation under the laws. But I am sure there would be other minds at the table with more liberal opinions on what the powers of national authorities should be, and that these might anticipate the eventual decision that it is not so. Such minds would be happy to consent to words which tended to prise open the door of liberality and to speak of the intention of the law is to speak of a multiplicity of intentions at variance one with another. The legislators did not all set down their individual motivations for settling the laws as they are and no corporate intentions were agreed: what was agreed was the wording to be adopted and it is to this that we must now look for the conduct of the game. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 09:34:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:34:59 +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 JAA10531 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:34:53 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1404571; 28 Jul 97 23:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:04:03 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's position on psyches In-Reply-To: <970722011808_75908017@emout15.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970722011808_75908017@emout15.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com wrote .........cut....... >Not that I'm admitting the right of the ACBL BOD to outlaw the psych >of a conventional call in violation of L40A (Sorry, David). If given that right, the BOD could prevent psychs of all conventions by merely >creating a regulation to that effect. Was that the intent of the lawmakers? > ........more cut away including comment from David Stevenson....... Labeo reports: I have been digging in the archives. Some correspondents may be interested in three items I have unearthed:- FIRST and the earliest of the three is a draft of an early English (circa 1983) text which later was translated into a regulation. It reads: " Details of licensing arrangements for systems and conventions _______________________________________________________________ 1. Under Bye=Law no 42 of the Union the Committee authorises as shown Systems contained in the List of EBU Licensed Systems on page...of this Year Book, together with such further systems as may be shown in the Year Book to have specific licences. It is a condition of this authorisation that in no case is it deemed part of any authorised system or method that a natural opening bid of One may by agreement fail to conform to the criteria stated in Directive no.4 and its accompanying notes on page.... 2. The use of conventions is authorised in accordance with the licensing arrangements set out below and is subject throughout to these conditions: (i)no convention may be used in conjunction with any System or method not authorised as in 1 above. <@> (ii)no convention may be used by a partnership which does not conform in its bidding and play methods to the requirements of the first statement in Directive no 1 (1) on page ... " ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <@> thus other natural methods might be used but not in conjunction with any use of a convention. ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SECOND and the latest of the three is an extract from a note in respect of the regulations to be in force at the European Pairs (?1987 ?1988). This reads: "In the first place, as you will know, the general decisions in regard to the Pairs were already taken earlier. In essence there is to be no change from the previous occasion. I understand that, so far as Systems go, these are the essentials:- 1. Prohibition of the psyching of an opening conventional bid. ....and it continues........ " ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the meantime...... THIRD in Bal Harbour, Miami, September 1986, the WBF Laws Committee deliberated upon the question of regulations forbidding psyches of conventional opening bids. It was agreed that the Committee would not challenge the legality of any such regulation. A few days later a member of the Committee formally reported in these terms: " ADDENDUM RE NEW LAWS * _____________________ Subsequent to the last meeting of the Laws Committee in Bal Harbour, Miami, I have had a further conversation with Edgar Kaplan. It concerned regulations forbidding psyches of conventional opening bids. Whilst the effects are not an issue he places a slightly different emphasis upon the Committee's discussion of this question. Such discussions are not always well rounded! It is common ground that the construction of Law 40 - with 40D as a qualification of 40A - allows that such a regulation may be made. It is common ground that the intention of the Committee is that if the E.B.L. and others choose to have such a regulation the Laws Committee accepts that it should be accommodated. The flavour changes thereafter: Edgar takes the view+ that such a regulation does not match up to Law 75B, and that the accommodation is by way of toleration - not a statement of Law so much as policy. All that said, the ultimate position is that it is clearly accepted that the regulation may operate if that is the wish. " ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * 1987 Laws + a personal view, not a corporate opinion of the Committee. It is difficult to see how the position adopted by the Committee can be anything other than an acceptance that such a regulation is legitimate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 12:19:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 12:19:51 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA11978 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 12:19:44 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1026588; 28 Jul 97 23:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 05:53:48 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970721203052.006a869c@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970721203052.006a869c@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 01:15 PM 7/21/97 -0400, Tim wrote: > >>Our 1NT opening bid shows 6-6 1/2 high-card tricks. I don't know exactly >>what this comes out to in HCP, we haven't played this specific range in an >>ACBL event, but we will put 'about 18-22' on the convention card if it ever >>comes up. ..(cut).. Eric replied: >Tim probably has a better feel for this than I do, but if I took this >agreement to an ACBL game I'd write this range as "6-6 1/2 High-Card Tricks >(approx. 18-22 HCP)", and I'd feel free, with my 5 "HCP-equivalent range", >to use conventions. As a low-level ACBL TD, I'd have no problem with >anyone doing this in a game I was working. But I wouldn't be surprised, in >these litigious times, if some committee wound up making some kind of >ruling as a result of this being a "highly unusual" agreement, with >unpredictable result. > Labeo asks: May I assume that, with this method, the following is therefore too strong for 1NT? - A.K.x. A.K.x. K.Q.x.x. K.Q.x. If yes, how do you limit it? If no, how do you justify "22" as top of your range? Or are you saying your 1NT values are 6/6.5 QTs excluding any hands outside of the range 18-22 points? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 12:36:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 12:36:18 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-14.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA12282 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 12:36:10 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1115324; 28 Jul 97 23:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 05:33:37 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970721083712.00690eac@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970721083712.00690eac@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 10:13 PM 7/18/97 +0100, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >> > I am rather befuddled, for >>>example, trying to figure out what rationale the ACBL might be using to >>>justify the legality of their declaring that the psyching of a conventional >>>call can be outlawed and DS replied: >> >> All right, I'll unbefuddle you. I believe that the use of a >>convention [as mentioned in L40A *for example*] is subject to regulation >>as stated without ambiguity in L40D. To which Eric came back with: > >But this begs the question of the ambiguity of the term "use of a >convention" (L40A; L40D uses "use of bidding or play conventions"). It >seems to me that however we interpret "use" here, we should (if possible) >do so in such a way as to be able to apply both L40A and L40D >straightforwardly, i.e. so as not to create an apparent contradiction >between them. That means that "use" must be something that (a) SOs can >regulate, and (b) players are free to "depart from", without creating >conflict between these granted rights. Jesper's interpretation of "use" >fits that criterion, while the ACBL's clearly does not. > > Labeo : Now I have not quite understood the distinction. How does it affect the player if the ACBL, acting within the strict wording of the law, issues a regulation in these words: "The use of Apothecary Three responses to 1NT openers is forbidden where the opener may comprise fewer than 15 points" .......? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 15:02:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:02:16 +1000 Received: from ccnet.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet.ccnet.com [192.215.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA13057 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:02:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13802 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:01:26 -0700 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:01:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet To: bridge laws list Subject: Psychic 2N? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since I can't stand getting so many e-mails a day on a currently unresolvable subject, I thought I'd try to help. The ACBL conventions committee will be meeting tomorrow and Wednesday during the nationals in Albuquerque. Bobby Goldman assures me that this is one of the items to be discussed. When they come up with a definitive answer, I will post it. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 15:09:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:09:43 +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 PAA13102 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:09:35 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1327910; 29 Jul 97 0:14 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:12:51 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: <199707252239.XAA15390@snow.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707252239.XAA15390@snow.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes >Your hand as West at love all is: > >AK10632 62 QJ643 None >.and so on.< >One word of caution. By deep, I mean deep. > Labeo: European Championships. Front rank players. West knows the hand is not his, knows that opponents have lost a wheel; anything but pass is madness. No adjustment for him. Should opponents get their score? Have they done anything wrong? West not alerted to North's 4S bid (cue) - check regs, what's alertable? Possibly they get a score in 4S not doubled if North did mean cue (obvious?) and it was not alerted and cue was alertable. Unless they can prove beyond doubt that North has misbid. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 17:31:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:31:58 +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 RAA13639 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:31:46 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wt6ro-0001qV-00; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:38:48 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-45-116.btinternet.com [195.99.45.116]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA02216; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:32:06 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707290732.IAA02216@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:30:30 +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 Jean-Pierre ---------- > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > To: David Burn > Subject: Re: Deep waters > Date: 28 July 1997 17:23 > > At 23:37 25/07/97 +0100, you wrote: > >Your hand as West at love all is: > > > >AK10632 62 QJ643 None > > > >and the bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your right. > > > >You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods and that's what you > >choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call do you make? > > > >I have omitted nothing material from the problem statement. 1H was natural > >(five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, so was 2S, and so (as far as > >you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what call do you make? > > > >The Swede who held this hand in the recent European Championships doubled. > >This was a decision he would regret, for the full deal was: > > > > None > > AKQ103 > > A1097 > > KQ76 > >AK10632 Q98 > >62 J75 > >QJ643 K852 > >None J108 > > J754 > > 984 > > None > > A95432 > > > >His opponents extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, > >South bid 5C, North bid 6C, and South bid 7C. > > > >Now, suppose that West complained to you, the TD, that had he been on the > >same side of the screen as North, he would have passed out 4S. How would > >you rule? > > > >One word of caution. By deep, I mean deep. > > > We know the end of the story: Everybody (and the TD) laughed at the West > player, but I think you can't ask for us to rule without giving the whole > description of facts: all the alerts, requests of explanations and > explanations made by the four players. > > JP Rocafort There weren't very many. North alerted 4S to East, of course, but that did not matter to West (and matters at all only insofar as it *might* serve to establish what the NS agreement actually was - however, in this case it was pretty clear that he was making it up as he went along). South knew that West's 2S was natural. He did not alert North's 4S - unsurprisingly, since he passed it and therefore clearly believed it to be natural also. West had no "explanation" other than South's failure to alert and his pass of 4S, both of which were mutually consistent. As I said, I have tried not to omit anything material. Regards David dburn@btinternet.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 17:45:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:45:30 +1000 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.72.6.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA13686 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:45:24 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wt74t-00029N-00; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 07:52:19 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-45-116.btinternet.com [195.99.45.116]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA04636; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:45:37 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707290745.IAA04636@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "David Grabiner" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:44:02 +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 ---------- > From: David Grabiner > To: Dburn@btinternet.com > Subject: Re: Deep waters > Date: 28 July 1997 18:26 > > You write: > > > Your hand as West at love all is: > > > AK10632 62 QJ643 None > > > and the bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your right. > > > You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods and that's what you > > choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call do you make? > > > I have omitted nothing material from the problem statement. 1H was natural > > (five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, so was 2S, and so (as far as > > you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what call do you make? > > > The Swede who held this hand in the recent European Championships doubled. > > This was a decision he would regret, for the full deal was: > > > None > > AKQ103 > > A1097 > > KQ76 > > AK10632 Q98 > > 62 J75 > > QJ643 K852 > > None J108 > > J754 > > 984 > > None > > A95432 > > > His opponents extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, > > South bid 5C, North bid 6C, and South bid 7C. > > > Now, suppose that West complained to you, the TD, that had he been on the > > same side of the screen as North, he would have passed out 4S. How would > > you rule? > > West is alleging misinformation; that is, the opponents' agreement is > that 4S is a splinter. However, West's own hand makes it clear that > this cannot be the case; he knows the wheels have come off whether or > not he hears South's explanation. I rule no adjustment. > > -- > David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) I don't quite follow this, but I think I have the sense of it. West's own hand makes it clear that 4S is *not* natural - in other words, "makes it clear that this [4S is a splinter] *must* be the case." But does it? The auction is, to say the least, unusual, and there is certainly some possibility that it might be taken at face value by West. For example, South may have chosen to respond 1S to 1H on a weak or worthless hand with (say) 3-1-3-6 shape - that is a not unknown tactic, of which West's present opponents were perhaps more capable than other pairs in the field. If South believes that 4S is natural, and so informs West, why should not West believe it also? However, that was not the primary question that I wanted to address. My concern was to discover whether members of this group believed that screen placement was merely a random element, or whether they felt that redress was due to a player who, because of his position at the table, did not receive information which would *certainly* have enabled him to make a correct decision. So far, there seems to be a majority for the "tough luck" point of view. Regards David From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 17:47:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:47:19 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-15.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA13721 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:47:14 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0516062; 29 Jul 97 8:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:31:53 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Correction MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Re ACBL's position on psyches In my despatch Mon 28 July 1997 23:04:03 +0100 For "(circa 1983)" read "(circa 1985/86)" Date order had gone out of kilter Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 18:56:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA14008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:56:11 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA14001 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:56:05 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29284; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:55:18 GMT Message-Id: <199707290855.IAA29284@cadillac.meteo.fr> Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA09779; Tue, 29 Jul 97 08:54:55 GMT Date: Tue, 29 Jul 97 08:54:55 GMT X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "David Burn" From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Deep waters Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:30 29/07/97 +0100, you wrote: >---------- >> From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >> To: David Burn >> Subject: Re: Deep waters >> Date: 28 July 1997 17:23 >> >> At 23:37 25/07/97 +0100, you wrote: >> >Your hand as West at love all is: >> > >> >AK10632 62 QJ643 None >> > >> >and the bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your >right. >> > >> >You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods and that's what >you >> >choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call do you make? >> > >> >I have omitted nothing material from the problem statement. 1H was >natural >> >(five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, so was 2S, and so (as far >as >> >you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what call do you make? >> > >> >The Swede who held this hand in the recent European Championships >doubled. >> >This was a decision he would regret, for the full deal was: >> > >> > None >> > AKQ103 >> > A1097 >> > KQ76 >> >AK10632 Q98 >> >62 J75 >> >QJ643 K852 >> >None J108 >> > J754 >> > 984 >> > None >> > A95432 >> > >> >His opponents extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, >> >South bid 5C, North bid 6C, and South bid 7C. >> > >> >Now, suppose that West complained to you, the TD, that had he been on >the >> >same side of the screen as North, he would have passed out 4S. How would >> >you rule? >> > >> >One word of caution. By deep, I mean deep. >> > >> We know the end of the story: Everybody (and the TD) laughed at the West >> player, but I think you can't ask for us to rule without giving the >whole >> description of facts: all the alerts, requests of explanations and >> explanations made by the four players. >> >> JP Rocafort > >There weren't very many. North alerted 4S to East, of course, but that did >not matter to West (and matters at all only insofar as it *might* serve to >establish what the NS agreement actually was - however, in this case it was >pretty clear that he was making it up as he went along). South knew that >West's 2S was natural. He did not alert North's 4S - unsurprisingly, since >he passed it and therefore clearly believed it to be natural also. West had >no "explanation" other than South's failure to alert and his pass of 4S, >both of which were mutually consistent. As I said, I have tried not to omit >anything material. > This is enough for me to think the result of 7C making should stand, for both sides, without any penalty. NS were IMO twice wrong, but their errors did not damage opponents, nor were due to redress: - they stopped in a stupid 4S contract. - North alerted his 4S bid, although it dit not refer to any partnership agreement but was obviously a (dangerous!) improvisation. I think, once more, all will go better if players (even international ones!) knew the alert procedure: here neither North nor South alerts the 4S bid (it does not refer to any particular partnership agreement) but opponents are entitled to question about the bid. Even if North and South did not understand it the same way, they can give to their screen-mate the same explanations if they only refer to partnership agreements. It could be: " we play splinters in some situations; a jump-bid in a new suit agrees partner suit and shows shortness" (if it applies here, it is a spade fit with a singleton in ... spades) "double jump fit means 4-card fit and ... , double jump in opponent suit requires a stop in this suit or is an asking-bid or..; two years ago, we met a situation, not exactly the same, but in which, if I remember..." JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 22:34:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 22:34:53 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA15007 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 22:34:45 +1000 Received: from lizard (56k-port4016.ime.net [209.90.195.26]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA17289; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970729083529.37ef5648@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: Labeo , Eric Landau From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:53 AM 7/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >>At 01:15 PM 7/21/97 -0400, Tim wrote: >> >>>Our 1NT opening bid shows 6-6 1/2 high-card tricks. I don't know exactly >>>what this comes out to in HCP, we haven't played this specific range in an >>>ACBL event, but we will put 'about 18-22' on the convention card if it ever >>>comes up. > ..(cut).. > Labeo asks: > May I assume that, with this method, the following is >therefore too strong for 1NT? - > A.K.x. > A.K.x. > K.Q.x.x. > K.Q.x. Yes, this is too strong for 1NT. (This hand contains 8 High-Card Tricks.) >If yes, how do you limit it? The range is 6-6 1/2 High-Card Tricks. >If no, how do you justify "22" as top of your range? I don't wish to justify anything on the basis of High-Card *Points*. >Or are you saying your 1NT values are 6/6.5 QTs excluding any hands >outside of the range 18-22 points? QTs do not equal High-Card Tricks. I posted the method for determining High-Card Tricks earlier. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 29 23:26:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:26:21 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (hera.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15365 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:26:08 +1000 Received: from atlas.frw.uva.nl (ATLAS.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.30]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA23211; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:25:53 +0200 (MET DST) X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 Received: From IVIP/WORKQUEUE by atlas.frw.uva.nl via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.970729153512.448; 29 Jul 97 15:32:42 -0100 Message-ID: From: "J.P. Pals" Organization: frw To: "David Burn" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:35:08 MET-1 Subject: Re: Deep waters Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Your hand as West at love all is: > > AK10632 62 QJ643 None > > and the bidding proceeds: 1H on your left (North), pass, 1S on your right. > You overcall 2S natural, because that's in your methods and that's > what you choose. LHO bids 4S, passed back to you. What call do you > make? > I have omitted nothing material from the problem statement. 1H was natural > (five-card majors. bien entendu). So was 1S, so was 2S, and so (as far as > you can ascertain) was 4S. I repeat, what call do you make? > > The Swede who held this hand in the recent European Championships doubled. > This was a decision he would regret, for the full deal was: > > None > AKQ103 > A1097 > KQ76 > AK10632 Q98 > 62 J75 > QJ643 K852 > None J108 > J754 > 984 > None > A95432 > > His opponents extracted, as it were, the maximum penalty. North bid 4NT, > South bid 5C, North bid 6C, and South bid 7C. > > Now, suppose that West complained to you, the TD, that had he been on the > same side of the screen as North, he would have passed out 4S. How would > you rule? > > One word of caution. By deep, I mean deep. IMO you may safely assume that any mediocre player in the West seat would pass 4S. So the question is: 'Why would a world class expert double?'. Apart from a complete black-out, I can come up with the following explanation: West thinks South's 1S bid is a (semi-)psyche (possibly a weak hand with 3 spades and long clubs). So he bids 2S: 'pard, we are not going to be talked out of our spade fit'. Either North knows for sure that EW have a spade fit, and tries to create a smoke curtain, or, more probable, his 4S is some sort of slam try, *which he makes up this moment*. In both cases there is no partnership agreement, so *no alert is required*. He is fishing in deep water, but apparently he is in a mood to take this risk. South thinks West's 2S was a psyche (he has no reason not to believe his partner), and passes 4S. West still thinks that South's 1S was a (semi-)psyche, but he now also thinks that North thinks his (West's) 2S bid was a psyche. So: "Hnyarrrg..... Double" That's very deep indeed..... To come back to David's question: How would you rule? Well, assuming that this bluff-and-counterbluff-explanation is right, I don't think that this West player would ever complain to a TD (at least not at the level this match was played...). In the other case, I would have told West that he should have realized that there was a loose wire in the NS machine, and that his brilliant double was just bad luck (to put it mildly). Of course you should establish what agreements N-S have in this situation, but since 'nothing material was omitted', I assume that there aren't any. So, NS can never be punished for not alerting. I can't imagine that the position of the screen is relevant. If there is clearly MI, you get redress, don't you? JP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jan Peter Pals * e-mail: j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl * Faculty of Environmental Sciences, dept. European Archaeology * University of Amsterdam * Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam * Tel: (31)-20-525 5811/5172/5830, Fax: (31)-20-525-5822 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 30 00:22:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 00:22:50 +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 AAA17807 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 00:22:44 +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 KAA15526 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06920; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:22:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:22:42 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199707291422.KAA06920@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deep waters X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > However, that was not the primary question that I wanted to address. My > concern was to discover whether members of this group believed that screen > placement was merely a random element, or whether they felt that redress > was due to a player who, because of his position at the table, did not > receive information which would *certainly* have enabled him to make a > correct decision. So far, there seems to be a majority for the "tough luck" > point of view. In order to adjust, there must be an infraction. Would we adjust the score because South displays a mannerism that gives the show away, but unfortunately it's East (on the other side of the screen) who has to make the crucial decision? Surely not, even though if East had seen South's behavior, he would have gotten it right. Screens have a number of effects, one of which is to reduce the amount of _AI_ (an opponent's mannerisms). That's part of the game. (In a similar vein, when we play by computer, it's hard to infer anything from opponents' mannerisms. That's the nature of the game under those conditions.) In this case, South has failed to alert a 4S bid intended as conventional. L75 tells us to assume misinformation unless there is "evidence to the contrary." So would the 4S bid require an alert if artificial? Is there evidence to support NS's claim that the agreement is either natural or no agreement? If the conclusion is no MI, then no adjustment. (There would, in that case, undoubtedly be MI to _East_, but that caused no damage. A PP for giving different explanations might be in order if such is customary in this competition.) Even if there is MI, I'd be very reluctant to adjust the EW score. West's double looks like an egregious error to me. (I was passing _before_ seeing the result, and West is surely a better player than I am.) Of course I'd adjust the NS score if MI is deemed to have been given. Bottom line: nothing special here. West is entitled to an accurate explanation of the EW agreements but NOT to knowledge of what North (or South) thinks those agreements are. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 30 01:48:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 01:48:48 +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 BAA18487 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 01:48:41 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-146.innet.be [194.7.10.146]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA08729; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:48:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33DE1B98.ECFA00FD@innet.be> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:34:32 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Deep waters X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199707290745.IAA04636@snow.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > However, that was not the primary question that I wanted to address. > My > concern was to discover whether members of this group believed that > screen > placement was merely a random element, or whether they felt that > redress > was due to a player who, because of his position at the table, did not > receive information which would *certainly* have enabled him to make a > correct decision. So far, there seems to be a majority for the "tough > luck" > point of view. > > Regards > > David That is my view also. I summarise it as : 'A player is entitled to know the meaning of the bidding. A player is not entitled to know that opponents have a misunderstanding' (of course, if he does know it, it is AI -or : he is allowed to know, but not entitled to). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 31 06:53:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 06:53:51 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA27211 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 06:53:45 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA24181 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:53:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970730165415.00695878@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:54:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970721083712.00690eac@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:33 AM 7/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >In message <3.0.1.32.19970721083712.00690eac@cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes >>At 10:13 PM 7/18/97 +0100, David wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote >>> >> I am rather befuddled, for >>>>example, trying to figure out what rationale the ACBL might be using to >>>>justify the legality of their declaring that the psyching of a conventional >>>>call can be outlawed > >and DS replied: >>> >>> All right, I'll unbefuddle you. I believe that the use of a >>>convention [as mentioned in L40A *for example*] is subject to regulation >>>as stated without ambiguity in L40D. > >To which Eric came back with: >> >>But this begs the question of the ambiguity of the term "use of a >>convention" (L40A; L40D uses "use of bidding or play conventions"). It >>seems to me that however we interpret "use" here, we should (if possible) >>do so in such a way as to be able to apply both L40A and L40D >>straightforwardly, i.e. so as not to create an apparent contradiction >>between them. That means that "use" must be something that (a) SOs can >>regulate, and (b) players are free to "depart from", without creating >>conflict between these granted rights. Jesper's interpretation of "use" >>fits that criterion, while the ACBL's clearly does not. >> >> > Labeo : > Now I have not quite understood the distinction. How does it >affect the player if the ACBL, acting within the strict wording of the >law, issues a regulation in these words: > "The use of Apothecary Three responses to 1NT openers is >forbidden where the opener may comprise fewer than 15 points" .......? This misses the point of the discussion completely. Try this one instead: "Apothecary Three responses to 1NT openers may be used only with hands of game-invitational or better strength." Now suppose my partner opens a 15-17 1NT, and I make an Apothecary Three response with a zero-count. My partner, of course, assumes I have at least game-invitational strength, and responds accordingly. Under the ACBL definition of "use", I have violated the quoted regulation; I have committed an infraction and will be penalized if my tactic works to my advantage. Under the definition that Jesper and I favor, I am in conformity with the regulation, and my bid is protected by L40A; there is no infraction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 31 09:20:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:20:35 +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 JAA27530 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:20:29 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wti9Z-0002L3-00; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:27:37 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-53-92.btinternet.com [195.99.53.92]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA09375; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:20:50 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707302320.AAA09375@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:19:12 +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 Herman The problem that I have with your viewpoint is this: > To: David Burn ; Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Deep waters > Date: 29 July 1997 18:34 > > David Burn wrote: > > > > However, that was not the primary question that I wanted to address. > > My > > concern was to discover whether members of this group believed that > > screen > > placement was merely a random element, or whether they felt that > > redress > > was due to a player who, because of his position at the table, did not > > receive information which would *certainly* have enabled him to make a > > correct decision. So far, there seems to be a majority for the "tough > > luck" > > point of view. > > > > Regards > > > > David > > That is my view also. > > I summarise it as : > > 'A player is entitled to know the meaning of the bidding. > A player is not entitled to know that opponents have a > misunderstanding' > > (of course, if he does know it, it is AI -or : he is allowed to know, > but not entitled to). But what *is* "the meaning of the bidding"? If it is "the totality of partnership agreements", then your viewpoint may be tenable, but this is not what happens with screens - and it seems to me, although I have not made my mind up about it and therefore asked the original question, that this definition is not tenable in practice. If, on the other hand, "the meaning of the bidding" is the totality of what each player meant by each bid, then it appears to me that in cases such as I have cited, the opponents do not know (and cannot know? should not know?) "the meaning of the bidding." Something is flawed. It may be that the flaw is one with which we can (should? must?) live. But it is a flaw, notwithstanding. I suppose that ideally, West should be alerted by *both North and South*, and should be free to ask questions of either. The logisitcs of this may very well be impossible - short of playing all tournaments by computer. But I am concerned to understand exactly what is the ideal position that the Laws should try to emulate by pretending, as far as possible, that it exists. Best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 31 09:44:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:44:59 +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 JAA27580 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:44:52 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wtiXB-00032Z-00; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 23:52:01 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-53-92.btinternet.com [195.99.53.92]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA16607; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:45:16 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707302345.AAA16607@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Jan Peter Pals" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:43:42 +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 JP You wrote (original question snipped) > IMO you may safely assume that any mediocre player in the West seat > would pass 4S. Oh, I don't know. As a mediocre player myself, I might double 4S if I believed that it was where my opponents were going to play. And so far, I have seen or heard nothing to make me believe that it is not. > So the question is: 'Why would a world class expert > double?'. > Apart from a complete black-out, I can come up with the following > explanation: > > West thinks South's 1S bid is a (semi-)psyche (possibly a weak hand > with 3 spades and long clubs). So he bids 2S: 'pard, we are not going > to be talked out of our spade fit'. He does not have to think very much of the sort. The spades could be 0-3-4-6 round the table, let alone 0-4-3-6 if South were exercising his imagination. 2S is natural in a large number of expert partnerships, in my experience. > > Either North knows for sure that EW have a spade fit, and tries to > create a smoke curtain, or, more probable, his 4S is some sort of slam > try, *which he makes up this moment*. In both cases there is no > partnership agreement, so *no alert is required*. He is fishing in > deep water, but apparently he is in a mood to take this risk. > Or, conceivably, North has heard East explain 2S as "unnatural" (though this did not apply here - the waters would have been both too deep and too murky if he had!) > South thinks West's 2S was a psyche (he has no reason not to believe > his partner), and passes 4S. > Well, perhaps. South was, to be sure, in a world of his own - or at any rate, a world not inhabited by North. > West still thinks that South's 1S was a (semi-)psyche, but he > now also thinks that North thinks his (West's) 2S bid was a psyche. > So: "Hnyarrrg..... Double" > That's very deep indeed..... No, it isn't. As far as West was concerned, for South had told him so, his opponents were prepared to undertake a ten-trick contract with spades as trumps. He did not believe that they would make it. So he doubled. Barely paddling in the shallow end, really. > > To come back to David's question: How would you rule? > Well, assuming that this bluff-and-counterbluff-explanation is right, > I don't think that this West player would ever complain to a TD > (at least not at the level this match was played...). > Why should West have to consider bluff and counter-bluff? Why should the poor guy not believe what was going on in front of his face? Oh, his *hand* told him not to believe it, but opponents do weird things sometimes... > In the other case, I would have told West that he should have > realized that there was a loose wire in the NS machine, and that his > brilliant double was just bad luck (to put it mildly). "Should have realised"? Well, perhaps. But *if he had been on North's side of the screen, he would not have had to perform any feat of realisation - he would have known.* Is this, should this be, merely "bad luck"? Ten years ago, I remember discussing precisely this point with Max Bavin, our Chief TD. I was firmly of the opinion then that it was indeed bad luck - that, as Herman de Wael said in his post, West was not entitled to know that there were three or fewer wheels on his opponents' wagon. Five years ago, I thought that if it could be achieved for practical purposes, this kind of tough luck should be eliminated - that is, West was entitled to know in cases of disagreement what *both North and South* thought they were doing (without, bien entendu, either opponent being aware of his partner's thought processes). That still seems to me both more equitable and logistically impossible. So now, I say like a little child: "I do not know. The question is too difficult for me." That's why I asked it of this group. > Of course you should establish what agreements N-S have in this > situation, but since 'nothing material was omitted', I assume that > there aren't any. So, NS can never be punished for not alerting. > > I can't imagine that the position of the screen is relevant. If there > is clearly MI, you get redress, don't you? > Depends where you're sitting. I don't think it ought to, though. Thanks for your answer to what was - perhaps - a stupid question. Best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 31 10:34:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 10:34:16 +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 KAA27687 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 10:34:10 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wtjIs-0004Ed-00; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 00:41:18 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-53-92.btinternet.com [195.99.53.92]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA29659; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 01:34:34 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707310034.BAA29659@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Steve Willner" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 01:32:59 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve You wrote (snip of preceding arguments) > In order to adjust, there must be an infraction. Would we adjust the > score because South displays a mannerism that gives the show away, but > unfortunately it's East (on the other side of the screen) who has to > make the crucial decision? Surely not, even though if East had seen > South's behavior, he would have gotten it right. Screens have a number > of effects, one of which is to reduce the amount of _AI_ (an opponent's > mannerisms). That's part of the game. (In a similar vein, when we > play by computer, it's hard to infer anything from opponents' > mannerisms. That's the nature of the game under those conditions.) > > In this case, South has failed to alert a 4S bid intended as > conventional. L75 tells us to assume misinformation unless there is > "evidence to the contrary." So would the 4S bid require an alert if > artificial? Is there evidence to support NS's claim that the agreement > is either natural or no agreement? If the conclusion is no MI, then no > adjustment. (There would, in that case, undoubtedly be MI to _East_, > but that caused no damage. A PP for giving different explanations > might be in order if such is customary in this competition.) > > Even if there is MI, I'd be very reluctant to adjust the EW score. > West's double looks like an egregious error to me. (I was passing > _before_ seeing the result, and West is surely a better player than I > am.) Of course I'd adjust the NS score if MI is deemed to have been > given. > > Bottom line: nothing special here. West is entitled to an accurate > explanation of the EW agreements but NOT to knowledge of what North > (or South) thinks those agreements are. I think you mean "NS agreements", otherwise I accept your statement of what I have come to regard as the group's mainstream position. You may read of my specific doubts in other replies that I have written. What bothered me - and continues to bother me - is this: Screens were intended for a specific purpose - to eliminate illegal communication between partners. In passing, as it were, they have done the game great service by minimising the amount of work involved in questions of UI from tempo variation, alerts, explanations and the like. They are, beyond doubt, a Good Thing. But my view of what the Laws of bridge seek to accomplish is that they assume - a priori - an ideal set of conditions for all competitors in which infractions simply cannot occur, and then they seek to provide redress from damage in cases where - despite the foregoing - infractions do occur. (This is part of the problem. The Laws of just about every other game I know simply state what can and cannot be done. If you do something that cannot be done, you are penalised *regardless* of the damage that you may or may not have inflicted. The players of just about every other game I know accept all of this as "part of the game". There's a golfer named Roberto di Vicenzo that you could ask about this.) Now, screens present the specific problem that you *know* for certain only what one of your opponents is doing (because he will tell you). I maintain that in an ideal world, you would know - without having to guess, or work it out - what both of your opponents were doing, and act accordingly. That was the position that I wondered whether the West in our example case should have been in. Your answer, and those of many others, indicates that you do not believe that he should. I fold my tent, and slink away into the night. Best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 31 11:05:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:05:05 +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 LAA27827 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:04:59 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wtjmi-0004nT-00; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 01:12:08 +0000 Received: from default (host5-99-53-92.btinternet.com [195.99.53.92]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA07633; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 02:05:22 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199707310105.CAA07633@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 02:03:48 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre I don't think I will be able to put my arguments to you in a way that will convince you to re-examine the position. I am grateful to you for the time and trouble you have taken to answer what must appear to you to be a stupid question. In all honesty, I asked it because I did not know the answer, not because I had anything especially clever to say. Malgre tout cela, I reply to your last message as follows: (snip of original message) J-PR: > >> > > >> We know the end of the story: Everybody (and the TD) laughed at the West > >> player, but I think you can't ask for us to rule without giving the > >whole > >> description of facts: all the alerts, requests of explanations and > >> explanations made by the four players. > >> > >> JP Rocafort DALB: > > > >There weren't very many. North alerted 4S to East, of course, but that did > >not matter to West (and matters at all only insofar as it *might* serve to > >establish what the NS agreement actually was - however, in this case it was > >pretty clear that he was making it up as he went along). South knew that > >West's 2S was natural. He did not alert North's 4S - unsurprisingly, since > >he passed it and therefore clearly believed it to be natural also. West had > >no "explanation" other than South's failure to alert and his pass of 4S, > >both of which were mutually consistent. As I said, I have tried not to omit > >anything material. > > J-PR: > This is enough for me to think the result of 7C making should stand, for > both sides, without any penalty. > NS were IMO twice wrong, but their errors did not damage opponents, nor were > due to redress: > - they stopped in a stupid 4S contract. And West, who believed on the basis of the information available to him that they would stop there in perpetuity, doubled because he thought he could beat it. Had he been the other side of the screen, he would not have thought this. Don't you feel the least bit sorry for him? > - North alerted his 4S bid, although it dit not refer to any partnership > agreement but was obviously a (dangerous!) improvisation. Not so dangerous. He was +1440 instead of -350, after all. But - perhaps - the subsequent developments were difficult to foresee. > > I think, once more, all will go better if players (even international > ones!) knew the alert procedure: here neither North nor South alerts the 4S > bid (it does not refer to any particular partnership agreement) Aha! Now, that's a point of view with which I have a great deal of sympathy. Was North *wrong* to alert his 4S to East? (Note: these are even deeper waters than the original problem, and introduce a tangent to which I have given no thought, but I would welcome comments.) > but > opponents are entitled to question about the bid. Even if North and South > did not understand it the same way, they can give to their screen-mate the > same explanations if they only refer to partnership agreements. This is the "ideal world" view to which Herman de Wael referred in his post, and I admire the way in which J-PR maintains it. But, in an ideal world, should not North and South be giving their explanations to both East and West? The trouble with screens is that you see shadows on the wall of somebody else's cage. To what extent are you entitled to the full picture? > It could be: > " we play splinters in some situations; a jump-bid in a new suit agrees > partner suit and shows shortness" (if it applies here, it is a spade fit > with a singleton in ... spades) "double jump fit means 4-card fit and ... , > double jump in opponent suit requires a stop in this suit or is an > asking-bid or..; two years ago, we met a situation, not exactly the same, > but in which, if I remember..." Or, on the other hand, it could not. Nobody at the table has bid a suit other than spades. The auction has taken on a wholly surreal quality. Despite this, West has been singled out as the only man at the table who "should" know what is going on. Well, I suppose that he should. After all, he held the West cards, and he is an international player of the first rank. But, had it not been for some arbitrary arranegment of pieces of wood, he would have known exactly what was going on, and nobody would have laughed at him. Well, I tried. Maybe it really was a stupid question, after all. Thanks for all the answers. But I wish I knew... Regards David