From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 00:43:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 00:43:43 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA02646 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 00:43:36 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id PAA29198 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:41:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 97 15:40 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: <199707302320.AAA09375@snow.btinternet.com> > 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. I believe that the "both alert ideal" moves away from what most bridge players regard as proper full disclosure. West gets to find out about every misunderstanding that occurs between NS. In addition where a bid can be of mulitple types and the bidder forgets to explain one as a possibility West is able to eliminate that from his considerations. As others have said screens also eliminate some of the AI that might otherwise be available. Suppose in our example North did not alert 4S (since it was undiscussed) but did turn white and foam at the mouth when South passed. Now I feel much more sympathetic to West's complaint (even if I still think double was appalling). If, instead of the current layout (left) we used screens as below right: ______/ ______ | /| | | | | / | | | | | / | |--+--| | / | | | | |/____| |__|__| / Then some of these problems would be eliminated (at the expense of (re-)introducing others). Eg. you would now know when partner asked a question/follow-up question, even if you didn't know the actual content of his words, it would also be slightly easier to deduce who was "tanking" during hesitation situations. OTOH even with screens it seems probable to me that one can make a pretty good guess about when questions are being asked and who hesitates. Just some idle thoughts, Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 01:10:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:10:26 +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 BAA02823 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:10:17 +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 PAA16505 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:09:42 GMT Message-Id: <199707311509.PAA16505@cadillac.meteo.fr> Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA13837; Thu, 31 Jul 97 15:09:40 GMT Date: Thu, 31 Jul 97 15:09:40 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 At 02:03 31/07/97 +0100, you wrote: >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: >> 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 > I am going to try to express my opinion about the problem I understand you want to discuss: the influence of the screen (and of its orientation) on the alert procedure: The aim of the alert procedure is to allow a player to know "partnership agreements" and the responsability of disclosure belongs to opponents. Technical means to reach this target differ according to the conditions of contest and, in particular, are not the same with or without screens. With screen, the procedure is simpler and IMO more accurate: one opponent alerts and gives partnership agreements (which is what and only what the player is entitled to know); if part. agr. is correctly described, all is OK; otherwise, TD or AC is expected to assess and redress any damage caused. The procedure is different without screen because all 4 players see and hear all what happens and allow perverse (but legal) situations in which a player is able to detect adverse misunderstanding (which he is no directly entitled to know) through contradictions in responses (one of them is an incorrect disclosure of part. agr.) to questions asked to both opponents: N S ... ... 4NT 5D Question to South: 4NT? South: minors To North: 5D? North: 1 Ace It is possible to detect adverse misunderstanding in other situations, in a more normal way, and without need of incorrect disclosure by an opponent, for example: .... 2NT 3D explained as: 2NT puppet to 3C, 3D impossible bid because 3C was mandatory. I think this problem very interesting and debatable but IMO the deal played between Germany and Sweden and bid: 1H - 1S 2S 4S .... doesn't exactly relate to it because there was not any "partnership agreement" involved. Had the screen been placed the other way, West could have interrogated North and, maybe, luckily extorted from a naive soul something like: "Oh yes, my 4S bid, you don't think it could be natural, I hope; I must say I am very proud of this splendid mean I just discovered to describe without any doubt my magnificient 0544, an expert bid which, I think, could be eligible for the best bid of the year award, don't you agree; you are allowed to quote it in your syndicated columns". A less garrulous and more competent North would simply answer: "no partnership agreement, everybody has as many data as my partner in order to understand my bid". Briefly, I think each player is entitled to know whole opponents' partnership agreements but only partnership agreements. He can complain when he doesn't get them but he is not entitled to know, in the instant, that he has got incorrect information. 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 Fri Aug 1 01:38:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:38:11 +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 BAA03109 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:38:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1516326; 31 Jul 97 15:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 14:51:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Play either MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I know this is merely a variation on a previous discussion, but it has some features of interest. The king has gone and declarer leads small towards dummy's AJ in the middle of the hand. LHO plays small [holding the queen] and declare says "Play either." -- 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 Aug 1 03:31:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 03:31:15 +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 DAA03685 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 03:31:07 +1000 Received: from cph36.ppp.dknet.dk (cph36.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.36]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA10446 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 19:31:00 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New L63B Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 19:30:58 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33e2c47f.1862087@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <0GcmlMAP2K2zEwir@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0GcmlMAP2K2zEwir@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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 14:43:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > The defender revokes by playing the S3 on a heart. Partner says=20 >"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? [a] 1 (2 if the defenders win some later trick), [c] 1 (2 if the defenders also win some other later trick), [d] 1, [e] 2, [f] 0 (1 if the defenders win some later trick). > Is it obvious? I think it is fairly obvious that this is what the laws say. The words "a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick" seem somewhat strange in this situation where declarer eventually did play a legal card, but I cannot interpret it as meaning anything other than "a heart". It is a very strange law - penalizing a corrected revoke using penalty rules that were intended for uncorrected revokes. I don't really find that a problem, though: the penalties for established revokes (the real kind as well as these) are in any case very blunt instruments, designed to allow simple rulings rather than to provide equity (and they ought therefore to be much simpler than they are, but that is another matter). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 07:00:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 07:00:26 +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 HAA04422 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 07:00:19 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0526879; 31 Jul 97 21:06 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 20:38:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Play out of turn MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is there any penalty for a defender playing out of turn before dummy, but after his partner? Law 44B says "After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card", but Law 57 penalises only the infraction "When a defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has played". I am thinking of a suit distributed something like: AJ4 1092 765 KQ83 South has concealed his side suit in the auction, and West leads the ten. Declarer is intending to play the ace from dummy and drop the eight from hand, creating some ambiguity about East's attitude signal, but before he can do so East plays the five. -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 12:05:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:05:45 +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 MAA05383 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:05:39 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1515089; 1 Aug 97 1:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 23:16:40 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Psychs In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970730165415.00695878@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970730165415.00695878@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >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 >>and DS replied: >>To which Eric came back with: (the above all cut) >> 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. > Labeo again: Oh, I see (stupid that I am!) I begin with my repeated observation that the sentence in 40D which gives the power to regulate conventions is deliberately set in bald terms without qualification. In the 1975 Laws that sentence is the entirety of Law 40c. In 1987 some additional metarial was added, but with no intention to disturb the effect of the former 40c. It is worth going back to the 1963 laws which state: "The sponsoring organisation may from time to time publish special regulations regarding the use of conventions. It may publish lists of specific conventions , showing those which are authorised, those whose use is forbidden, and those whose use is optional with the Tournament Committee or Director in charge of a particular event." The change to a simpler all embracing statement in 1975 was a considered move; it was intended to put the subject of conventions firmly under the control of the sponsoring organisation. By their decision in the question raised by the EBL the WBF Laws Committee in Bal Harbor, 1986, gave precedent for a sweepingly liberal interpretation of this law which would include regulations banning the psyching of conventions. It is not for me to criticize the ACBL's use of the power undoubtedly given it: the ACBL is the proper authority to judge the interests of the game and ACBL members in its area of control. However, my belief is that all power is best exercised by persons of firm conviction and gentle disposition. It appears to me that 'use' has two meanings which are significant in the context of 40D and that the wording of 40D embraces both. The one meaning is "application to some purpose", which is to say adoption by the partnership and incorporation in their system and partnership agreements. The other meaning is "The action of using something", which is to say what the players do with it at the table. For each of these aspects of 'use', in my judgement, the SO has the power to (i) allow, or (ii) prohibit, or (iii) allow with conditions. The Bal Harbor decision clarified that this last may include a condition that the convention may not be psyched or not be psyched in specified circumstances. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 13:20:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:20:35 +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 NAA05600 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 13:20:29 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0904741; 1 Aug 97 1:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 23:48:26 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Play either In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > I know this is merely a variation on a previous discussion, but it has >some features of interest. The king has gone and declarer leads small >towards dummy's AJ in the middle of the hand. LHO plays small [holding >the queen] and declare says "Play either." > Labeo: "Designate" = nominate, call by name, point out, name, identify, describe. All of these things require declarer to do something more positive than merely to lead the suit; that is not a way to 'clearly state'. He is in breach of Law 46A and to receive a ruling under 46B5. [Not a case for sympathy although he could perhaps be told it is Friday.] Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 15:02:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:02:25 +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 PAA05868 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:02:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0524536; 1 Aug 97 2:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:25:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Play out of turn In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Barden wrote >Is there any penalty for a defender playing out of turn before dummy, >but after his partner? Law 44B says "After the lead, each other player >in turn plays a card", but Law 57 penalises only the infraction "When a >defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has played". > >I am thinking of a suit distributed something like: > > AJ4 >1092 765 > KQ83 > >South has concealed his side suit in the auction, and West leads the >ten. Declarer is intending to play the ace from dummy and drop the >eight from hand, creating some ambiguity about East's attitude signal, >but before he can do so East plays the five. No problem. Law 72 - General Principles B. Infraction of Law 1. Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. Of course, you will have to wait until 1st October! -- 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 Aug 1 19:47:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:47:00 +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 TAA06588 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:46:54 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1002346; 31 Jul 97 22:04 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 21:37:27 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: David Grabiner , Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: <199707290745.IAA04636@snow.btinternet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199707290745.IAA04636@snow.btinternet.com>, David Burn writes >David > >---------- >> From: David Grabiner >> To: Dburn@btinternet.com >> Subject: Re: Deep waters >> In the course of exchanges DB asked: >> > If South believes that 4S is natural, and so informs West, >why should not West believe it also? > Labeo: Well, if he thought that possible he had heard the bidding and must surely fear a get-out in 4NT. If he bids on the basis that South has psyched, on the other hand, he is free-wheeling and gets whatever result he gets. Whichever whichway, West has no reason whatsoever to believe the hand belongs to his side and this should condition his action. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 19:47:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:47:23 +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 TAA06595 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 19:47:17 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0901060; 31 Jul 97 22:04 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 21:42:09 +0100 To: Tim Goodwin Cc: Eric Landau , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970729083529.37ef5648@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.16.19970729083529.37ef5648@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin writes >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. The range is 6-6 1/2 >High-Card Tricks. > > >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. > Labeo: I *know* you do not *want* to justify anything on the basis of HCPs. But I also know that you *can* (a) determine what is your strongest 1NT opener by agreement and then simply count up the HCPs, and (b) also count up your weakest agreed 1NT opener in HCPs by the same method. This process, however distasteful to you, will establish the de facto HCP range of your 1NT openers, and will establish whether you are within the regulation or not. Or if you like state the relevant hands for us and we will do the counting for ourselves! You would concede, I hope, that just as you wish to evaluate hands by your preferred method, so are the regulating bodies entitled to use whatever form of evaluation they consider most fit in settling the regulations. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 20:53:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 20:53:58 +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 UAA06852 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 20:53:47 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-13-46.innet.be [194.7.13.46]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04205 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:50:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33E1CD4D.334390E4@innet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 12:49:33 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Deep waters X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199707302320.AAA09375@snow.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Herman > > The problem that I have with your viewpoint is this: > > > > > 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." > It is clear that a player is only entitled to know the meaning 'by partnership agreement'. Agreement by principle means that both partners have the same knowledge. So both should ideally give the same answer to the same question. So in principle, a player should NOT be allowed to ask the question of both opponents. Is that clear ? (my English is not working properly today - I feel) > 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 Indeed the logistics are a problem. But in theory, one answer MUST be enough. Getting the answer from the other player can only be used BY THE TD, in order to establish what the partnership agreement actually is, so that he can decide whether or not the answer by the one opponent is actually misinformation or not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 1 22:47:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 22:47:56 +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 WAA07293 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 22:47:47 +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 MAA00601 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:47:13 GMT Message-Id: <199708011247.MAA00601@cadillac.meteo.fr> Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA08151; Fri, 1 Aug 97 12:47:12 GMT Date: Fri, 1 Aug 97 12:47:12 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: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:42 30/07/97 +0100, you wrote: >In message <1.5.4.16.19970729083529.37ef5648@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin > writes >>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. The range is 6-6 1/2 >>High-Card Tricks. >> >> >>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. >> > Labeo: I *know* you do not *want* to justify anything on the basis >of HCPs. But I also know that you *can* > (a) determine what is your strongest 1NT opener by agreement >and then simply count up the HCPs, and > (b) also count up your weakest agreed 1NT opener in HCPs by >the same method. > >This process, however distasteful to you, will establish the de facto >HCP range of your 1NT openers, and will establish whether you are >within the regulation or not. > >Or if you like state the relevant hands for us and we will do the >counting for ourselves! You would concede, I hope, that just as you >wish to evaluate hands by your preferred method, so are the regulating >bodies entitled to use whatever form of evaluation they consider most >fit in settling the regulations. > > Labeo > > You did not demonstrate he *can*. If somebody uses another hand evaluation, instead of HCP, he must think it is better and, at least, it must be different, which means it is not a continuous and monotonous function of HCP, and perhaps not even a function (two hands with the same number of HCP could have distinct values within another evaluation). Consequently, the "strongest 1NT opener by agreement" is not necesseraly the hand with the highest number of HCP, and the same for the weakest. Furthermore, every hand with a number of HCP weaker than the one of the "strongest by agreement" and higher than the "weakest by agreement" does not necesseraly qualify for a 1NT opening; so the gap (in terms of HCP) for these 1NT openings overestimate their true disparity in strength. 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 Sat Aug 2 00:15:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:15:55 +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 AAA09757 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 00:15:47 +1000 Received: from lizard (56k-port4036.ime.net [209.90.195.46]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA00859; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 10:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970801101542.35379682@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 From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:42 PM 7/30/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >In message <1.5.4.16.19970729083529.37ef5648@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin > writes >>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. The range is 6-6 1/2 >>High-Card Tricks. >> >> >>I don't wish to justify anything on the basis of High-Card *Points*. >> >> > Labeo: I *know* you do not *want* to justify anything on the basis >of HCPs. But I also know that you *can* > (a) determine what is your strongest 1NT opener by agreement >and then simply count up the HCPs, and > (b) also count up your weakest agreed 1NT opener in HCPs by >the same method. (a) how do I determine the strongest 1NT opener? Your evaluation method or ours? I do know what you mean, so here goes: AT KTx AQTx QJTx counts to 6 HCT (open 1NT) and 16 HCP Kx AJx AQxx AKxx counts to 6 1/2 HCT (open 1NT) and 21 HCP I think these are the HCP extremes, so is our range 16-21? Notice all the tens (which we use in evaluation) in the first hand. If you opened a 16-18 NT and heard partner invite, you would accept in a heartbeat -- you recognize that HCP are not always accurate for evaluation. And, just because you would open AT KTx AQTx QT9x with 1NT even playing 16-18 NTs, this does not mean your range is really 15-18. Any 16 HCP hand that we would open 1NT has lots of tens and honors in combination, same with 17 HCP hands. Likewise, 21 HCP hands that we would open 1NT are likely to be absent these features. Does this make our range 18-20 or 17-21? On the otherhand: AT KQT AQTx QJTx counts to 7 HCT (open 2NT) and 18 HCP Kx AKJx KJx KJxx counts to 5 1/2 HCT (open 1C or 1H) and 19 HCP We don't feel that every 19 HCP hand is stronger than every 18 HCP hand (or every 17 HCP hand). In fact, we could put 16-21 on the convention card for our 1NT range and 18-24 for 2NT. And, even then, we would open some balanced 19 HCP hands with neither 1NT or 2NT. >You would concede, I hope, that just as you >wish to evaluate hands by your preferred method, so are the regulating >bodies entitled to use whatever form of evaluation they consider most >fit in settling the regulations. I'm not sure I would be quick to concede this point. There have always been adjustements to HCP such as adding one point for holding all the aces, adding one point for two tens in combination, or adding a half point for an ace. Some of these you may agree with, some you may not -- you are permitted to use your judgment. When a regulating body restricts use of judgment through rigid use of a 4-3-2-1 HCP scheme, yes, I will object to the appropriateness of their regulations. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 2 03:22:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 03:22:26 +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 DAA11188 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 03:21:58 +1000 Received: from default (HZ-pri-AS1-27.star.net.il [195.8.208.27]) by e4000.star.net.il (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA16785; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 20:21:26 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <33E21B6B.CA8686A7@artaxia.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 20:22:51 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Deep waters X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199707252239.XAA15390@snow.btinternet.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C31AEEAB06A4E2724095FB53" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------C31AEEAB06A4E2724095FB53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. > Dear DAVID I read your problem and many messages with their remarks. I deducted that W & S were on same side of the screen - the screen arrangement has advantages and disadvantages but that is the arrangement and its "enhanced or/and rectified laws". As a TD --------- I have no problems with this case - South passed the 4Sp so he didn't make any "should know ..." , " should be entitled..." etc. etc. There is no Law which forbiddens one pair to rectify a voluntary missunderstanding if they are given the opportunity ! As a "very good" TD I"ll tell West his rights to appeal , but I should warn him that it may be expensive , forfeithing the deposite !!! I don't know who was "Mr. West " at Montecatini , but at that level he should know what to do as a top level player. As a Player ------------ On my enhanced CC appears the 4th Golden rule (for partner of course !): _____________________________________________ Don't double a *peculiar Game contract* or a *Suit slam* | which for sure you defeat ! | ____________________________________________| There a lot of articles describing how people ran away to 6NT , makibg the doubled contract or reaching the right contract after opponents doubled the peculiar contract ! I believe that a member of a national team at European Championship has to know someway this "Golden Rule ". Respectfully DANY --------------C31AEEAB06A4E2724095FB53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.
 

 Dear DAVID

I read your problem and many messages with their remarks.
I deducted that W & S were on same side of the screen -
the screen arrangement has advantages and disadvantages but that is
the arrangement and its "enhanced or/and rectified laws".

As a TD
---------
I have no problems with this case - South passed the 4Sp so
he didn't make any "should know ..." , " should be entitled..." etc.  etc.
There is no Law which forbiddens one pair to rectify a voluntary
missunderstanding if they are given the opportunity !

As a "very good" TD I"ll tell West  his rights to appeal , but I should warn him
that it  may be expensive , forfeithing the deposite !!!

I don't know who was "Mr. West "  at Montecatini , but at that level he should
know what to do as a top level player.

As a Player
------------
On my enhanced CC appears the 4th Golden rule (for partner of course !):
_____________________________________________
Don't double a *peculiar Game contract* or a *Suit slam* |
which for sure you defeat !                                                 |
____________________________________________|

There a lot of articles describing how people ran away to 6NT , makibg the doubled contract or reaching the right contract after opponents doubled the peculiar contract !

I believe that a member of a national team at European Championship has to know
someway this "Golden Rule ".

Respectfully

DANY
 
  --------------C31AEEAB06A4E2724095FB53-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 2 09:01:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:01:04 +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 JAA12245 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:00:58 +1000 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20085 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:00:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 16:00:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet To: bridge laws list Subject: 2NT Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The ACBL conventions and competition committee met this week, and changed the wording of the passage in question to disallow the psyching of conventional calls in a suit in response to opening bids of 2NT or less. This was specifically to permit the 2NT bid we have been discussing. It was the clear feeling of a majority of the committee that disallowing the 2NT bid in question was never their intent. This change must be approved by the board, but they tend to go along with the C&C committee. No other major changes were made or planned. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 2 16:53:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:53:12 +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 QAA13149 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:53:05 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA24023; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 22:51:35 -0800 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 22:51:35 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: Chris Pisarra Cc: bridge laws list Subject: Re: 2NT In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Chris Pisarra wrote: > This was specifically to permit the 2NT bid we have been discussing. It > was the clear feeling of a majority of the committee that disallowing the > 2NT bid in question was never their intent. > Three cheers for the ACBL. Sanity has prevailed, at least in this instance. Most of the other minor changes of the past year or so (e.g., D->H and H->S always announced as "transfer", not jsut 1NT-2D and 1NT-2H) have also seemed positive to me. Well, make that 2 1/2 cheers, not 3. There's more work to be done when it comes to making sanity prevail in the world of bridge regulations. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 2 19:31:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:31:20 +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 TAA13396 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:31:14 +1000 Received: from mail.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wuadl-0002Zp-00; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 09:38:25 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.51.120] by mail.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #2) id 0wuaX7-0000hn-00; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 10:31:33 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Labeo" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 10:29:56 +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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Department of Non Sequiturs: [snip] > Labeo: Well, if he thought that possible he had heard the bidding > and must surely fear a get-out in 4NT. > If he bids on the basis that South has psyched, on the other hand, he > is free-wheeling and gets whatever result he gets. > Whichever whichway, West has no reason whatsoever to believe > the hand belongs to his side... > **and this should condition his action.** [my emphasis - DB] Well, suppose you had: Axxx Axx xxx xxx and heard 1NT on your right, 6NT on your left. The hand probably does not belong to your side. Would this "condition your action"? If you think, having been so informed by whatever process is available to you, that your opponents are going to play in something they can't make, it is in my view not unreasonable to double it. But this is really a side issue as far as I am concerned. Doubtless I chose a bad example, because it could be (and has been) argued that even if North-South behaved incorrectly, West's poor result was of his own making. This has obscured to some extent the questions to which I didn't know the answer: is screen position merely a random, rub-of-the-green factor? and to what extent should you be allowed to know what *both* your opponents think they are doing? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 3 07:58:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:58:31 +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 HAA17734 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:58:24 +1000 Received: from default (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA26177 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:58:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199708022158.XAA26177@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:59:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Play out of turn Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 20:38:44 +0100 > From: Paul Barden > Is there any penalty for a defender playing out of turn before dummy, > but after his partner? Law 44B says "After the lead, each other player > in turn plays a card", but Law 57 penalises only the infraction "When a > defender ... plays out of turn before his partner has played". > > I am thinking of a suit distributed something like: > > AJ4 > 1092 765 > KQ83 > > South has concealed his side suit in the auction, and West leads the > ten. Declarer is intending to play the ace from dummy and drop the > eight from hand, creating some ambiguity about East's attitude signal, > but before he can do so East plays the five. Under the 1987 Laws, the play out of turn is, in my opinion, a violation of L73B1. L73F1 now applies if West uses the UI that arose. (We all know what "use UI" is short for). Other than that, no penalty. Well, there is always L90 ... -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 3 07:58:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:58:28 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17729 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:58:20 +1000 Received: from default (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA26174 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:58:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199708022158.XAA26174@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 23:59:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Deep waters Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > > 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 have been following this thread but not summoning the energy needed to contribute. But now I have this sudden burst of energy available. My ruling is as follows: (a) NS's agreement about the 4S bid is "no agreement". There seems to be considerable evidence to support that part of the ruling. (b) The information made available to W is (apparently) "4S is to play". (c) West was not informed correctly about the NS agreements. (d) If West had been informed correctly, it is likely that he would have passed and obtained a better score than what he now got. (e) West is thus damaged by the misinformation established in (c). (f) West's decision to bid on could be seen as wild or gambling for a player at his level. I don't think it is, but I would have no trouble understanding an appeals committee's decision that says it is. I adjust the score, carefully explaining (f) to NS, and their right to appeal (I expect they will). If the AC overrules me on point (f), I expect them to adjust the score for NS anyway. They got their good score because S was unable to say "no agreement" at the right time. This smacks of "convention disruption", which I don't like, and it contradicts the ruling that the BLML near-consensus thinks is right. Still, it fits with what I feel I learned at the EBL TD course in Milan last year. I hope a representative for the consensus can point out where I went off the right track in points (a)-(f). Of course, it is also possible that I was never near the right track. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 4 01:06:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 01:06:29 +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 BAA22557 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 01:06:20 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1314405; 3 Aug 97 9:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 09:17:58 +0100 To: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL and alternate (to HCP) hand evaluation techniques (was Overt Partnership lack of Understanding) In-Reply-To: <199708011247.MAA00601@cadillac.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199708011247.MAA00601@cadillac.meteo.fr>, Jean-Pierre Rocafort writes >At 21:42 30/07/97 +0100, you wrote: >>In message <1.5.4.16.19970729083529.37ef5648@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin >> writes >>>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. The range is 6-6 1/2 >>>High-Card Tricks. >>> >>> >>>I don't wish to justify anything on the basis of High-Card *Points*. >>> Labeo said: >> >>This process, however distasteful to you, will establish the de facto >>HCP range of your 1NT openers, and will establish whether you are >>within the regulation or not. >> (Much cut away above) Now J-P Rocafort writes: > > You did not demonstrate he *can*. .... (cut) .... Labeo: No, true, I did not. I provoked him into demonstrating that he can. Now all he has to do is to adjust if he comes across a case outside of the range he has demonstrated. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 4 05:35:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 05:35:34 +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 FAA23570 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 05:35:28 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-155.innet.be [194.7.10.155]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA24514 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 21:35:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33E47198.E30FEBBC@innet.be> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 12:55:04 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: Deep waters X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199708022158.XAA26174@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > My ruling is as follows: > > (a) NS's agreement about the 4S bid is "no agreement". There seems > to be considerable evidence to support that part of the ruling. > (b) The information made available to W is (apparently) "4S is to > play". No : there was no alert, no questions were asked. West interpreted this as being : agreement to play. If he had asked, he might have had as a response : "I'm not sure, probably to play", which is a correct rendering of the meaning as described in your (a) Surely a meaning of "no agreement, presumably natural" is not alertable? > (c) West was not informed correctly about the NS agreements. ergo, no > (d) If West had been informed correctly, it is likely that he would > have passed and obtained a better score than what he now got. > (e) West is thus damaged by the misinformation established in (c). > (f) West's decision to bid on could be seen as wild or gambling for a > player at his level. I don't think it is, but I would have no trouble > understanding an appeals committee's decision that says it is. > > I adjust the score, carefully explaining (f) to NS, and their right > to appeal (I expect they will). If the AC overrules me on point > (f), I expect them to adjust the score for NS anyway. They got their > good score because S was unable to say "no agreement" at the right > time. > > This smacks of "convention disruption", which I don't like, and it > contradicts the ruling that the BLML near-consensus thinks is right. > Still, it fits with what I feel I learned at the EBL TD course in > Milan last year. > > I hope a representative for the consensus can point out where I went > off the right track in points (a)-(f). Of course, it is also > possible that I was never near the right track. > at point (b) > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark But a nice try ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 4 07:35:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:35:02 +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 HAA23774 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:34:56 +1000 Received: from mail.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wv8Pf-0004hk-00; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 21:42:07 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.51.205] by mail.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #2) id 0wv8J8-0006vf-00; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 22:35:23 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 22:33:42 +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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > > > > My ruling is as follows: > > > > (a) NS's agreement about the 4S bid is "no agreement". There seems > > to be considerable evidence to support that part of the ruling. > > (b) The information made available to W is (apparently) "4S is to > > play". > then Herman wrote: > No : there was no alert, no questions were asked. > West interpreted this as being : agreement to play. > If he had asked, he might have had as a response : "I'm not sure, > probably to play", which is a correct rendering of the meaning as > described in your (a) > Surely a meaning of "no agreement, presumably natural" is not alertable? and Jens wrote: > > > > I hope a representative for the consensus can point out where I went > > off the right track in points (a)-(f). Of course, it is also > > possible that I was never near the right track. > > > and Herman wrote: > at point (b) > I'm not sure I follow this. South has bid 1S, North has bid 4S, and South has passed it. Surely West may reasonably expect - a priori, at least - that South, if questioned, would reply according to what he obviously believes: that 4S is natural. Indeed, it would be wholly unreasonable for West to expect anything else. To ask a man who has just passed 4S whether it was conventional, unrelated to spades, would in my view be to ask a wholly pointless question, and no player should be placed by the Laws, or our interpretation of them, in a position where he has to waste time in this fashion. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 4 08:15:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:15:41 +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 IAA23872 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:15:35 +1000 Received: from cph45.ppp.dknet.dk (cph45.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.45]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA06649 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 00:15:28 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 00:15:28 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33eb015b.30950023@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 Sun, 3 Aug 1997 22:33:42 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >I'm not sure I follow this. South has bid 1S, North has bid 4S, and = South >has passed it. Surely West may reasonably expect - a priori, at least - >that South, if questioned, would reply according to what he obviously >believes: that 4S is natural. No, not exactly. West may reasonably expect that South, if questioned, will say either that 4S is natural or that NS have no clear agreement about 4S. > Indeed, it would be wholly unreasonable for >West to expect anything else. To ask a man who has just passed 4S = whether >it was conventional, unrelated to spades, would in my view be to ask a >wholly pointless question, and no player should be placed by the Laws, = or >our interpretation of them, in a position where he has to waste time in >this fashion. This case is an example of a situation where it might not be a waste of time. Of course, if "no agreement" is alertable (which I assume it was not), there is no need to ask, since the lack of alert is then equivalent to an explanation of "natural". In this example, West's spade holding might tell him that it could be a good idea to establish (by asking) whether NS actually had an agreement. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 4 08:57:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:57:21 +1000 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24051 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 08:57:15 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id SAA13732 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970803185641_-622680120@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Would knowledgeable people please comment on the subject appeal, as described in the Daily Bulletin of the summer NABC last week? It can be found on the ACBL web site under "Summer NABC in Albuquerque," "Daily Bulletins," Item 5 (Tuesday, July 29 issue). This case seems to me a prime example of illegal action by a TD (assigning an artificial score when an assigned score is appropriate) and extremely poor judgement by the AC in coming up with an assigned score (in lieu of the artificial score) instead of accepting the table result. My opinion is that Allen Siebert obtained a bad result due to a bad bid (2C vs 3C) and bad subsequent pass (3H is right), not directly due to the misinformation. If I'm wrong about all that, please educate me! Be sure to note the vulnerability when deciding the matter. Could it be that the AC suspected a controlled psych that they could not prove to be controlled, and made their decision on that (unstated) basis? Was the AC acting legally in forbidding even an osccasional psych of the 1S bid, in violation of L40A? And wasn't this indeed a double shot, getting a good table result if 3NT doesn''t make, and a good assigned result if it doesn't? Would N-S have complained if North's spade ace had been the diamond ace and 3NT could not be made? No, the misinformation (to go with the bad bidding) would have helped them reach the right contract, and they certainly would not have requested an assigned score of 3NT down one. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 4 10:08:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:08:20 +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 KAA24369 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:08:14 +1000 Received: from lizard (56k-port4007.ime.net [209.90.195.17]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA16485; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 20:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 20:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970803200855.59af4f1e@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: Mlfrench@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:56 PM 8/3/97 -0400, Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >Would knowledgeable people please comment on the subject appeal, as described >in the Daily Bulletin of the summer NABC last week? It can be found on the >ACBL web site under "Summer NABC in Albuquerque," "Daily Bulletins," Item 5 >(Tuesday, July 29 issue). > >This case seems to me a prime example of illegal action by a TD (assigning an >artificial score when an assigned score is appropriate) and extremely poor >judgement by the AC in coming up with an assigned score (in lieu of the >artificial score) instead of accepting the table result. My opinion is that >Allen Siebert obtained a bad result due to a bad bid (2C vs 3C) and bad >subsequent pass (3H is right), not directly due to the misinformation. If I'm >wrong about all that, please educate me! Be sure to note the vulnerability >when deciding the matter. > >Could it be that the AC suspected a controlled psych that they could not >prove to be controlled, and made their decision on that (unstated) basis? Was >the AC acting legally in forbidding even an osccasional psych of the 1S bid, >in violation of L40A? Right or wrong, the ACBL restricts psyches of this conventional bid (as the committee pointed out to the EW pair). I don't know what the procedure is when an illegal psych has been made. But, the committee should not have been considering a controlled psych and, in my opinion, was not. It seemed to me that the committee felt there was confusion about what the actual agreements were. Sounds like, at the table at least one of E or W thought 1S was lead directing with three hearts and could be made with zero points. Afterwards, EW 'cleared up' the situation, or came to full agreement, that 2H was the weaker action, while lead directors show 4-7. The committee report said that they did not feel NS could know what the EW agreement was from the information given at the table. Seems there was plenty of confusion at the table. I also think that north had a close decision between 2C and 3C and the mis-information could have led him to make the losing call. Many players in the south position would make a competitive raise to 3C without extra values, so it is not clear to me that 3H is obvious. Jon Brissman, who chaired the committee, reads this mailing list, maybe he will clarify. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 4 19:35:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 19:35:37 +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 TAA25697 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 19:35:28 +1000 Received: from mail.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wvJel-0000TF-00; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:42:27 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.47.237] by mail.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #2) id 0wvJYC-0002S9-00; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:35:41 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Cutting out the dead wood Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:34:00 +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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: > > I feel strongly that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and ACBL Regulations could > also be written in a clear and unambiguous fashion, requiring no > interpretation. Then perhaps they would be "understood and accepted" by the > membership. [Note: this "also" refers to a message that I sent to Marv and not to the group, referring to the fact that the Laws of other sports - while in many respects as arbitrary and inequitable as the Laws of bridge - are drafted in a way that renders their meaning unambiguous, and are accepted by the vast majority of sportspeople.] I completely agree with you. Law 25, for example, should read: "A call once made may not be changed. Law 26..." Law 73A2 should read: "Calls and plays must be made after no less than eight, and no more than ten, seconds have elapsed since the previous call or play. A contestant in breach of this Law shall receive a score of 0 match points, or -14 IMPs at team play." Law 68C should read: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of precisely which card the claimer will play to each of the subsequent tricks (and, if the claimer is declarer, a statement of precisely which card will be played from dummy to each of the subsequent tricks). A claim not so accompanied will be treated as a concession of all remaining tricks." And, of course, Law 40D should read: "A Sponsoring Organisation can do what the hell it likes." (since this is what the words appear to mean in any case). Now, if the above simple proposals had been implemented in the 1987 Laws, this mailing list would be a trifle shorter than at present. Would there be more people playing tournament bridge, or fewer? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 4 20:04:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:04:40 +1000 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.72.6.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25762 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:04:35 +1000 Received: from mail.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wvK73-0001eq-00; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 10:11:41 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.47.237] by mail.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #2) id 0wvK0T-0006Yn-00; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 11:04:54 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 11:03:14 +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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: >On Sun, 3 Aug 1997 22:33:42 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >>I'm not sure I follow this. South has bid 1S, North has bid 4S, and South >>has passed it. Surely West may reasonably expect - a priori, at least - >>that South, if questioned, would reply according to what he obviously >>believes: that 4S is natural. >No, not exactly. West may reasonably expect that South, if >questioned, will say either that 4S is natural or that NS have no >clear agreement about 4S. >>Indeed, it would be wholly unreasonable for >>West to expect anything else. To ask a man who has just passed 4S whether >>it was conventional, unrelated to spades, would in my view be to ask a >>wholly pointless question, and no player should be placed by the Laws, or >>our interpretation of them, in a position where he has to waste time in >>this fashion. >This case is an example of a situation where it might not be a >waste of time. Of course, if "no agreement" is alertable (which >I assume it was not), there is no need to ask, since the lack of >alert is then equivalent to an explanation of "natural". >In this example, West's spade holding might tell him that it >could be a good idea to establish (by asking) whether NS actually >had an agreement. I believe that the regulations in force did not require an alert in cases of "no agreement". Indeed, I have not heard of such a regulation, though the possibility is an interesting one. More interesting, though, is the notion that a player who believes that his opponents' explanations (or lack of explanations) constitute misinformation, should have to ask questions in order to establish that this is indeed the case. What if, in so doing, he were to tip South off to the fact that North probably did not intend 4S as natural? (not relevant in this case, of course, but important in the general case). Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask my opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding, just so that I can be sure of obtaining redress if I am damaged thereby? To what extent would you rule in West's favour depending on various possible replies by South? For example, if South had said: "4S is natural", would you then allow West to defend it undoubled? If South had said: "We have a general principle that bids in partner's suit are not splinters", how would you rule? If South had said: "Obviously, we have not discussed this auction, but equally obviously, since I have passed 4S, I assume it is natural", would you then let West's double and the ensuing 7C contract stand? I think that - quite understandably, for that is the way in which bridge players and bridge lawyers think - the facts of the particular case under discussion are blinding us to the general principles involved. Because it is the consensus that West in this particular case acted foolishly, so that we are reluctant to give *this particular West* any redress, we decide - a posteriori - that screen position at the table is a random, "hard luck" factor. Because we believe that West "should have known" what was going on from his own hand, rather than that he should have believed what his opponents told him about their own auction, we invent a principle which says that a player must protect himself from opponents' misunderstandings by asking stupid questions. Well, so be it. If you're on side of the screen where someone tells you what he's got, you'll be OK. If you're on the side of the screen where someone tells you lies about what his partner's got, it's your own fault if you believe him. This is the Law, for BLML has said so. It's an entirely workable law; it may even be the best practical solution to cases such as this. But I still think that possibly... From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 03:58:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 03:58:05 +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 DAA29956 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 03:57:56 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1116284; 4 Aug 97 0:16 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 10:29:04 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Burn writes >Department of Non Sequiturs: > >[snip] > >> Labeo: Well, if he thought that possible he had heard the bidding >> and must surely fear a get-out in 4NT. >> If he bids on the basis that South has psyched, on the other hand, he >> is free-wheeling and gets whatever result he gets. >> Whichever whichway, West has no reason whatsoever to believe >> the hand belongs to his side... > >> **and this should condition his action.** [my emphasis - DB] > >Well, suppose you had: > >Axxx Axx xxx xxx > >and heard 1NT on your right, 6NT on your left. The hand probably does not >belong to your side. Would this "condition your action"? > >If you think, having been so informed by whatever process is available to >you, that your opponents are going to play in something they can't make, it >is in my view not unreasonable to double it. But this is really a side >issue as far as I am concerned. Doubtless I chose a bad example, >because it could be (and has been) argued that even if North-South behaved >incorrectly, West's poor result was of his own making. This has obscured to some extent the questions to which I didn't know the answer: is screen position merely a random, rub-of-the-green factor? and to what extent should you be allowed to know what *both* your opponents think they are doing? > Labeo: We need computer screens with the player who should remain ignorant of the Q&A automatically excluded from viewing them..... In the meantime my view is that if North/South ask a question E and W have equal responsibilities to give correct answers as to partnership understandings, not as to what anyone is thinking (nor whether anyone is thinking)....nor do I like the potential for abuse if a Q&A session were allowed with all participating when the screen was raised. In a practical world I think we are where we are because on balance it is the best we can do; the value of screens outweighs any disadvantages. But we should remain open-minded to anyone who can think of a way to enhance the procedure. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 04:47:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 04:47:03 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA00325 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 04:46:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1322693; 4 Aug 97 15:39 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:51:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC In-Reply-To: <970803185641_-622680120@emout09.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote >Would knowledgeable people please comment on the subject appeal, as described >in the Daily Bulletin of the summer NABC last week? It can be found on the >ACBL web site under "Summer NABC in Albuquerque," "Daily Bulletins," Item 5 >(Tuesday, July 29 issue). I have added the hand at the end of the article to save people searching for it. >This case seems to me a prime example of illegal action by a TD (assigning an >artificial score when an assigned score is appropriate) and extremely poor >judgement by the AC in coming up with an assigned score (in lieu of the >artificial score) instead of accepting the table result. My opinion is that >Allen Siebert obtained a bad result due to a bad bid (2C vs 3C) and bad >subsequent pass (3H is right), not directly due to the misinformation. If I'm >wrong about all that, please educate me! Be sure to note the vulnerability >when deciding the matter. There is no doubt that the TD's decision is illegal. For some reason, such rulings do happen in ACBL events. You have said that the result was due to a bad bid. I do not believe that a "bad" bid is enough to snap the causal link. Furthermore, this was a judgement decision, and it is quite normal for different players [such as yourself and the AC members] to have different views. Neither 3C instead of 2C nor 3H instead of Pass is completely obvious: I am sure that MSC panellists would have some votes for 2C and for the Pass, and that is good enough. The AC have explained their views below. They seem reasonable and logical. >Could it be that the AC suspected a controlled psych that they could not >prove to be controlled, and made their decision on that (unstated) basis? Was >the AC acting legally in forbidding even an osccasional psych of the 1S bid, >in violation of L40A? Why should the AC not merely be telling the truth? >And wasn't this indeed a double shot, getting a good table result if 3NT >doesn''t make, and a good assigned result if it doesn't? Would N-S have >complained if North's spade ace had been the diamond ace and 3NT could not be >made? No, the misinformation (to go with the bad bidding) would have helped >them reach the right contract, and they certainly would not have requested an >assigned score of 3NT down one. No, as the AC says, there is no evidence whatever of a double shot. This is [unusually ] a NABC AC decision that I am very happy with: a reasonable decision, well explained. ======================================================================= APPEALS COMMITTEE DECISIONS CASE ONE Subject: Misinformation Event: Life Masters Pairs, 25 July 97, Second Session Board: 28 Allan Siebert Dealer: West S A9 Vul: N-S H 52 D T986 C KQ986 Ervin Pfeiffle Dick LeClaire S J8632 S 74 H 9843 H AQT76 D 732 D AK C 5 C T432 Joe Kivel S KQT5 H KJ D QJ54 C AJ7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1H Dbl 1S (1) 2C 2H 3C All Pass (1) Alerted; showed three or more hearts and nothing about spades. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Facts: 3C made four, plus 130 for N-S. North asked about the 1S Alert and was told it promised at least three hearts and said nothing about spades. When North asked what the difference was between bidding 1S or 2H, he was told that 1S showed a better hand (4 to 7 points) than a 2H bid did. Before the opening lead was made E-W clarified that with three-card heart support and zero points, West was required to bid. The Director was called after the opening lead was made and the dummy was put down. The Director ruled the E-W agreement had not been explained properly. During the twelfth round the Director informed both pairs that the result would be changed to Average Plus for N-S and Average Minus for E-W. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Appeal: E-W appealed the Director's ruling. North, South and East attended the Committee. East stated that he did not believe that N-S should be entitled to a double shot for a good board because they had failed to bid 3NT. North stated that had he known the West hand could be as weak as it was he would have bid 3C. He chose to bid 2C because he thought his partner's hand could not produce enough for game with the opening bid and raise. North stated that it was not known that West had to bid with any hand containing three-card heart support until the opening lead was made. The Committee determined that the E-W partnership agreement was that any hand with three-card heart support had to bid and that 1S, 2C or 2D all showed heart support, 4 to 7 points, indicated a lead preference but did not promise length in the suit bid. 2H would have been weaker. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that misinformation was present and had likely affected the N-S result. With a full explanation, North may have chosen a 3C bid and South would likely have bid 3NT. Since it was also likely that nine tricks would be taken, the Committee changed the contract for both sides to 3NT made three, plus 600 for N-S. The Committee decided to educate E-W about their obligations regarding full and complete disclosure of partnership agreements rather than retain the deposit. E-W were also warned that psyching this conventional agreement was not permissible. The Committee did not agree that N-S had taken a double shot at a good result because they could not possibly know what the full E-W agreement was from the information they had been given at the table. -- 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 Aug 5 05:09:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 05:09:43 +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 FAA00408 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 05:09:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1108422; 4 Aug 97 15:39 BST Message-ID: <5w+do5ASzc5zEwZ8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 13:36:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote [s] >I'm not sure I follow this. South has bid 1S, North has bid 4S, and South >has passed it. Surely West may reasonably expect - a priori, at least - >that South, if questioned, would reply according to what he obviously >believes: that 4S is natural. Indeed, it would be wholly unreasonable for >West to expect anything else. To ask a man who has just passed 4S whether >it was conventional, unrelated to spades, would in my view be to ask a >wholly pointless question, and no player should be placed by the Laws, or >our interpretation of them, in a position where he has to waste time in >this fashion. Not totally pointless IMO. The difference between the answers: [1] It is natural and [2] I haven't a clue! might have some relevance. -- 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 Aug 5 05:53:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 05:53:01 +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 FAA00638 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 05:52:55 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1029864; 4 Aug 97 0:16 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 00:10:33 +0100 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: <199708022158.XAA26174@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199708022158.XAA26174@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >> From: "David Burn" >> >> Your hand as West at love all is: >> >> AK10632 62 QJ643 None ....cut.... >> Jesper now writes >My ruling is as follows: .(cut). > > >I adjust the score, carefully explaining (f) to NS, and their right >to appeal (I expect they will). If the AC overrules me on point >(f), I expect them to adjust the score for NS anyway. They got their >good score because S was unable to say "no agreement" at the right >time. ..(cut).. >I hope a representative for the consensus can point out where I went >off the right track in points (a)-(f). Of course, it is also >possible that I was never near the right track. > Labeo: Personally I think (a) to (f) give a perfect description of what the TD should do. On an appeal committee I would vote in the case of a front rank West to give him back the score obtained at the table. It is well established that international appeal committees expect quality players to do what is reasonable in minding their own backs. (The whole situation is changed however if NS are able to convince us that North has misbid and West has received correct information as to their agreement). Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 06:05:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 06:05:55 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA00720 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 06:05:48 +1000 Received: from cph9.ppp.dknet.dk (cph9.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.9]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA20569 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 22:05:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 22:05:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33ed35a4.14084161@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 Mon, 4 Aug 1997 00:10:33 +0100, Labeo wrote: >In message <199708022158.XAA26174@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil > writes > ....cut.... >>>=20 >Jesper now writes Well, actually I didn't - Jens did. I would agree with Jens if West had asked and been told that 4S was natural; but he didn't. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 07:28:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:28:36 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA00898 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:28:30 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA03479; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 16:27:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca3-19.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.115) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma003439; Mon Aug 4 16:27:10 1997 Message-ID: <33E64860.3F27@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 14:23:44 -0700 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix10.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Goodwin CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC References: <1.5.4.16.19970803200855.59af4f1e@ime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > Right or wrong, the ACBL restricts psyches of this conventional bid (as the > committee pointed out to the EW pair). I don't know what the procedure is > when an illegal psych has been made. But, the committee should not have > been considering a controlled psych and, in my opinion, was not. > > It seemed to me that the committee felt there was confusion about what the > actual agreements were. Sounds like, at the table at least one of E or W > thought 1S was lead directing with three hearts and could be made with zero > points. Afterwards, EW 'cleared up' the situation, or came to full > agreement, that 2H was the weaker action, while lead directors show 4-7. > The committee report said that they did not feel NS could know what the EW > agreement was from the information given at the table. Seems there was > plenty of confusion at the table. > > I also think that north had a close decision between 2C and 3C and the > mis-information could have led him to make the losing call. Many players in > the south position would make a competitive raise to 3C without extra > values, so it is not clear to me that 3H is obvious. > > Jon Brissman, who chaired the committee, reads this mailing list, maybe he > will clarify. > Maybe. This was a close decision. Allen Siebert would likely have bid 3C if presented with full disclosure, and that bid would have surely begotten 3NT. The committee wrestled with whether Allen should have bid 3C after being presented with the muddled and incomplete explanation. Some bridge logic dictates that he should simply bid his values and pay scant attention to the explanation; other logic indicates that if Allen's RHO holds 4-7 HCP opposite LHO's opening hand, partner cannot hold sufficient values to produce game. Proponents from each school of thought were on the committee. Finally, the committee decided that Allen was disadvantaged by the explanation. His propensity to select the "right" bid in the actual situation was diminished, and thus the committee chose to award redress by projecting the likely result in the absence of the misinformation. This is the type of case for which ACs were created. It's a bidding judgment situation with (IMO) no clear-cut answer. Reasonable minds can differ. ACs work best when each position has its advocates on the committee, because the ensuing discussion examines and argues all aspects. The committee in this case had such composition. I was comfortable with the final decision, but recognized that the committee's decision would be subject to criticism from those espousing the "bid your own values" school. Had the committee decided differently, it would have been criticised by proponents of the "listen to your opponent's explanations" school of thought. To critics, I would submit that the committee members collectively spent about seven-and-one-half man-hours hearing evidence, then analyzing, arguing, discussing, and thinking about this appeal. Critics do not have the same database. Jon Brissman ACBL National Appeals Co-Chairman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 07:57:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:57:21 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01013 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:57:16 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA09117; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 16:56:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca3-19.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.115) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma009084; Mon Aug 4 16:56:31 1997 Message-ID: <33E64F43.20FC@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 14:53:07 -0700 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix10.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote, inter alia: > "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. > 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. Please register my vote as siding with David. The ACBL is using the vehicle of convention regulation to accomplish an end antithetical to the law - namely, outlawing a natural bid. (I know, the natural bid itself is still legal, but it has become unplayable with no conventional follow-up bids and/or responses). The Conventions and Competitions Committee went a step further at the Albuquerque NABC. It recommended, and the BofD adopted, a motion to disallow conventions after a split-range 1NT opening (such as Woodson 2-way NT) on the general convention chart; it allows conventions over the treatment in events governed by the mid-chart and the super chart. The new adoption continues to disallow conventions over a wide-range 1NT opening (defined as one with greater than a 5 HCP spread) on *all* the various convention charts. Bobby Goldman, who is a member and the prime mover behind the C&C committee, has tried and failed to convince me that his rationale regarding wide-range 1NT openings is sound with respect to the mid-chart and super chart events. The heart of the conventions regulation problem lies with the C&C committee. I know of no case where the ACBL BofD has not adopted the recommendation of the C&C committee [pardon the double negative]. The C&C committee, in essence, makes value judgments on certain natural bids and then recommends convention restriction to legislate against disfavored calls. I view this as a departure from both the letter and the spirit of the laws. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 08:30:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:30:53 +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 IAA01156 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 08:30:46 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id XAA22557 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 23:30:23 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 97 23:29 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC 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: Sorry for repeating myself but what I did not, and still do not, understand is how the AC could find that J8632,9843,732,5 - a hand worth 5+ points in support of hearts falls outside the 4-7 range stated or is in some way a psyche. Playing 5 card majors I wouldn't even consider 2H (not playing any special system it's a choice between 3 and 4 surely). I do not believe that failing to mention the spade feature in the explanation caused damage in this case (nor was that reason given by the committee). By way of comparison J432,432,432,K32 or QJx,xxxx,jxx,jxx both come within range yet are far worse hands in playing terms. I was informed by an E-Mail correspondant that saying "4-7 *support* points" might solve the problem, but should this really be necessary in a life-master event? Had the ruling been based on the AC's belief that EW were deliberately obstructive in describing their methods I would understand it, but according to the write-up this was not the case. Tim West-Meads BTW-Nice summary in EBU mag David, but maybe you (or the editor?) glossed over the "penalty card as UI" issue just a little bit:-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 10:37:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:37:38 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA01546 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:37:32 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id TAA16859; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 19:36:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sbo-ca1-09.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.41) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma016784; Mon Aug 4 19:35:58 1997 Message-ID: <33E6749B.674A@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 17:32:27 -0700 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix8.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > In-Reply-To: > Sorry for repeating myself but what I did not, and still do not, > understand is how the AC could find that J8632,9843,732,5 - a hand worth > 5+ points in support of hearts falls outside the 4-7 range stated or is > in some way a psyche. Playing 5 card majors I wouldn't even consider 2H > (not playing any special system it's a choice between 3 and 4 surely). I > do not believe that failing to mention the spade feature in the > explanation caused damage in this case (nor was that reason given by the > committee). > > By way of comparison J432,432,432,K32 or QJx,xxxx,jxx,jxx both come > within range yet are far worse hands in playing terms. I was informed by > an E-Mail correspondant that saying "4-7 *support* points" might solve > the problem, but should this really be necessary in a life-master event? > > Had the ruling been based on the AC's belief that EW were deliberately > obstructive in describing their methods I would understand it, but > according to the write-up this was not the case. > Tim - I chaired the AC. The players told us that every suit bid over the 1H opening (other than a raise) showed 4-7 HCP (not support points) and 3+ card support for opener's suit. The direct raise promised 0-3 HCP with 3+ card support (ideal for this hand, wouldn't you agree?). The players were confused by their own methods when explaining them to the AC; they gave three incompatible versions in testimony. Two incompatible versions were disclosed at the table: one when first asked, another before opening lead. We thought that if E-W did not understand their methods well enough to properly explain them to the AC, how could they have gotten it right at the table? Nonetheless, North still might have bid 3C despite the misinformation. We thought the 3C bid was reasonable but not sufficiently clear-cut in light of the misinformation to snap the link of causation between the infraction and the damage. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 12:55:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:55:38 +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 MAA01779 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:55:32 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0625140; 5 Aug 97 3:39 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 03:37:48 +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: <33E64F43.20FC@popd.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B&S wrote >David Stevenson wrote, inter alia: No, I didn't. These are not my words. Furthermore, I have expressed a view, which does not agree with this [though I would not describe it as directly contrary]. Personally, I have agreed with Burn and Labeo that this has been talked out. >> "Twisting" is closer than "interpreting." [s] -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 20:17:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 20:17:26 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02977 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 20:17:19 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-178.innet.be [194.7.10.178]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA00850; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:16:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33E70AFF.5B85972F@innet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 12:14:07 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > I believe that the regulations in force did not require an alert in > cases > of "no agreement". Indeed, I have not heard of such a regulation, > though > the possibility is an interesting one. > > More interesting, though, is the notion that a player who believes > that his > opponents' explanations (or lack of explanations) constitute > misinformation, should have to ask questions in order to establish > that > this is indeed the case. What if, in so doing, he were to tip South > off to > the fact that North probably did not intend 4S as natural? (not > relevant in > this case, of course, but important in the general case). > > Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask > my > opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding, > just > so that I can be sure of obtaining redress if I am damaged thereby? To > what > extent would you rule in West's favour depending on various possible > replies by South? For example, if South had said: "4S is natural", > would > you then allow West to defend it undoubled? If South had said: "We > have a > general principle that bids in partner's suit are not splinters", how > would > you rule? If South had said: "Obviously, we have not discussed this > auction, but equally obviously, since I have passed 4S, I assume it is > natural", would you then let West's double and the ensuing 7C contract > stand? > > I think that - quite understandably, for that is the way in which > bridge > players and bridge lawyers think - the facts of the particular case > under > discussion are blinding us to the general principles involved. Because > it > is the consensus that West in this particular case acted foolishly, so > that > we are reluctant to give *this particular West* any redress, we decide > - a > posteriori - that screen position at the table is a random, "hard > luck" > factor. Because we believe that West "should have known" what was > going on > from his own hand, rather than that he should have believed what his > opponents told him about their own auction, we invent a principle > which > says that a player must protect himself from opponents' > misunderstandings > by asking stupid questions. > > Well, so be it. If you're on side of the screen where someone tells > you > what he's got, you'll be OK. If you're on the side of the screen where > someone tells you lies about what his partner's got, it's your own > fault if > you believe him. This is the Law, for BLML has said so. It's an > entirely > workable law; it may even be the best practical solution to cases such > as > this. But I still think that possibly... I was responsible for this sub-thread. It was a reply to (Jesper's? or Jens's?) try at getting a reason for a ruling. He was arguing that there was a misexplanation. The real agreement was 'no agreement' but west was 'told' the agreement was 'natural'. I replied that west was told no such thing. West understood it to be 'natural' because of the non-alert, whereas 'no agreement' need not be alerted either. Now David is taking this on to deeper waters still. He's arguing that 'no agreement' and 'natural' are two different things and that there should be an alert on either to protect someone from having to ask revealing questions, and that since there is no such regulation, east-west deserve a rectification after all. I don't think it works that way. The Laws provide for a theoretical 'full' disclosure. The Regulations provide for a number of means by which this full disclosure can be achieved, so that a player needs to ask as few questions as possible, in order for him not to reveal his hand. (We have convention cards, alerts, even screens contribute to this) If a player has not had full disclosure AND the opponents have failed to comply to any of the regulations, then there is redress. If the opponent has complied with all the regulations, and a player still wants more info, he is always entitled to ask. If he reveals part of his hand in so doing, this is AI to the opponents. If the opponent has not complied with all the regulations, and a player still asks, and thereby reveals his holdings, this should be UI to opponents (Oops, did I just open a new can of worms ?) But if the player decides that not revealing his hand is worth more than getting full information, that is his own decision. If it turns out the opponent did not comply to regulations, he shall have recourse to a ruling on misinformation. If the opponent did comply, there is no recourse. As we see here, the regulations are not good enough to ensure that 'full' disclosure is guaranteed simply by adhering to them. I believe that no set of regulations can ever be that good. I think that is part of the game and it should be understood by players, directors AND officials drawing up regulations : do not try to make them complete, you will never succeed. Better keep the regulations as simple as possible. I suggest we leave our bathyspheres in the Mariana trench now and come back up to the surface. Peter Fredin has almost succeeded in having us breaking a record set in Nizhny Novgorod. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 5 20:41:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 20:41:33 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA03037 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 20:41:27 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA13097 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 06:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 06:41:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: <33E64F43.20FC@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, B&S wrote: > > Please register my vote as siding with David. The ACBL is using the > vehicle of convention regulation to accomplish an end antithetical to > the law - namely, outlawing a natural bid. (I know, the natural bid > itself is still legal, but it has become unplayable with no conventional > follow-up bids and/or responses). > > The Conventions and Competitions Committee went a step further at the > Albuquerque NABC. It recommended, and the BofD adopted, a motion to > disallow conventions after a split-range 1NT opening (such as Woodson > 2-way NT) on the general convention chart; it allows conventions over > the treatment in events governed by the mid-chart and the super chart. > The new adoption continues to disallow conventions over a wide-range 1NT > opening (defined as one with greater than a 5 HCP spread) on *all* the > various convention charts. Bobby Goldman, who is a member and the prime > mover behind the C&C committee, has tried and failed to convince me that > his rationale regarding wide-range 1NT openings is sound with respect to > the mid-chart and super chart events. > > The heart of the conventions regulation problem lies with the C&C > committee. I know of no case where the ACBL BofD has not adopted the > recommendation of the C&C committee [pardon the double negative]. The > C&C committee, in essence, makes value judgments on certain natural bids > and then recommends convention restriction to legislate against > disfavored calls. I view this as a departure from both the letter and > the spirit of the laws. > > Jon Brissman > Two points: The first (picky) is that in at least one case (allowing 1NT to be used as a Strong, Artificial, and Forcing opening bid) the Board of Directors overrode the objections of the C&C committee, and I seem to recall a case where the Board put something on the General Convention chart without even referring it to the C&CC. Second, it's time to hassle another organization. In its two lowest levels of convention regulation (Simple an Next Step systems) the EBU restricts opening 1NT to the range 12-18 (in simple system events, to a 3 point range within that). As I recall, but I can't find my Orange Book, you can't have a sub-10 point notrump at any level of EBU competition. What say you, David? (Stevenson or Burn) -- 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 Wed Aug 6 01:13:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 01:13:25 +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 BAA06202 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 01:13:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1314707; 5 Aug 97 15:51 BST Message-ID: <4tqNvcAB7x5zEwIM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:38:25 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote >In its two lowest levels of convention regulation (Simple an Next Step >systems) the EBU restricts opening 1NT to the range 12-18 (in simple >system events, to a 3 point range within that). As I recall, but I >can't find my Orange Book, you can't have a sub-10 point notrump at >any level of EBU competition. What say you, David? (Stevenson or Burn) [1] You are correct [2] The subject of this thread is not satisfactory for this diversion -- 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 Aug 6 01:13:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 01:13:46 +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 BAA06212 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 01:13:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1125981; 5 Aug 97 15:51 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 13:42:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MI Misinformation MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NP No problem OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OOT Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation SS+SSS+S People of similar standard & strength using similar systems & style [for use in defining LAs!] TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBU Welsh Bridge Union Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email -- David Stevenson 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 Aug 6 02:05:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:05:41 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06801 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:05:35 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA11640 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:01:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Non-ACBL countries' apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: <4tqNvcAB7x5zEwIM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Richard Lighton wrote > > >In its two lowest levels of convention regulation (Simple an Next Step > >systems) the EBU restricts opening 1NT to the range 12-18 (in simple > >system events, to a 3 point range within that). As I recall, but I > >can't find my Orange Book, you can't have a sub-10 point notrump at > >any level of EBU competition. What say you, David? (Stevenson or Burn) > > [1] You are correct > [2] The subject of this thread is not satisfactory for this diversion > OK then, David, here it is again as the start of a different thread :-) Seriously, the ACBL are working around this law. The EBU are ignoring it. -- 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 Wed Aug 6 02:09:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:09:16 +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 CAA06818 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:09:10 +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 MAA22901 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08777; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:09:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:09:12 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708051609.MAA08777@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 > From: "David Burn" > Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask my > opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding...? Let us ask what happens if we take the contrary point of view and adjust the score. South will then ask what his infraction was and what he should have done differently to avoid an adjustment. What will we say? (The above supposes, as most commentators have, that we will deem the true agreement to be "no agreement." While I have no reason to suspect that the pair in question have any agreement in such an unlikely auction, L75 requires *evidence* for us to rule on that basis. So far, I haven't seen reference to that evidence, but I'm not asserting that it doesn't exist.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 6 09:31:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:31:52 +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 JAA08197 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:31:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0911916; 5 Aug 97 23:48 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:46:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Non-ACBL countries' apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote > >On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Richard Lighton wrote >> >> >In its two lowest levels of convention regulation (Simple an Next Step >> >systems) the EBU restricts opening 1NT to the range 12-18 (in simple >> >system events, to a 3 point range within that). As I recall, but I >> >can't find my Orange Book, you can't have a sub-10 point notrump at >> >any level of EBU competition. What say you, David? (Stevenson or Burn) >> >> [1] You are correct >> [2] The subject of this thread is not satisfactory for this diversion >> >OK then, David, here it is again as the start of a different thread :-) > >Seriously, the ACBL are working around this law. The EBU are ignoring it. Possibly. In my view the current situation is that the minima for opening bids is based on the same rule, namely that you could play weaker with no conventions. However, having expressed that view, others have told me differently. More importantly [IMO] it appears likely that future licensing will be on a basis of a minimum of Rule of 19, or 10HCP for a 1NT opening, for General Licence, and for a new level simpler than General Licence: one point fewer for Restricted Licence. The difference is that the method of licensing this is to be stated rather than hidden [or possibly ignored, or done in defiance of the laws, or whatever]. Note: when I refer to General and Restricted Licence it does appear that these names are to go. My view has been expressed that I consider this legal. There is no point arguing *that* IMO because the arguments over legality are not going to change if it is the EBU rather than the ACBL and I consider that subject talked out. However, I am confident that the EBU is attempting to do the best for its membership. Some people have argued that the ACBL imposes restrictions to be bloody-minded. Such arguments have never been convincing IMO but I do not know the ACBL well enough to be sure. However, I can assure you that nothing is further from the minds of the people taking such decisions for the EBU. As far as Simple Systems are concerned I find it difficult to credit that anyone would consider anything else as suitable and I do not believe that Next Step will survive the appearance of the next Orange book. Since the question of licensing levels and names has been mentioned, I shall start a new thread on the subject because we are seeking advice. -- 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 Aug 6 10:02:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:02:37 +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 KAA08346 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:02:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1212013; 5 Aug 97 23:48 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 18:54:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: New EBU licensing levels MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In another thread the question of EBU licensing levels has been raised. We have a problem IMO so perhaps BLML could help. We appear to be going to have five levels. There seems quite a surge of opinion towards calling them Level One, Level Two, .... I believe this will confuse and if decent names are thought of then they would be better. The trouble is that neither I nor anyone who agrees can think of suitable names. Has anyone out there any suggestions? The levels are roughly as follows: Level One For beginners and novices Only very simple Acol permitted Currently called Simple Systems Level Two For clubs where people worry about what their opponents play and for very simple local competitions Acol, Precision, Strong Clubs but no Multi, Romex, Vienna: Blue Club only if simplified A new level [allowing much more than the current Next Step system] Level Three For normal clubs and most pairs competitions Acol, Precision, Strong Clubs, Blue Club, Romex, Vienna, a wide variety of well-known conventions Currently called General Licence Level Four For clubs where the game develops and most competitions with eight boards against the same opponent Either/or clubs [like AUC, Power, Carrot] plus many more conventions, especially amongst opening two/three bids; many Multi-type openings; transfer overcalls Currently called Restricted Licence Level five For competitions that are international in type WBF or EBL rules, with Level Four conventions as well Allowing rather more than Experimental Licence but without HUMs probably, which some Experimental Licence systems include So has anyone any suggestions? The word Club is *not* acceptable because of its connotations [people are afraid that many people will think that clubs would be forced to use a "Club" licence]. This means we cannot use Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts, Spades. Colours seem no good because they are used at WBF and EBL level, and our levels differ so it would lead to confusion. The current Restricted and General licence especially confuse because Restricted is more General than General and General is more Restricted than Restricted. We could get by with four names at a pinch: Level Five does not *need* a name. -- 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 Aug 6 13:04:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:04:07 +1000 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08832 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:03:23 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA05034; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 23:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 23:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970805225907_-355361159@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: john.strauch@juno.com, wbartley@qualcomm.com, flimflam@cts.com Subject: Re: Case 1 Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to David Stevenson for copying out the text of this appeal case, as I should have done. Lel's go over it. My comments will be in CAPS. ==================================================================== APPEALS COMMITTEE DECISIONS CASE ONE Subject: Misinformation Event: Life Masters Pairs, 25 July 97, Second Session Board: 28 Allan Siebert Dealer: West S A9 Vul: N-S H 52 D T986 C KQ986 Ervin Pfeiffle Dick LeClaire S J8632 S 74 H 9843 H AQT76 D 732 D AK C 5 C T432 Joe Kivel S KQT5 H KJ D QJ54 C AJ7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1H Dbl 1S (1) 2C 2H 3C All Pass (1) Alerted; showed three or more hearts and nothing about spades. ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTE THAT THERE ARE 26 HCP IN THE N-S HANDS, WHICH ALSO INCLUDE A GOOD FIVE-CARD CLUB SUIT The Facts: 3C made four, plus 130 for N-S. North asked about the 1S Alert and was told it promised at least three hearts and said nothing about spades. When North asked what the difference was between bidding 1S or 2H, he was told that 1S showed a better hand (4 to 7 points) than a 2H bid did. Before the opening lead was made E-W clarified that with three-card heart support and zero points, West was required to bid. The Director was called after the opening lead was made and the dummy was put down. The Director ruled the E-W agreement had not been explained properly. During the twelfth round the Director informed both pairs that the result would be changed to Average Plus for N-S and Average Minus for E-W. HOW WAS THE PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING ABOUT NOTE THE ILLEGAL TD ACTION, ADJUSTING THE SCORE ARTIFICIALLY WHEN AN ASSIGNED SCORE (3NT MAKING, IN THIS CASE) WAS IN ORDER. THIS IN A NATIONALLY RATED LIFE MASTER PAIRS EVENT! ----------------------------------------------------------- The Appeal: E-W appealed the Director's ruling. North, South and East attended the Committee. East stated that he did not believe that N-S should be entitled to a double shot for a good board because they had failed to bid 3NT. North stated that had he known the West hand could be as weak as it was he would have bid 3C. He chose to bid 2C because he thought his partner's hand could not produce enough for game with the opening bid and raise. North stated that it was not known that West had to bid with any hand containing three-card heart support until the opening lead was made. The Committee determined that the E-W partnership agreement was that any hand with three-card heart support had to bid and that 1S, 2C or 2D all showed heart support, 4 to 7 points, indicated a lead preference but did not promise length in the suit bid. 2H would have been weaker. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that misinformation was present and had likely affected the N-S result. With a full explanation, North may have chosen a 3C bid and South would likely have bid 3NT. Since it was also likely that nine tricks would be taken, the Committee changed the contract for both sides to 3NT made three, plus 600 for N-S. The Committee decided to educate E-W about their obligations regarding full and complete disclosure of partnership agreements rather than retain the deposit. E-W were also warned that psyching this conventional agreement was not permissible. The Committee did not agree that N-S had taken a double shot at a good result because they could not possibly know what the full E-W agreement was from the information they had been given at the table. -- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 6 13:34:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:34:11 +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 NAA08912 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:33:42 +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 XAA11221; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 23:31:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 23:31:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970805233038_-2076084805@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: john.strach@juno.com, wbartley@qualcomm.com, flimlflam@cts.net Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry everyone, I hit the wrong key and sent the message on this subject prematurely. Complete message coming soon. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 6 13:42:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:42:50 +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 NAA08941 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:42:43 +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 XAA18926; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 23:40:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 23:40:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970805233927_1947706732@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: john.strauch@juno.com, wbartley@qualcomm.com, flimflam@cts.net Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry everyone, I hit some key that sent out my message prematurely. Complete message coming soon! Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 6 14:57:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:57:05 +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 OAA09075 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:56:59 +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 AAA12222; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 00:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 00:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970806005456_1727733735@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: john.strauch@juno.com, wbartley@qualcomm.com, flimflam@cts.com Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to David Stevenson for copying out the text of this appeal case, as I should have done. Lel's go over it. My comments will be in CAPS. I have to assume that the documentation of the case as presented in the Daily Bulletin of the Albuquerque NABC presents the case correctly. ==================================================================== APPEALS COMMITTEE DECISIONS CASE ONE Subject: Misinformation Event: Life Masters Pairs, 25 July 97, Second Session Board: 28 Allan Siebert Dealer: West S A9 Vul: N-S H 52 D T986 C KQ986 Ervin Pfeiffle Dick LeClaire S J8632 S 74 H 9843 H AQT76 D 732 D AK C 5 C T432 Joe Kivel S KQT5 H KJ D QJ54 C AJ7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1H Dbl 1S (1) 2C 2H 3C All Pass (1) Alerted; showed three or more hearts and nothing about spades. ----------------------------------------------------------- NOTE THAT THERE ARE 26 HCP IN THE N-S HANDS, WHICH ALSO INCLUDE A GOOD FIVE-CARD CLUB SUIT. ALSO NOTE THAT SIEBERT UNDERBID TWICE, FIRST BY NOT RESPONDING 3C, NEXT BY NOT BIDDING 3H (ASKING FOR A HEART STOP) WHEN KIVEL, VUL VS N-VUL, RAISED AFTER DOUBLING. BRISSMAN TELLS ME THAT MANY PLAYERS RAISE WITH MINIMUM VALUES AFTER DOUBLING, AND THAT IS WHAT SIEBERT FEARED. WELL, IF PLAYERS ARE GOING TO DO THAT, THEY CAN'T ASK TDs/ACs TO MAKE UP FOR THE DRAWBACKS OF THAT APPROACH. The Facts: 3C made four, plus 130 for N-S. North asked about the 1S Alert and was told it promised at least three hearts and said nothing about spades. When North asked what the difference was between bidding 1S or 2H, he was told that 1S showed a better hand (4 to 7 points) than a 2H bid did. Before the opening lead was made E-W clarified that with three-card heart support and zero points, West was required to bid. The Director was called after the opening lead was made and the dummy was put down. The Director ruled the E-W agreement had not been explained properly. During the twelfth round the Director informed both pairs that the result would be changed to Average Plus for N-S and Average Minus for E-W. HOW WAS THE PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING ABOUT 1S MISEXPLAINED? IT SHOWED 4-7 HCP AND A HEART RAISE, AND THAT'S WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED. IF THE ESSENCE OF THE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT 1S WAS COMMUNICATED, THAT WAS ENOUGH. THE FACT THAT 2H WOULD SHOW A WEAKER HAND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. NOTE THE ILLEGAL TD ACTION, ADJUSTING THE SCORE ARTIFICIALLY WHEN AN ASSIGNED SCORE (3NT MAKING, IN THIS CASE) WAS IN ORDER. THIS IN A NATIONALLY RATED LIFE MASTER PAIRS EVENT! ALSO NOTE THAT EVERYONE'S NAME IS MENTIONED EXCEPT THAT OF THE TD. WHY ARE TDs GRANTED ANONYMITY? ----------------------------------------------------------- The Appeal: E-W appealed the Director's ruling. North, South and East attended the Committee. East stated that he did not believe that N-S should be entitled to a double shot for a good board because they had failed to bid 3NT. North stated that had he known the West hand could be as weak as it was he would have bid 3C. He chose to bid 2C because he thought his partner's hand could not produce enough for game with the opening bid and raise. North stated that it was not known that West had to bid with any hand containing three-card heart support until the opening lead was made. WHEN A PAIR DECIDES TO BID ACCORDING TO HOW THE OPPONENTS DESCRIBE THEIR HANDS, IT IS AT THEIR OWN RISK. PUTTING THAT ASIDE, NOTE THAT IF THE KING OF DIAMONDS IN THE EAST HAND HAD BEEN EXCHANGED FOR A SMALL HEART IN THE WEST HAND, WEST WOULD HAVE HAD HIS 4 HCP, THE BIDDING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME, AND GAME WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN MISSED. The Committee determined that the E-W partnership agreement was that any hand with three-card heart support had to bid and that 1S, 2C or 2D all showed heart support, 4 to 7 points, indicated a lead preference but did not promise length in the suit bid. 2H would have been weaker. YES, 1S PROMISED 4-7 HCP, BUT WEST EVIDENTLY FORGOT THE PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING. L75B SAYS "A PLAYER MAY VIOLATE AN ANNOUNCED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT..., AND IF THE OPPONENTS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY DAMAGED, AS THROUGH DRAWING A FALSE INFERENCE FROM SUCH VIOLATION, THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REDRESS." WHAT COULD BE MORE CLEAR? ----------------------------------------------------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that misinformation was present and had likely affected the N-S result. With a full explanation, North may have chosen a 3C bid and South would likely have bid 3NT. Since it was also likely that nine tricks would be taken, the Committee changed the contract for both sides to 3NT made three, plus 600 for N-S. N-S HAD THE INFORMATION THAT 1S SHOWED A HEART RAISE AND 4-7 HCP. THAT WAS THE PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING. THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT MISINFORMATION. The Committee decided to educate E-W about their obligations regarding full and complete disclosure of partnership agreements rather than retain the deposit. E-W were also warned that psyching this conventional agreement was not permissible. THIS GRATUITOUS WARNING IMPLIES THAT THE AC SUSPECTED THE 1S BID WAS A PSYCH. WHO WOULD PSYCH A 4 HCP BID WITH 1 HCP? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MISBID WAS INTENTIONAL. OF COURSE L40A SAYS ITS OKAY TO PSYCH A CONVENTION, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER SUBJECT FOR ANOTHER TIME The Committee did not agree that N-S had taken a double shot at a good result because they could not possibly know what the full E-W agreement was from the information they had been given at the table. HERE IS THE DOUBLE SHOT: IF SIEBERT'S ACE HAD BEEN IN DIAMONDS INSTEAD OF SPADES, 3C WOULD HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT CONTRACT, AND N-S WOULD HAVE PATTED EACH OTHER ON THE BACK FOR ACCURATE BIDDING. FINDING THEY HAVE MISSED A GAME, THEY LOOK AROUND FOR HELP FROM THE TD/AC-- AND GET IT! -- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 6 19:37:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 19:37:08 +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 TAA09587 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 19:37:01 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id KAA11083 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:36:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 97 10:35 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC 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: <33E6749B.674A@popd.ix.netcom.com> Jon Brissman wrote: > I chaired the AC. The players told us that every suit bid over the 1H > opening (other than a raise) showed 4-7 HCP (not support points) and 3+ > card support for opener's suit. The direct raise promised 0-3 HCP with > 3+ card support (ideal for this hand, wouldn't you agree?). The players > were confused by their own methods when explaining them to the AC; they > gave three incompatible versions in testimony. Two incompatible > versions were disclosed at the table: one when first asked, another > before opening lead. Indeed this changes the situation. The actual agreement is *very* close to the first description given at the table (just prior to the 2c/3c choice), so much so that any allegation of damage from MI seems doubtful. However, the adjusted score looks absolutely right since 1S now seems to be a psyche of a conventional bid below 2nt. Although I personally believe the ACBL is wrong to ban these psyches I would expect the AC to uphold the ACBL position and adjust accordingly. Since the psyche is illegal it also seems fair to ignore the fact that West would probably sacrifice in 4H over 3NT when assessing "damage". It's a pity the original write-up didn't make this clear. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 6 23:45:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 23:45:50 +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 XAA10389 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 23:45:44 +1000 Received: from lizard (56k-port4000.ime.net [209.90.195.10]) by ime.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA11911; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970806094648.3327f2fc@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: Mlfrench@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:54 AM 8/6/97 -0400, Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >NOTE THE ILLEGAL TD ACTION, ADJUSTING THE SCORE >ARTIFICIALLY WHEN AN ASSIGNED SCORE (3NT MAKING, >IN THIS CASE) WAS IN ORDER. THIS IN A NATIONALLY RATED >LIFE MASTER PAIRS EVENT! ALSO NOTE THAT EVERYONE'S >NAME IS MENTIONED EXCEPT THAT OF THE TD. WHY ARE >TDs GRANTED ANONYMITY? What situation makes an assigned score appropriate and what situations make an adjusted score appropriate. Is this spelled out in the Laws or may it vary from SO to SO? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 00:20:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 00:20:38 +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 AAA12760 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 00:20:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0713815; 6 Aug 97 15:14 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:13:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970806094648.3327f2fc@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote >At 12:54 AM 8/6/97 -0400, Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > >>NOTE THE ILLEGAL TD ACTION, ADJUSTING THE SCORE >>ARTIFICIALLY WHEN AN ASSIGNED SCORE (3NT MAKING, >>IN THIS CASE) WAS IN ORDER. THIS IN A NATIONALLY RATED >>LIFE MASTER PAIRS EVENT! ALSO NOTE THAT EVERYONE'S >>NAME IS MENTIONED EXCEPT THAT OF THE TD. WHY ARE >>TDs GRANTED ANONYMITY? > >What situation makes an assigned score appropriate and what situations make >an adjusted score appropriate. Is this spelled out in the Laws or may it >vary from SO to SO? It is spelled out in the Laws. Law 12 - Director's Discretionary Powers C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity, ***no result can be obtained***, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score ... 2. Assigned Score When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score ***in place of a result actually obtained*** after an irregularity, the score is ... If a score was obtained at the table, an assigned adjusted score is awarded. If a score wasn't [the board was cancelled part way through, or never played], an artifical adjusted score is awarded. -- 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 Aug 7 01:19:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 01:19:53 +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 BAA13086 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 01:19:46 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id LAA04277; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:19:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 11:19:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708061519.LAA18720@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: timg@ime.net CC: Mlfrench@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19970806094648.3327f2fc@ime.net> (message from Tim Goodwin on Wed, 6 Aug 1997 09:45:32 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > At 12:54 AM 8/6/97 -0400, Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >> NOTE THE ILLEGAL TD ACTION, ADJUSTING THE SCORE >> ARTIFICIALLY WHEN AN ASSIGNED SCORE (3NT MAKING, >> IN THIS CASE) WAS IN ORDER. THIS IN A NATIONALLY RATED >> LIFE MASTER PAIRS EVENT! ALSO NOTE THAT EVERYONE'S >> NAME IS MENTIONED EXCEPT THAT OF THE TD. WHY ARE >> TDs GRANTED ANONYMITY? > What situation makes an assigned score appropriate and what situations make > an adjusted score appropriate. Is this spelled out in the Laws or may it > vary from SO to SO? 12C. Awarding an Adjusted Score [1987 Laws] 1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: 40% of the available matchpoints (``average minus'') to a contestant directly at fault; 50% (``average'') to a contestant only partially at fault; at least 60% (``average plus'') to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. 2. Assigned Score When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred, or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance, and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. Average-plus should be awarded only when it is impossible to determine a likely result; this usually happens when a board becomes unplayable before the auction starts, although it can also occur when the following auction is too complex to determine. In the hand under discussion, the Director should rule that it was or wasn't likely that the non-offenders would reach 3NT without the misinformation, and that it was or wasn't likely there would be a 4H sacrifice, and that 4H would be likely to go down one or two. The report says that the Director didn't even make the ruling at the table, so he had time to consider the rules and decide what was likely. He could have ruled +600/-600, or +300/-600, or +130/-600, or +130/-130; any of these might be appealed, but all are valid rulings. A+/A- is not, and could have been appealed by both sides as a matter of procedure. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page) Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 03:43:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 03:43:46 +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 DAA13976 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 03:43:38 +1000 Received: from msd.mindspring.com (ip72.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.72]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA06953 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708061743.NAA06953@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 13:42:41 -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: Tim West-meads > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC > Date: Wednesday, August 06, 1997 6:00 AM > > In-Reply-To: <33E6749B.674A@popd.ix.netcom.com> > Jon Brissman wrote: > > I chaired the AC. The players told us that every suit bid over the 1H > > opening (other than a raise) showed 4-7 HCP (not support points) and 3+ > > card support for opener's suit. The direct raise promised 0-3 HCP with > > 3+ card support (ideal for this hand, wouldn't you agree?). The players > > were confused by their own methods when explaining them to the AC; they > > gave three incompatible versions in testimony. Two incompatible > > versions were disclosed at the table: one when first asked, another > > before opening lead. > Indeed this changes the situation. The actual agreement is *very* close > to the first description given at the table (just prior to the 2c/3c > choice), so much so that any allegation of damage from MI seems doubtful. > > However, the adjusted score looks absolutely right since 1S now seems to > be a psyche of a conventional bid below 2nt. Although I personally > believe the ACBL is wrong to ban these psyches I would expect the AC to > uphold the ACBL position and adjust accordingly. Since the psyche is > illegal it also seems fair to ignore the fact that West would probably > sacrifice in 4H over 3NT when assessing "damage". Based on the information provided so far, there is no basis whatsoever for categorizing 1S as a psyche. By all the evidence presented, especially the comments of Mr. Brissman, the players were clearly confused about their methods. The 1S bid may have been an error given their system, but no foundation exists for judging it as a deliberate attempt to substantially distort either values or shape, which is the usual defining criterion for a psyche. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 03:52:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 03:52:58 +1000 Received: from ipac.net (ipac.net [204.51.1.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14042 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 03:52:50 +1000 Received: from d2.ikos.com (d2.ikos.com [149.172.200.202]) by ipac.net (8.6.12/smh-1.1/IPAC) with ESMTP id KAA21243 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:54:53 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA06672; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 10:52:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199708061752.KAA06672@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deep waters Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue Aug 5 09:48 PDT 1997 > > > From: "David Burn" > > Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask my > > opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding...? IMHO... One would be a fool to believe that there are championship levels at which misunderstandings never occur. That does not translate to duty, quite. You may choose not to ask, at your own risk, since you may not want to expose your partner to UI. But you must not expect protection from your opponents' misunderstandings, per se. And while you may hope for "protection from misinformation", you should understand that the term "protection" pertains to adjustment for damage, which can only apply when there was damage. And that "misinformation" pertains only to your opponents' explanations of actual agreements (express and implied), not to how they hope their partner will interpret some given call, nor to how you assume they interpreted their partner's call. (They should take care not to describe their assumptions, since you would be likely to mistake it as a description of an implied agreement.) With screens, when there is a misunderstanding, there are three likely reasons: (1) The bidder has forgotten the agreement. In this case, the explanation from the bidder is likely to be closer rather than further from fitting his actual hand, so damage is unlikely except through secondary effects, such as your reasonable reliance upon your partner having received the same explanation. If your appeal relies on this possibility, you should explain how you were damaged. (2) The bidder's partner has forgotten the agreement. Here there is a substantial risk of misinformation to one opponent, but bidder's partner is also likely to err, so damage must be measured on a case-by-case basis. (3) There is no agreement. If an opponent reopens, the partnership has every opportunity to recover, even to reach a making grand slam in a new suit. Consequences for the opponents: If you suspect a misunderstanding, reopen at your own risk. If your complaint is that you received differing explanations, show how the difference damaged you, rather than whining about what-ifs based on which way the screen was placed. > [From Steve Willner] > (The above supposes, as most commentators have, that we will deem the > true agreement to be "no agreement." While I have no reason to suspect > that the pair in question have any agreement in such an unlikely > auction, L75 requires *evidence* for us to rule on that basis. So far, > I haven't seen reference to that evidence, but I'm not asserting that > it doesn't exist.) The prima facie evidence that there was no agreement is in the cards. North plainly did not intend 4S as a suggested contract, while South evidently believed that 4S did suggest itself as a contract. Does anyone expect more evidence than that? Absent post-mortem confession that there was a (forgotten) agreement, or that someone made their call inadvertantly, isn't a misunderstanding of this sort sufficient evidence that their agreement was "no agreement?" I don't expect "no agreement" to appear on their CC or in their system notes. Have there been misinformation cases in which this kind of evidence would unfairly lead to a conclusion that there was no agreement? Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 05:06:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:06:33 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA14320 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:06:26 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA07927 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:06:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA19307; Wed, 6 Aug 97 14:06:22 CDT Message-Id: <9708061906.AA19307@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 97 14:06 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Committee-proof your bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is ACBL NABC Appeals Case Four. > From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com (Chyah Burghard) > Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge > Subject: ACBL ABQ NABC 7/30/97 > > APPEALS COMMITTEE DECISIONS > > CASE FOUR > Subject: Tempo > Event: Bracketed KO, 26 July 97, Afternoon Session > > Board: 17 S JT8 > Dealer: North H A432 > Vul: None D AJT7 > C 53 > S 76532 S AKQ94 > H 9 H 86 > D K986 D 5 > C A87 C KQ642 > S --- > H KQJT75 > D Q432 > C JT9 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > - Pass 1S 2H > 4S 5H 5S Pass > Pass Dbl(1) Pass 6H > Dbl All Pass > > (1) Break in tempo > ----------------------------------------------------------- > The Facts: > > 6H doubled went down two, plus 300 for E/W. At North's > third turn to bid, he considered his alternatives for 15-25 > seconds before doubling. The players all agreed to the > length of the break in tempo. East called the Director > immediately after North doubled. > > After establishing the facts, the Director allowed play to > continue. At the completion of play, E/W called the > Director and asked him to determine if pass was a logical > alternative to the 6H bid. > > After consulting with other Directors, the Director > returned and ruled that pass was a logical alternative. The > decision to bid 6H may have been influenced by the length > of time that elapsed prior to the double. The Director > changed the contract to 5S doubled made five, plus 650 for > E/W. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > The Appeal: > > N/S appealed the Director's ruling. All four players > appeared before the Committee. South explained that their > partnership agreement was to play intermediate strength > jump overcalls. He stated he had to make a simple overcall > with his possibly defenseless hand. South noted his partner > was a passed hand and North made no five-level cuebid to > show a strong raise to 5H. Since South judged that it was > unlikely that North had three defensive tricks, he deemed > it prudent to pull the double. > > E/W stated that South's hand may not be defenseless, and > that South may have considered passing had North doubled in > tempo. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > The Committee Decision: > > The Committee conceded that South's arguments were > thoughtful and well reasoned, yet fell short of persuasive. > On the actual hand, if East's red suits were reversed, > passing the double would have been the winning action. > > Since passing was a logical alternative for South, the > likely result of that contract was assigned. The Committee > changed the contract to 5S doubled made five, plus 650 for > E/W. > > There was no sentiment among the Committee members that > South had unethically taken advantage of the unauthorized > information transmitted by North's hesitation. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Chair: Jon Brissman > Committee Members: Mark Bartusek, Dave Treadwell > =========================================================== It looks like South chose the wrong bid -- he should bid 6D instead of 6H. I don't know how North would interpret this bid -- the whole point behind this bid is that it is meaningless! Seriously, after 6D, no one can argue that South chose a call that was "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. I am assuming that South is behaving ethically, and that he honestly feels that a 6H bid is acceptable -- that is, it will not be overruled by an AC. My 6D suggestion allows for the possibility that an AC just might disagree with his conclusion about 6H. Comments? -- Barry Wolk | pi r^2 Dept of Mathematics | That is wrong. University of Manitoba | Cakes are square. Winnipeg Manitoba Canada | Pie are round. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 05:40:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:40:59 +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 FAA14443 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:40:53 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29234; 6 Aug 97 12:40 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Aug 1997 14:06:00 PDT." <9708061906.AA19307@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 12:40:05 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9708061240.aa29234@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Here is ACBL NABC Appeals Case Four. > > > From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com (Chyah Burghard) > > Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge > > Subject: ACBL ABQ NABC 7/30/97 > > > > APPEALS COMMITTEE DECISIONS > > > > CASE FOUR > > Subject: Tempo > > Event: Bracketed KO, 26 July 97, Afternoon Session > > > > Board: 17 S JT8 > > Dealer: North H A432 > > Vul: None D AJT7 > > C 53 > > S 76532 S AKQ94 > > H 9 H 86 > > D K986 D 5 > > C A87 C KQ642 > > S --- > > H KQJT75 > > D Q432 > > C JT9 > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > - Pass 1S 2H > > 4S 5H 5S Pass > > Pass Dbl(1) Pass 6H > > Dbl All Pass > > > > (1) Break in tempo > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > The Facts: > > > > 6H doubled went down two, plus 300 for E/W. At North's > > third turn to bid, he considered his alternatives for 15-25 > > seconds before doubling. The players all agreed to the > > length of the break in tempo. East called the Director > > immediately after North doubled. > > > > . . . The Director changed the contract to 5S doubled made five, > > plus 650 for E/W. > > > > . . . The Committee changed the contract to 5S doubled made five, > > plus 650 for E/W. > > It looks like South chose the wrong bid -- he should bid 6D > instead of 6H. I don't know how North would interpret this bid > -- the whole point behind this bid is that it is meaningless! > Seriously, after 6D, no one can argue that South chose a call > that was "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. I don't agree with the last sentence at all. It is certainly sensible to argue that passing is a logical alternative, and that PULLING THE DOUBLE is an action suggested by the unauthorized information--regardless of what you bid you choose to pull the double to. If 6H cannot be allowed because of the unauthorized information, then IMHO *no* bid can be allowed, for the same reasons. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 05:42:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:42:32 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA14461 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 05:42:26 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA10230 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09255; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:42:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 15:42:31 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708061942.PAA09255@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Barry Wolk > Seriously, after 6D, no one can argue that South chose a call > that was "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. Sorry, I don't think this helps. L16A says "suggested over another." The committee ruled that the UI suggests pulling the double, i.e. any bid is suggested over pass. That seems reasonable to me. Given North's initial pass, he can hardly have been thinking about bidding slam on his own. FWIW, I agree with the AC under the current ACBL rules. I'd personally prefer to loosen the rules enough to allow the 6H bid on this hand, and I think it would be allowed in most of the world. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 13:21:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:21:15 +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 NAA15689 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:21:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1424121; 7 Aug 97 4:18 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:27:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) In-Reply-To: <199708061519.LAA18720@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote >You write: >> What situation makes an assigned score appropriate and what situations make >> an adjusted score appropriate. Is this spelled out in the Laws or may it >> vary from SO to SO? >12C. Awarding an Adjusted Score [1987 Laws] > >1. Artificial Score >When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, [s] >2. Assigned Score >When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result >actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, [s] >Average-plus should be awarded only when it is impossible to determine a >likely result; this usually happens when a board becomes unplayable >before the auction starts, although it can also occur when the following >auction is too complex to determine. The Law does not permit this last bit! Also, it is basically an excuse for laziness. If there is a result, then the adjusted score must be assigned, and there is *no* provision *whatever* for shifting to an artificial score because "the following auction is too complex to determine". Added to which, it just isn't true. It is just an excuse for total laziness. If you look at any of the auctions where an artificial score was awarded, they aren't difficult for a Director: he does not need to consider the most likely auction, after all: he looks for the one most favourable to the NOs. At first sight, this ruling under L12C1 illegally is just incompetent Tournament Direction. Sadly, I believe it may be worse than that: it seems not impossible to me that the ACBL has trained their TDs to rule illegally. If anyone would like to post a hand where they consider I am wrong, and an assigned score is not possible, please do so. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 13:24:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:24:34 +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 NAA15720 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:24:27 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0608646; 7 Aug 97 4:18 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 02:33:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids In-Reply-To: <9708061906.AA19307@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk wrote >It looks like South chose the wrong bid -- he should bid 6D >instead of 6H. I don't know how North would interpret this bid >-- the whole point behind this bid is that it is meaningless! >Seriously, after 6D, no one can argue that South chose a call >that was "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. > >I am assuming that South is behaving ethically, and that he >honestly feels that a 6H bid is acceptable -- that is, it will not >be overruled by an AC. My 6D suggestion allows for the possibility >that an AC just might disagree with his conclusion about 6H. > >Comments? No South who bids 6D specifically for that reason can possibly believe he is behaving ethically. I am always fighting against using the word "cheat", but if South bids 6D specifically to fox an AC, then he is a cheat, and he knows it. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 21:27:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:27:11 +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 VAA16865 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:27:04 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-462.innet.be [194.7.14.162]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA09111 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:26:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33E9AC65.15DBB93D@innet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 12:07:17 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199708061942.PAA09255@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > FWIW, I agree with the AC under the current ACBL rules. I'd > personally > prefer to loosen the rules enough to allow the 6H bid on this hand, > and > I think it would be allowed in most of the world. What do you mean, Steve ? Do the ACBL use other laws from the rest of the world ? (apart from these few months ?) I don't think that this ruling would be any different in the rest of the world. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 7 23:05:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 23:05:22 +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 XAA17206 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 23:05:15 +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 JAA09940 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:05:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970807090601.006ab670@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 09:06:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids In-Reply-To: <33E9AC65.15DBB93D@innet.be> References: <199708061942.PAA09255@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:07 PM 8/7/97 +0000, Herman wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> FWIW, I agree with the AC under the current ACBL rules. I'd >> personally >> prefer to loosen the rules enough to allow the 6H bid on this hand, >> and >> I think it would be allowed in most of the world. > >What do you mean, Steve ? > >Do the ACBL use other laws from the rest of the world ? >(apart from these few months ?) >I don't think that this ruling would be any different in the rest of the >world. The ACBL doesn't use different Laws, but is notorious for interpreting the Laws we've got differently from the rest of the world. From previous discussions on BLML, it's clear that ACBL TDs/ACs rule very differently in many UI situations. The difference is in their interpretation of the phrase "logical alternative", which, according to the ACBL, is any call which any of the (allegedly offending) player's peers might have considered. My understanding is that most of the rest of the world interprets "logical alternative" a bit less stringently, requiring that an LA be a call which at least some of the player's peers would actually choose. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 02:20:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:20:46 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA20560 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:20:39 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA22323 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09550; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:20:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:20:47 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708071620.MAA09550@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If there is a result, then the adjusted score must > be assigned, and there is *no* provision *whatever* for shifting to an > artificial score because "the following auction is too complex to > determine". Based on his editorial in the "poor Eddie Kantar" case, it would appear that Mr. Kaplan disagrees or at least did in the past. The AC in that case assigned an artificial score (3 IMPs to the NO's) on the basis that they couldn't tell what the result would have been absent the infraction. Kaplan thought this was a poor ruling -- he thought the likely result was fairly obvious -- but not an illegal one. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 02:53:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:53:09 +1000 Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA20639 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:53:03 +1000 From: lobo@ac.net Received: from ptp88.ac.net (ptp88.ac.net [205.138.54.190]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA03856 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33E9FCDC.39D9@ac.net> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 12:50:36 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just a couple points to continue to beat what may be a dead horse to death: 1. Just want to point out that it was East/West that appealed this Director's ruling. IMHO, some of the comments I have read seem to be from the viewpoint that N/S appealed the Director's ruling. 2. Apparantly psyching the 1S response is legal. I have been told that the ACBL General Chart does not allow the psych, but the Mid-Chart does. This was an NABC event, so the mid-chart was in effect. The write-up will be clarified before the cases are sent out to experts for commentary for the Appeals Casebook. (Yes, there will still be Casebooks, San Fancisco is being worked on now) The AC made this statement because the Director told them that the psych was illegal. 3. I am a little suprised that no comment has been about the timing of the Director call. Could not West have the diamond King? The Director was not called until after the dummy was put down. Linda Weinstein NABC Appeals Committee Scribe From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 03:23:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 03:23:00 +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 DAA20701 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 03:22:50 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1424977; 7 Aug 97 18:15 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:07:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids In-Reply-To: <33E9AC65.15DBB93D@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> FWIW, I agree with the AC under the current ACBL rules. I'd >> personally >> prefer to loosen the rules enough to allow the 6H bid on this hand, >> and >> I think it would be allowed in most of the world. > >What do you mean, Steve ? > >Do the ACBL use other laws from the rest of the world ? >(apart from these few months ?) >I don't think that this ruling would be any different in the rest of the >world. > C'mon, Herman, he said rules, not laws. The ACBL rule as to what constitutes an LA *is* different from the RoW rule. As a matter of *judgement*, I agree with your last sentence, but that is because, despite differing standards for LAs, I believe pass to be an LA in either jurisdiction. -- 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 Aug 8 03:40:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 03:40:09 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20751 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 03:40:02 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA10997 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:39:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: New EBU licensing levels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > > In another thread the question of EBU licensing levels has been raised. > We have a problem IMO so perhaps BLML could help. We appear to be going > to have five levels. There seems quite a surge of opinion towards > calling them Level One, Level Two, .... I believe this will confuse and > if decent names are thought of then they would be better. The trouble > is that neither I nor anyone who agrees can think of suitable names. > Has anyone out there any suggestions? The levels are roughly as > follows: > > Level One For beginners and novices > Only very simple Acol permitted > Currently called Simple Systems > Level Two For clubs where people worry about what their opponents > play and for very simple local competitions > Acol, Precision, Strong Clubs but no Multi, Romex, > Vienna: Blue Club only if simplified > A new level [allowing much more than the current Next > Step system] > Level Three For normal clubs and most pairs competitions > Acol, Precision, Strong Clubs, Blue Club, Romex, Vienna, > a wide variety of well-known conventions > Currently called General Licence > Level Four For clubs where the game develops and most competitions > with eight boards against the same opponent > Either/or clubs [like AUC, Power, Carrot] plus many more > conventions, especially amongst opening two/three bids; > many Multi-type openings; transfer overcalls > Currently called Restricted Licence > Level five For competitions that are international in type > WBF or EBL rules, with Level Four conventions as well > Allowing rather more than Experimental Licence but > without HUMs probably, which some Experimental Licence > systems include > Since I seem to have triggered David's request, I suppose I should try to provide some names :-) Level 1 -- Simple System Level 2 -- Basic Systems Level 3 -- "Normal" Systems Level 4 -- Advanced/Team Systems Level 5 -- WBF Style Competition Systems (Cut-throat systems ;-) ) The main problem I have with my own nomenclature is Level 4, because the EBU seems to run a lot of Swiss Pairs competitions, and I assume that Level 4 is what is normally allowed for those. I think the quotes on the level 3 name are necessary. -- Richard Lighton | You should play the game for fun. The instant you find (lighton@idt.net) | yourself playing for any other reason, you should rack Wood-Ridge NJ | it up and go on to something else. USA | -- Charles Goren From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 03:51:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 03:51:54 +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 DAA20773 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 03:51:48 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id NAA22399; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:51:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:51:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708071751.NAA02239@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199708071620.MAA09550@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > From: David Stevenson >> If there is a result, then the adjusted score must >> be assigned, and there is *no* provision *whatever* for shifting to an >> artificial score because "the following auction is too complex to >> determine". > Based on his editorial in the "poor Eddie Kantar" case, it would appear > that Mr. Kaplan disagrees or at least did in the past. The AC in that > case assigned an artificial score (3 IMPs to the NO's) on the basis > that they couldn't tell what the result would have been absent the > infraction. Kaplan thought this was a poor ruling -- he thought the > likely result was fairly obvious -- but not an illegal one. And in one of his "Appeals Committee" columns in the Bridge World, Kaplan gives examples of possible rulings. One of the examples is, "Since we have no idea what would have happened without the infraction, we will award N-S average-plus and E-W average-minus." This column was written in 1981, but I don't think the relevant Law has changed. David Stevenson also wrote: >> The Law does not permit this last bit [awarding A+/A- when a result >> was obtained at the table]. Also, it is basically an excuse for >> laziness. If there is a result, then the adjusted score must be >> assigned, and there is *no* provision *whatever* for shifting to an >> artificial score because "the following auction is too complex to >> determine". >> Added to which, it just isn't true. It is just an excuse for total >> laziness. If you look at any of the auctions where an artificial score >> was awarded, they aren't difficult for a Director: he does not need to >> consider the most likely auction, after all: he looks for the one most >> favourable to the NOs. I agree with the principle that it is often used an excuse for laziness. In the case which started this discussion, the Director was in position to make a ruling. However, it could be argued that if what happens as a consequence of the infraction has no resemblance to bridge, then whatever happened at the table is not a bridge result. Here's a case from the World Championships in Albuquerque in which an artificial score was considered justified. In the book of appeals decisions, no expert panelist agreed that there was damage but that a result (say 4Sx down two) should have been assigned; some did argue that there had been no damage and only a procedural penalty should be imposed. Appeal report #29 Rosenblum Cup Teams semifinal, third quarter Chairman: Jaime Ortiz-Patino Members present: Edgar Kaplan, Mazhar Jafri, Tommy Sandsmark Scribe: Grattan Endicott Board 1 NORTH Love All 4 Dealer North A Q 10 9 6 3 2 10 5 A 5 3 WEST EAST Q J 9 6 2 K 8 5 3 J 7 5 4 6 A Q J 9 8 7 K 10 8 7 6 2 SOUTH A 10 7 K 8 K 4 3 2 Q J 9 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH P 1H 1NT 3NT 4S 5H All Pass THE RESULT East led the DA. North went down one in 5H. THE DIRECTOR The director's attention was drawn to the fact that the East-West pair were playing a convention (the 1NT overcall) not shown on the convention card and against which opponents had no opportunity to prepare a defense. On the board which caused the director to be called, he canceled the result and awarded a 3-IMP swing in favor of North-South. An earlier board against a different pair was identified on which the same unregistered convention was used. Again, the board was canceled and 3 IMPs awarded. The director asked the Appeals Committee to review the facts. THE PLAYERS The players assured that that careful explanations were given and were referring to a different convention card for that purpose. They explained the circumstances in which a convention card had been lodged which did not show their methods correctly -- the card had been made out in a hurry by a third party when they found on arrival at the tournament that the card understood to have been sent by their national bridge organization had not been received. THE COMMITTEE The committee noted that the pair are extremely experienced and can be expected to know their responsibilities. They cannot be excused the grave breach of the conditions of contest. COMMITTEE'S DECISION This pair must play the methods on the convention card officially registered. They are barred from playing in the final segment of the semifinal of the Rosenblum Cup Teams. The score of 3 IMPs to North-South on each of the two boards is confirmed. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page) 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 Aug 8 05:25:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 05:25:49 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21146 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 05:25:44 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA13667 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 14:25:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA24576; Thu, 7 Aug 97 14:25:41 CDT Message-Id: <9708071925.AA24576@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 97 14:25 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu(Steve Willner) > > > From: Barry Wolk > > Seriously, after 6D, no one can argue that South chose a call > > that was "demonstrably suggested" by the hesitation. > > Sorry, I don't think this helps. L16A says "suggested over another." > The committee ruled that the UI suggests pulling the double, i.e. any > bid is suggested over pass. That seems reasonable to me. Given > North's initial pass, he can hardly have been thinking about bidding > slam on his own. > > FWIW, I agree with the AC under the current ACBL rules. I'd personally > prefer to loosen the rules enough to allow the 6H bid on this hand, and > I think it would be allowed in most of the world. Here is the original hand, which got snipped. > Event: Bracketed KO, 26 July 97, Afternoon Session > > Board: 17 S JT8 > Dealer: North H A432 > Vul: None D AJT7 > C 53 > S 76532 S AKQ94 > H 9 H 86 > D K986 D 5 > C A87 C KQ642 > S --- > H KQJT75 > D Q432 > C JT9 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > - Pass 1S 2H > 4S 5H 5S Pass > Pass Dbl(1) Pass 6H > Dbl All Pass > > (1) Break in tempo > ----------------------------------------------------------- > The Facts: > > 6H doubled went down two, plus 300 for E/W. At North's > third turn to bid, he considered his alternatives for 15-25 > seconds before doubling. The players all agreed to the > length of the break in tempo. East called the Director > immediately after North doubled. The TD/AC ruling was NS -650 in a contract of 5Sx. It seems that I didn't come close to making the point I intended. So I'll try again. What is the definition of "logical alternative"? Do we have an official source to answer this? Past discussions in BLML show that this varies by region and over time. I will use: A call that would be made/considered by at least xx% of a player's peers in that situation. Choose your own value for xx. However, "in that situation" means when solving a bidding problem with the same hand and the same auction, but without the UI. In the original hand, a bid of 6D is nonsensical, with no bridge purpose to it. Similarly, bids of 5NT and 7H are ridiculous -- no one answering this bidding problem would even consider such a call. So 6D, 5NT and 7H are not LAs, by the definition of that term. However, this bidding problem is not the situation South faced. He knows he has received UI, and is trying to cope with the consequences of L16. In his case, there is a purpose to him bidding 7H -- it improves his score to -500, from the -650 that the AC gave him after his 6H call. And a 6D or 5NT bid does even better, leading to -300 if my reasoning is sound. Even though South can deduce that he should make a certain call, that reasoning does not necessarily mean that the call he makes is a LA. The situation with the UI that South faced is different from the non-UI bidding problem that determines which calls are LAs. Finally, if South chooses a call that is not a LA, then L16 does not apply. That is why I originally suggested that he make a call that looks nonsensical. Now that I've explained my position more fully, I will again ask for comments. Is there a mistake somewhere in my reasoning? I do not like the conclusion that it leads to, as it allows unethical players to bypass L16A in similar situations -- it is usually easy to find a nonsensical call, and then argue that it is not a LA. Or am I the only one devious enough to think of this ploy? -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 05:52:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 05:52:46 +1000 Received: from ipac.net (ipac.net [204.51.1.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21248 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 05:52:40 +1000 Received: from d2.ikos.com (d2.ikos.com [149.172.200.202]) by ipac.net (8.6.12/smh-1.1/IPAC) with ESMTP id MAA06939 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:54:37 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA12639; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:52:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199708071952.MAA12639@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New EBU licensing levels Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My humble suggestions... 1. Novice Bidding 2. Popular Bidding 3. General Bidding 4. Extended Bidding 5. International Bidding I suggest that longer descriptions would be too unwieldy; that Level, Licence, Chart, Systems, etc., are essentially buzzwords conveying less value to the newcomer than I would hope for the word Bidding; that convenient, common sense, and unambiguous* names are likely most conducive to attracting and retaining new players. I recognize that my suggestions contain substantial ambiguity, but I hope they compensate by sensibly associating with their intended arenas. Everett Boyer * (unlike Restricted Licence, e.g.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 06:40:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 06:40:47 +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 GAA21395 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 06:40:42 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id QAA27861; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708072040.QAA02667@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: wolk@ccm.UManitoba.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9708071925.AA24576@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> (message from Barry Wolk on Thu, 07 Aug 97 14:25 CDT) Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk writes: > Steve WIllner writes: >> The committee ruled that the UI suggests pulling the double, i.e. any >> bid is suggested over pass. That seems reasonable to me. Given >> North's initial pass, he can hardly have been thinking about bidding >> slam on his own. > from the non-UI bidding problem that determines which calls are LAs. > Finally, if South chooses a call that is not a LA, then L16 does > not apply. That is why I originally suggested that he make a call > that looks nonsensical. This may be a flaw in the letter of the Laws. It should say, "a player may not choose any action which is demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information." That is, it is irrelevant whether South's choice to pull the double was a logical bid, provided that pulling the double was suggested over passing by the UI, and passing was a logical bid. There are many cases in which a bid is not logical without the UI; the committee always adjusts in such cases, and often tacks on a penalty. But I would expect a committee to rule along these lines in case of a bid which is still illogical with the UI. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page) 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 Aug 8 07:03:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:03:15 +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 HAA21447 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:03:08 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1521236; 7 Aug 97 21:51 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:48:23 +0100 To: Richard Lighton Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Richard Lighton writes > >On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, B&S wrote: >> >> Please register my vote as siding with David. >> (cut)... >Richard Lighton now states: ...cut... >Second, it's time to hassle another organization. > >In its two lowest levels of convention regulation (Simple an Next Step >systems) the EBU restricts opening 1NT to the range 12-18 (in simple >system events, to a 3 point range within that). As I recall, but I >can't find my Orange Book, you can't have a sub-10 point notrump at >any level of EBU competition. What say you, David? (Stevenson or Burn) > Labeo: O.K. You are not far out, Richard, with what you are saying, although it is not altogether the best time to raise it since the EBU is in the throes of settling revised regulations. But it is anticipated these will incorporate features of the kind. Here is twopennyworth (just over 3 US cents) on the subject: 1. In my opinion national authorities should have the power to regulate system within their territories. 2. Since the law-givers have not yet been so enlightened as to give the power explicitly in the laws, I deem it fair for these authorities to make use of any powers they do have under the laws to achieve their purpose of placing limits around system for the benefit of their members. 3. There are democratic means to remove the members of the regulating body in England, and I presume in other places too. If most members of the subscribed bridge population in a nation disagree with the manner in which the game is regulated they have a clear remedy. It follows that where a national authority has gone down the route under attack and the members of its regulatory committee have not been voted out of office, one is entitled to draw the conclusion that the majority of the rank and file are content. This would be my expectation since I believe the silent majority are players who broadly want some limitation put upon what they regard as excess, or at least an inconvenience to the game, and that they are entitled to it. 4. In regard to what is the case in the ACBL I have endeavoured throughout to stay with principle and history, avoiding judgemental language. I believe it is for its own players to judge whether what is happening is desirable and that our external opinion is not of great importance for the ACBL situation. As for the approach of my own national authority to this question, as far as I understand what it has in train I approve of what it is doing. 5. Finally, as to 'hassle' I think I may well have now succeeded in decoying the slinger's stone away from the English Bridge Union to the more fugacious target of my person! Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 07:11:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:11:30 +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 HAA21472 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 07:11:24 +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 RAA29854 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 17:11:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09718; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 17:11:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 17:11:33 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708072111.RAA09718@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Barry Wolk > Finally, if South chooses a call that is not a LA, then L16 does > not apply. That is why I originally suggested that he make a call > that looks nonsensical. ... > I do not like the conclusion that it leads to, as it allows unethical > players to bypass L16A in similar situations -- it is usually easy to > find a nonsensical call, and then argue that it is not a LA. Fortunately, the rules do not allow such sharp practice. Consider the following: I open 1NT, partner bids 2NT invitational, and I'm considering whether to bid 3NT or pass. Let's stipulate that both are LA's. Suddenly partner blurts out "Omigosh! I didn't see all those aces. Bid 6NT." Surely no one will claim 6NT is a LA, but I doubt anyone will claim it is or should be legal. (Nor is 3NT legal for that matter, since it was suggested over pass.) One answer is to read L16 as David G. rephrases it. I think that's reasonable and a good suggestion for the next Laws revision. Another is to apply L73C. Bidding 6NT is now a conduct offense, and of course the TD will adjust the score under L12A1 even if not under L16. This seems about right to me. L16 applies when someone picks the wrong LA, having judged incorrectly about LA's or what action was suggested. L73 applies when an action that could _only_ have been suggested by UI is chosen, a flagrant foul, as it were. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 08:39:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 08:39:20 +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 IAA21663 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 08:39:13 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0602414; 7 Aug 97 23:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 23:31:00 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score In-Reply-To: <199708071620.MAA09550@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199708071620.MAA09550@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> If there is a result, then the adjusted score must >> be assigned, and there is *no* provision *whatever* for shifting to an >> artificial score because "the following auction is too complex to >> determine". > >Based on his editorial in the "poor Eddie Kantar" case, it would appear >that Mr. Kaplan disagrees or at least did in the past. The AC in that >case assigned an artificial score (3 IMPs to the NO's) on the basis >that they couldn't tell what the result would have been absent the >infraction. Kaplan thought this was a poor ruling -- he thought the >likely result was fairly obvious -- but not an illegal one. Labeo: There is no doubt that a difference of philosophy did grow up between ACBL practice and European practice. This was noticeable to the European when encountering international procedure in which for a period ACBL influence was especially strong. It is open to question where we are today. I am not sure David S. is 100% right; he is right in regard to the basic position but an Appeal Committee can award an artificial adjusted score (perhaps we should say 'what looks like an artificial adjusted score') in place of an assigned adjusted score simply because it believes [Law 12C3] it is the equitable thing to do. The phrase "do equity" should be noted in this law; it establishes that the motivation for a variation of the assigned score is the opinion of the AC that its action is equitable even if an absolute restoration of equity is beyond it. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 11:24:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:24:13 +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 LAA22139 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:24:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1018975; 8 Aug 97 2:20 BST Message-ID: <4KQlmbAN$m6zEwjT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:01:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote >In message <199708071620.MAA09550@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>> From: David Stevenson >>> If there is a result, then the adjusted score must >>> be assigned, and there is *no* provision *whatever* for shifting to an >>> artificial score because "the following auction is too complex to >>> determine". >> >>Based on his editorial in the "poor Eddie Kantar" case, it would appear >>that Mr. Kaplan disagrees or at least did in the past. The AC in that >>case assigned an artificial score (3 IMPs to the NO's) on the basis >>that they couldn't tell what the result would have been absent the >>infraction. Kaplan thought this was a poor ruling -- he thought the >>likely result was fairly obvious -- but not an illegal one. > >Labeo: > There is no doubt that a difference of philosophy did grow up >between ACBL practice and European practice. This was noticeable to >the European when encountering international procedure in which for >a period ACBL influence was especially strong. It is open to question >where we are today. > I am not sure David S. is 100% right; he is right in regard >to the basic position but an Appeal Committee can award an artificial >adjusted score (perhaps we should say 'what looks like an artificial >adjusted score') in place of an assigned adjusted score simply because >it believes [Law 12C3] it is the equitable thing to do. The phrase >"do equity" should be noted in this law; it establishes that the >motivation for a variation of the assigned score is the opinion >of the AC that its action is equitable even if an absolute >restoration of equity is beyond it. I have been careful to refer to the TD when I say that L12C1 should not be used. Except in NAmerica, L12C3 certainly allows an AC to award an artificial score [or, for that matter *any* other score] if they feel it is equitable. The rulings that I have seen by ACs in NAmerica suggest that they use L12C3 [and its 1987 predecessor, the L12C2 footnote] even though it is not accepted by the ACBL. I approve of a practical approach, and if equity is clearly going to be reached by using A+A- then I do not mind its use. But I think it is important to *know* what is and is not legal. Having seem a NAmerican AC report where the choice appeared to be between 4S making [a 100% score] or 4S-1 [an 85% score], and the AC gave A+A-, *saying* it was because they could not decide what score to assign, I merely think we should tread very carefully around this Law rather than trample over 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 Aug 8 11:24:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:24:45 +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 LAA22146 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 11:24:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1527013; 8 Aug 97 2:19 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 01:11:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Committee-proof your bids In-Reply-To: <9708071925.AA24576@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk wrote >What is the definition of "logical alternative"? Do we have an >official source to answer this? Past discussions in BLML show >that this varies by region and over time. I will use: > A call that would be made/considered by at least > xx% of a player's peers in that situation. >Choose your own value for xx. An LA in NAmerica is a call that would be at least considered by some of the players' peers [players of SS+SSS+S]. An LA in the RoW is a call that would be found by at least one in four of the players' peers [players of SS+SSS+S]. SS+SSS+S = a similar standard and strength playing a similar system and style. It appears that the Netherlands adopt the NAmerican approach. Great Britain has a slightly higher percentage: say 30% rather than 25%. >Now that I've explained my position more fully, I will again ask >for comments. Is there a mistake somewhere in my reasoning? I do >not like the conclusion that it leads to, as it allows unethical >players to bypass L16A in similar situations -- it is usually easy >to find a nonsensical call, and then argue that it is not a LA. Or >am I the only one devious enough to think of this ploy? My previous comments stand. -- 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 Aug 8 16:26:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:26:29 +1000 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22762 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:26:22 +1000 From: DBlizzard@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id CAA07319; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970808022546_-2108482016@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: lobo@ac.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-08-07 12:57:39 EDT, lobo@ac.net writes: << 2. Apparantly psyching the 1S response is legal. I have been told that the ACBL General Chart does not allow the psych, but the Mid-Chart does. This was an NABC event, so the mid-chart was in effect. The write-up will be clarified before the cases are sent out to experts for commentary for the Appeals Casebook. (Yes, there will still be Casebooks, San Fancisco is being worked on now) The AC made this statement because the Director told them that the psych was illegal. >> According to my copy of all 3 charts, from the ACBL web page, the Midchart disallows "psyching of artificial responses to one-level natural opening bids". From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 16:57:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:57:00 +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 QAA22839 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:56:55 +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 CAA23030 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:56:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970808025613_596594727@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DBlizzard writes: >According to my copy of all 3 charts, from the ACBL web page, the Midchart >disallows "psyching of artificial responses to one-level natural opening bids." Watch out for the ACBL web site material regarding conventions and alerts. Despite numerous promptings by me, it is not up to date. Even the version of the Laws is obsolete. Reason: The publisher must recoup his costs before authorizing the presentation of the 1997 Laws on the ACBL web site. Who is the publisher? The ACBL! Going by the BOD minutes from San Francisco, the updated convention charts, effective 6 March 1997, state on the General Chart that psychs of conventional responses to natural opening bids below the level of 2NT are disallowed. The Mid-Chart eases that restriction by barring psychs of conventional responses to natural opening bids at the one level only. The Super-Chart has no restrictions on such psychs. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 18:45:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:45:07 +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 SAA23138 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:45:00 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA27427 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Fri, 8 Aug 1997 10:43:50 +0200 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 10:43:50 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Everett Boyer Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New EBU licensing levels In-Reply-To: <199708071952.MAA12639@d2.ikos.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Everett Boyer wrote: > > My humble suggestions... > 1. Novice Bidding > 2. Popular Bidding > 3. General Bidding > 4. Extended Bidding > 5. International Bidding > > I suggest that longer descriptions would be too unwieldy; > that Level, Licence, Chart, Systems, etc., are essentially > buzzwords conveying less value to the newcomer than I would > hope for the word Bidding; that convenient, common sense, and > unambiguous* names are likely most conducive to attracting > and retaining new players. > I recognize that my suggestions > contain substantial ambiguity, but I hope they compensate > by sensibly associating with their intended arenas. In a private discussion, David mentioned (and I agree) that the problem is not with the players who bother to read the descriptions, but with the players who DON'T bother to read them but pick the information from others or vague references. The problem with your suggestions (as well as the current "restricted" and "general"), is, IMHO, the ambiguity. For example, can I extend "Novice" bidding and play the resulting system in a "general" event? I suggested to simply number the levels and define them as "Level 2= all of level 1, plus ..." etc. Most players don't seem to have a problem remembering that you can bid 4NT over 3NT, but that you cannot bid 2NT, so hopefully they can remember that a level 2 system can be played in level 3 events but not in level 1 events too. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended.. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 8 21:42:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 21:42:28 +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 VAA23532 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 21:42:19 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id MAA03396 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 12:41:50 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 97 12:41 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws 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: From: Labeo wrote: > Here is twopennyworth (just over 3 US cents) on the I believe you have overvalued your contribution but I just couldn't let this pass. > subject: > 1. In my opinion national authorities should have the power to > regulate system within their territories. And in the opinion of others they should not. > 2. Since the law-givers have not yet been so enlightened as to > give the power explicitly in the laws, I deem it fair for these > authorities to make use of any powers they do have under the laws > to achieve their purpose of placing limits around system for the > benefit of their members. Since the law-givers, in their wisdom, have seen fit to place implicit limits on the regulatory powers of authorities, I deem it unfair that such authorities should seek to avoid these limits. > 3. There are democratic means to remove the members of the regulating > body in England, and I presume in other places too. If most members > of the subscribed bridge population in a nation disagree with the > manner in which the game is regulated they have a clear remedy. It > follows that where a national authority has gone down the route under > attack and the members of its regulatory committee have not been > voted out of office, one is entitled to draw the conclusion that the > majority of the rank and file are content. This would be my > expectation since I believe the silent majority are players who > broadly want some limitation put upon what they regard as excess, > or at least an inconvenience to the game, and that they are entitled > to it. Democracies have a moral obligation to uphold the rights of minorities against the wishes of the majority (they often fail). Democracies are notoriously bad at making necessary long term decisions which may be unpopular in the short term. I cannot be the only member of the EBU who doesn't have a clue about the platorms that various candidates represent (Indeed I don't even know who the candidates are or how to cast a vote). You may legitimately conclude that I am not *sufficiently* discontented to actually find out but it is clearly erroneous to conclude that I am content. How on earth could I successfully campaign for change if I was so motivated. English Bridge is a good magazine, and presents a range of views but I would not expect it to mount a concerted attack on the existing establishment. For those who haven't heard it: Mark Anthony, King Harold, and Napoleon were watching the May Day parade in Moscow. King Harold, watching the passing ICBMs says "Ah, with arrows like that I would have obliterated William". Mark Anthony, watching the tanks, "With armour like that my men would have crushed Caesar". Napoleon, glancing up from his copy of Pravda, "With a newspaper like this no-one would even have heard of Waterloo!." It is extremely dangerous to assign views to the "silent majority" when there is a reasonable possibility that their silence may be due to apathy or ignorance. Of course you could conduct a survey of members' views - just let me know what you want the findings to be and I will construct the questions to deliver them. Apologies for the rant. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 9 04:30:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 04:30:52 +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 EAA27470 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 04:30:42 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1208979; 8 Aug 97 19:16 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCA42A.DCEDB980@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:42:46 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:42:44 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 19 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Stevenson wrote: SNIP > > If a score was obtained at the table, an assigned adjusted score is >awarded. If a score wasn't [the board was cancelled part way through, >or never played], an artifical adjusted score is awarded. > What then is the legal basis of the EBU Supplemental rules which state that following a fielded psyche or the use of an unlicenced convention, the score for the offending side is the lower of their score on the board or 40% and for the non-offenders the higher of their score on the board or 60% (subject to Law 88)? After all, a score of sorts has been obtained on the hand. Also, if memory serves me correctly as I do not have my copy of the Supplement to hand, there is also some advice that suggests that TDs might be forgiven for awarding +3/-3 IMPs in teams matches when the most/least favourable assigned scores likely/at all >probable would involve the award of a notable score. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 9 05:48:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 05:48:26 +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 FAA27787 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 05:48:20 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id PAA27243; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708081948.PAA25449@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <4KQlmbAN$m6zEwjT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Fri, 8 Aug 1997 02:01:01 +0100) Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > I approve of a practical approach, and if equity is clearly going to > be reached by using A+A- then I do not mind its use. But I think it is > important to *know* what is and is not legal. Having seem a NAmerican > AC report where the choice appeared to be between 4S making [a 100% > score] or 4S-1 [an 85% score], and the AC gave A+A-, *saying* it was > because they could not decide what score to assign, I merely think we > should tread very carefully around this Law rather than trample over it. I agree with this. Sometimes a committee will give a score of "Average-plus, but no less than the matchpoints for +100". This is fairer than Average-plus alone, and may be more reasonable than any assigned score if the result could be anything from a likely +100 to +730, but it doesn't seem to have any justification in the Laws other than avoiding penalizing non-offenders. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page) Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 9 06:31:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 06:31:32 +1000 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA27912 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 06:31:27 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA17053 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970808163048_1515642235@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No one seems to share my big objection to artificial scores: They take away from high scores and give to low scores. It's murder to lose an event by .08 matchpoints because your +1400 got you only 11.96 instead of 12, and your opponent on that deal (who ended up beating you instead of tying), got .04 instead of zero. My belief is that an artificially adjusted score is just as much a result as an assigned score. Those who did better should get a full matchpoint, while those who did worse should not be given an undeserved bonus. Following the practice of real estate people, who quote the median price of homes sold as the most representative indicator of the market, I would temporarily assign a score for the pair involved that is equal to the median score (creating one if there is none) of the other pairs. Then, after matchpointing the board, I would adjust the scores of the affected pairs to average +, average -, or whatever is appropriate. Is there no one in BLML who agrees with me? Must I go to RGB to seek support? Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 9 08:03:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 08:03:16 +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 IAA28195 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 08:03:10 +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 SAA22452 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA10218; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:03:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:03:23 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708082203.SAA10218@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Mlfrench@aol.com > No one seems to share my big objection to artificial scores: They take away > from high scores and give to low scores. This is another, perfectly valid, objection. Other reasons to avoid the ArtAS are quite sufficient without this one, but this reason is a good one too. > I would > temporarily assign a score for the pair involved that is equal to the median > score (creating one if there is none) of the other pairs. Then, after > matchpointing the board, I would adjust the scores of the affected pairs to > average +, average -, or whatever is appropriate. What you advocate here is something quite different. Once an ArtAS has been given, how does one calculate the results? There is certainly no clear right/wrong answer to this question. A table has been unable to play the board and achieve a result, and the usual reasons for using Neuberg are fully applicable. (If you like, the situation is equivalent to "the cat ate the scoreslip." Or the caddy dropped the board and all the cards fell out.) There is no good solution, but you have to do something, and Neuberg is arguably the least bad. One could also argue for different formulas, including yours. Still, it seems wrong to give a full top, because there is a chance that the unavailable result would have tied or beaten the top score. While I'd expect some to support your position, it seems to me that Neuberg is best *when the ArtAS was correctly given*. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 9 10:39:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 10:39:11 +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 KAA28537 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 10:39:05 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1307616; 9 Aug 97 1:29 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 01:27:05 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Committee-proof your 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 >Barry Wolk wrote > >>What is the definition of "logical alternative"? Do we have an >>official source to answer this? and David says..... > An LA in NAmerica is a call that would be at least considered by some >of the players' peers [players of SS+SSS+S]. > > An LA in the RoW is a call that would be found by at least one in four >of the players' peers [players of SS+SSS+S]. > > SS+SSS+S = a similar standard and strength playing a similar system >and style. > > It appears that the Netherlands adopt the NAmerican approach. Great >Britain has a slightly higher percentage: say 30% rather than 25%. Barry also remarks....> >>Now that I've explained my position more fully, I will again ask >>for comments. Is there a mistake somewhere in my reasoning? and David responds: > My previous comments stand. Labeo: All of these percentages and criteria stem from the guidance that sponsoring organizations are free to provide to assist the TD. They do not come from the laws and are not an interpretation of the law. They have the status of crutches for those whose judgement has lame legs. 'Logical Alternative' "Alternative": in the auction, a call which could take the place of the selected call. "Logical": characterized by reason; rational; reasonable. Therefore a logical alternative is (IMO, no 'H' David!) a call which has sufficient bridge merit to be argued, even if it is not judged to be best. And if I really wanted to provide a crutch I would think in terms of the number of marks out of ten it might achieve in a bidding quiz. A player who thinks to avoid the law by making a nonsensical call is in difficulty when the TD decides that an alternative call exists, that it is arguably logical, and that it is the action of all actions that is least suggested by the UI. (For example, were this logical alternative to be 'pass' then any bid, double or redouble, including any evident ploy to avoid passing, would be demonstrably suggested more than the pass by the UI.) Could we note please in Law 16A2 that the words are: "..a player who had a logical alternative has chosen an action...." - it does not say "has chosen a logical action". Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 9 10:46:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 10:46:43 +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 KAA28570 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 10:46:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0705962; 9 Aug 97 1:45 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 00:29:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score In-Reply-To: <970808163048_1515642235@emout07.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote >No one seems to share my big objection to artificial scores: They take away >from high scores and give to low scores. It's murder to lose an event by .08 >matchpoints because your +1400 got you only 11.96 instead of 12, and your >opponent on that deal (who ended up beating you instead of tying), got .04 >instead of zero. My belief is that an artificially adjusted score is just as >much a result as an assigned score. Those who did better should get a full >matchpoint, while those who did worse should not be given an undeserved >bonus. We have discussed it before: we do not agree with you. >Following the practice of real estate people, who quote the median price of >homes sold as the most representative indicator of the market, I would >temporarily assign a score for the pair involved that is equal to the median >score (creating one if there is none) of the other pairs. Then, after >matchpointing the board, I would adjust the scores of the affected pairs to >average +, average -, or whatever is appropriate. This is an inappropriate method for dealin with ArtASs. >Is there no one in BLML who agrees with me? Must I go to RGB to seek support? ... and then to Oprah? -- 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 Aug 9 11:00:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:00:48 +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 LAA28635 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:00:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0613982; 9 Aug 97 1:45 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 00:55:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote >Dave Stevenson wrote: >> If a score was obtained at the table, an assigned adjusted score is >>awarded. If a score wasn't [the board was cancelled part way through, >>or never played], an artifical adjusted score is awarded. >What then is the legal basis of the EBU Supplemental rules which state >that following a fielded psyche or the use of an unlicenced convention, >the score for the offending side is the lower of their score on the >board or 40% and for the non-offenders the higher of their score on the >board or 60% (subject to Law 88)? After all, a score of sorts has been >obtained on the hand. Yes, I have been waiting for some time for this to turn up. My main objection to using L12C1 when L12C2 should be applied is not purely legal. It is that I have seen it done in what I believe to be unjustifiable circumstances. As I have said elsewhere, I actually believe in a practical approach to ruling the game, but I think it is important that the Laws are fully understood, on BLML at any rate, and then we can approach actually applying them. I also believe that consistency is desirable. It is true that current EBU practice is to give rulings for fielded psyches and misbids [breaches of L40A] and for playing illegal systems [breaches of L40D] through L12C1 rather than L12C2 despite a result being obtained. I have challenged people to give me examples of hands that are "too difficult" to assign. If I had to answer my own challenge, it would be in the areas of fielded psyches or playing illegal systems, and this I believe to be the rationale behind the EBU's decision. Despite what has been said, I still have not yet seen a hesitation situation where you cannot assign a score: the auction afterwards is usually a simple matter of judgement. However, where a fielded psyche or illegal convention is concerned, it is often the first bid of the auction, and to assign then would mean in effect creating a whole auction, and that might be very difficult. Consistency is also served by this approach. If an illegal system is used in England/Wales, then the board is played out, and it is scored as A+A- unless the NOs got >60%. The same applies to a fielded misbid. A fielded psyche has an additional 10% fine to the offenders. I grant that this approach may mot be precisely as the Law states. However, I believe it to be fair and reasonable, and I hope and trust that the people who decided it [long before my time] know what they were doing. I do not believe that the rulings that I have seen elsewhere that apparently misuse L12C1 have the same level of consistency and commonsense: if I was sure they had then I would withdraw my objection to them. My main objection is that people do not know what they are doing when they award an ArtAS when the Law requires an AssAS. > Also, if memory serves me correctly as I do not >have my copy of the Supplement to hand, there is also some advice that >suggests that TDs might be forgiven for awarding +3/-3 IMPs in teams >matches when the most/least favourable assigned scores likely/at all >>probable would involve the award of a notable score. I shall need chapter and verse on this one: this sounds like what I am worrying about. -------- David M: I presume you are receiving BLML at your email address as given, since you have replied here. Recently, I have twice sent you an email: both times it failed. I shall try once more. -- 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 Aug 9 11:25:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:25:11 +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 LAA28674 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:25:06 +1000 Received: from mail.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wx0O6-0004Yx-00; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 01:32:14 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.52.78] by mail.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #2) id 0wx0HO-0002lE-00; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 02:25:18 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 02:23:33 +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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > Dave Stevenson wrote: > > SNIP > > > > > If a score was obtained at the table, an assigned adjusted score is > >awarded. If a score wasn't [the board was cancelled part way through, > >or never played], an artifical adjusted score is awarded. > > > What then is the legal basis of the EBU Supplemental rules which state > that following a fielded psyche or the use of an unlicenced convention, > the score for the offending side is the lower of their score on the > board or 40% and for the non-offenders the higher of their score on the > board or 60% (subject to Law 88)? The view we take is that a score obtained by use of illegal methods is no score at all (unless it's a bad one). If you play a board using illegal methods (a red psyche or unlicensed convention are treated identically in this respect), then you are deemed not to have played the board at all (unless you get a bottom on it anyway). You are, in short. deemed to have rendered the board unplayable through your own fault, so that an artificial adjusted score becomes appropriate. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 9 21:04:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 21:04:06 +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 VAA29353 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 21:03:59 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-188.innet.be [194.7.10.188]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA25168 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 13:03:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33EC42E7.7AB2FD63@innet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Aug 1997 11:13:59 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <970808163048_1515642235@emout07.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > > No one seems to share my big objection to artificial scores: They take > away > from high scores and give to low scores. It's murder to lose an event > by .08 > matchpoints because your +1400 got you only 11.96 instead of 12, and > your > opponent on that deal (who ended up beating you instead of tying), got > .04 > instead of zero. My belief is that an artificially adjusted score is > just as > much a result as an assigned score. Those who did better should get a > full > matchpoint, while those who did worse should not be given an > undeserved > bonus. > > Following the practice of real estate people, who quote the median > price of > homes sold as the most representative indicator of the market, I would > temporarily assign a score for the pair involved that is equal to the > median > score (creating one if there is none) of the other pairs. Then, after > matchpointing the board, I would adjust the scores of the affected > pairs to > average +, average -, or whatever is appropriate. > > Is there no one in BLML who agrees with me? Must I go to RGB to seek > support? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) Hello Marv, As I have told you in private mail, I don't agree with you. However, you raise a good point in connection to the problem at hand. It would be a very bad thing to lose a tournament by such a small margin, if the only reason for the artificial adjusted score were a TD or an appeal committee unwilling to do a proper job. But if the artificial score is a correct one, then I find no problem in following regulations that to me seem fair. On a side note - and something David once said in an earlier discussion on this topic - in Athens this week, an athlete was put into the quarter final as 32nd with exactly the same time as the 33rd, if going on hundreds of seconds. They reexamined the foto-finish and came up with a difference in thousands of a second. (it was a Belgian and he came eighth in his quarter final - but even so). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 9 21:04:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 21:04:17 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA29360 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 21:04:10 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-188.innet.be [194.7.10.188]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA25203 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 13:04:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33EC444F.4069CDE3@innet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Aug 1997 11:19:59 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > David Martin wrote > > >What then is the legal basis of the EBU Supplemental rules which > state > >that following a fielded psyche or the use of an unlicenced > convention, > >the score for the offending side is the lower of their score on the > >board or 40% and for the non-offenders the higher of their score on > the > >board or 60% (subject to Law 88)? After all, a score of sorts has > been > >obtained on the hand. > The same regulation is applied in Belgium for illegal systems (not for fielded psyches - Belgians seem not to do that) > Yes, I have been waiting for some time for this to turn up. My main > objection to using L12C1 when L12C2 should be applied is not purely > legal. It is that I have seen it done in what I believe to be > unjustifiable circumstances. As I have said elsewhere, I actually > believe in a practical approach to ruling the game, but I think it is > important that the Laws are fully understood, on BLML at any rate, and > then we can approach actually applying them. I also believe that > consistency is desirable. > [rest of David's comments snipped] I do believe there is a good reason for using artificial scores here. In fact, at the very first bid (usually), the hand becomes unplayable, as an unauthorized system is used. It is therefore absolutely impossible to determine what would have happened next, without the infraction. A literal reading of L12 would now give non-offenders the best possible result, which would be a top. That clearly is not the intent of the Laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 10 02:15:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 02:15:37 +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 CAA02680 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 02:15:30 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu by math.lsa.umich.edu (8.7.6/2.2) with ESMTP id MAA19797; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 12:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 12:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708091615.MAA06068@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: Dburn@btinternet.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Dburn@btinternet.com) Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > David Martin wrote: >> Dave Stevenson wrote: >> SNIP >> > If a score was obtained at the table, an assigned adjusted score is >> >awarded. If a score wasn't [the board was cancelled part way through, >> >or never played], an artifical adjusted score is awarded. >> What then is the legal basis of the EBU Supplemental rules which state >> that following a fielded psyche or the use of an unlicenced convention, >> the score for the offending side is the lower of their score on the >> board or 40% and for the non-offenders the higher of their score on the >> board or 60% (subject to Law 88)? > The view we take is that a score obtained by use of illegal methods is no > score at all (unless it's a bad one). If you play a board using illegal > methods (a red psyche or unlicensed convention are treated identically in > this respect), then you are deemed not to have played the board at all > (unless you get a bottom on it anyway). You are, in short. deemed to have > rendered the board unplayable through your own fault, so that an artificial > adjusted score becomes appropriate. For unlicensed conventions, is this universally applied, or is it applied only when the use of the convention causes damage? In the case I brought up from the World Championships, some of the experts argued that the table result should have stood because the result would have been the same without the infraction. (The convention in question wasn't unlicensed, but it was missing from the convention card and needed to be there so that the opponents could prepare a defense.) And there certainly are cases in which an unlicensed convention is used but becomes irrelevant. The above logic would seem to imply that A+/A- should still be awarded in these situations; as soon as the illegal convention was used, what followed was not bridge. Likewise, what happens if the chain of causality is broken, and your illegal convention gets you to the wrong contract, but you get a top because of the opponents' bad play? In Kaplan's articles in The Bridge World, he gives several similar examples, involving West making a Brozel 2C overcall over South's 1NT (showing clubs and hearts). 1NT was cold for +90; 2H would be +110 or -100 depending on the lead. Kaplan's rulings: If Brozel was legal but not alerted, adjust if the alert suggested the wrong lead; we all agree on this. If Brozel was illegal in this event and got East to a making 2H contract when South could have made 1NT, adjust to 1NT making (an average on the example hand). If Brozel was illegal and got East to 2H, South found the opening lead to beat 2H for +100 and a top, and North then dropped a penalty card on the table to allow it to make, score -90 for EW (no gain from the infraction), -110 to NS (chain of causality broken), just as if there had been no infraction. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page) 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 Aug 10 03:59:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 03:59:46 +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 DAA03074 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 03:59:39 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1118317; 9 Aug 97 18:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 16:03:25 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >From: Labeo wrote: >> .(cut). and Tim Westmead then observed: > >Since the law-givers, in their wisdom, have seen fit to place implicit >limits on the regulatory powers of authorities, I deem it unfair that >such authorities should seek to avoid these limits. > Labeo: On the other hand those authorities are accountable to their national membership and not to the legislators. Their duty is to provide the kind of game environment that their members require, as established by democratic procedures, and they can be dismissed if they do not. They must use for the purpose whatever tools are to hand. ... (more cut)... Later Tim commented:- >Democracies have a moral obligation to uphold the rights of minorities >against the wishes of the majority (they often fail). Let us be clear that whilst those "rights" (or perhaps 'privileges') are commonly held to include freedom to hold and express their own beliefs and to practice their own faith, they do not extend to the imposition of those beliefs on the majority nor to exercise of their faith in a manner to interfere with the comfort or well-being of the majority. Nor, in a democracy, is it given to a minority to have control. My reference to 'privileges' relates to the fact that it is by the will of the controlling majority that these so-called "rights" are granted. There is no supreme law by which a minority has rights independently of the society in which it exists, nor may it abuse the hospitality of the society that houses it by disregard of the usages and the rules of conduct of that society. The 'moral obligation' to which you refer is a contract willed by the majority and the majority may equally resile from that contract if the minority recognizes no reciprocal obligations. >Apologies for the rant. Think nothing of it. I did. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 10 04:11:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 04:11:43 +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 EAA03098 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 04:11:37 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1316961; 9 Aug 97 18:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 12:27:45 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Mlfrench@aol.com wrote >>No one seems to share my big objection to artificial scores: ..to which DS responded... > We have discussed it before: we do not agree with you. >Marv again... >>Following the practice of real estate people, who quote the median price of >>homes sold as the most representative indicator of the market, I would >>temporarily assign a score for the pair involved that is equal to the median >>score (creating one if there is none) of the other pairs. Then, after >>matchpointing the board, I would adjust the scores of the affected pairs to >>average +, average -, or whatever is appropriate. > > >>Is there no one in BLML who agrees with me? Must I go to RGB to seek support? > David: > ... and then to Oprah? > Labeo: - Comic Oprah, of course..... Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 10 04:30:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 04:30:52 +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 EAA03171 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 04:30:43 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0517214; 9 Aug 97 18:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 16:41:53 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Burn writes >David Martin wrote: > >> Dave Stevenson wrote: >> >> SNIP >> and David Martin wrote >> > >> What then is the legal basis of the EBU Supplemental rules which state >> that following a fielded psyche or the use of an unlicenced convention, >> the score for the offending side is the lower of their score on the >> board or 40% and for the non-offenders the higher of their score on the >> board or 60% (subject to Law 88)? > To which David Burn replied: >The view we take is that a score obtained by use of illegal methods is no >score at all (unless it's a bad one). If you play a board using illegal >methods (a red psyche or unlicensed convention are treated identically in >this respect), then you are deemed not to have played the board at all >(unless you get a bottom on it anyway). You are, in short. deemed to have >rendered the board unplayable through your own fault, so that an artificial >adjusted score becomes appropriate. > Labeo: As David Martin will have realized, on balance this treatment may be generous to the offending side. If as he implies one should be giving an assigned score, for the offending side the most unfavourable result that is at all probable may be deemed to be the worst result obtained by any other pair with the same cards. For the non-offenders the most favourable result at all likely without the irregularity could be the best score obtained by a plurality of other participants with the same cards; this might raise a question of equity. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 10 08:58:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 08:58:48 +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 IAA03492 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 08:58:37 +1000 Received: from mail.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wxKZj-0006MS-00; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 23:05:35 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.53.231] by mail.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #2) id 0wxKT6-0000rI-00; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 23:58:44 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "David Grabiner" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 23:56:58 +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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > To: Dburn@btinternet.com > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) > Date: 09 August 1997 17:15 > > You write: > > > David Martin wrote: > > >> Dave Stevenson wrote: > > >> SNIP > [DWS] > >> > If a score was obtained at the table, an assigned adjusted score is > >> >awarded. If a score wasn't [the board was cancelled part way through, > >> >or never played], an artifical adjusted score is awarded. > [DM] > >> What then is the legal basis of the EBU Supplemental rules which state > >> that following a fielded psyche or the use of an unlicenced convention, > >> the score for the offending side is the lower of their score on the > >> board or 40% and for the non-offenders the higher of their score on the > >> board or 60% (subject to Law 88)? > [DALB] > > The view we take is that a score obtained by use of illegal methods is no > > score at all (unless it's a bad one). If you play a board using illegal > > methods (a red psyche or unlicensed convention are treated identically in > > this respect), then you are deemed not to have played the board at all > > (unless you get a bottom on it anyway). You are, in short. deemed to have > > rendered the board unplayable through your own fault, so that an artificial > > adjusted score becomes appropriate. > [DG] > For unlicensed conventions, is this universally applied, or is it > applied only when the use of the convention causes damage? It is applied as universally as possible. Thus, if you are my opponent, and you pass in first seat, and your partner alerts and explains this as any 13+, then I will call the Director and you will get average minus on the board (forcing pass does not have a licence for the current competition, and I know this). If you are someone else's opponent, and you conduct a forcing pass auction (because your opponent does not know that the system is not licensed), and you get a top, whereupon your opponents call the TD to check on the legality of your methods, then you will get an average minus. If instead you go for 1400, then you will keep it. The foregoing implies, of course, that you are unaware that the forcing pass is not licensed for the current competition - if you *knowingly* played an unlicensed method, your fate would be rather more serious than average minus. > In the case > I brought up from the World Championships, some of the experts argued > that the table result should have stood because the result would have > been the same without the infraction. That may have been so. But the rules clearly permitted the administrators to rule as they did. Whether they were correct to do so is, of course, another matter. > (The convention in question > wasn't unlicensed, but it was missing from the convention card and > needed to be there so that the opponents could prepare a defense.) If that was the view that was taken, then the ruling to cancel the board(s) and award the non-offenders 3 IMPs (per board) was entirely reasonable. The convention in question (a 1N overcall of a 1-suit opening to show a four-card major and longer minor) is "standard Polish", of course, and not unfamiliar to the opponents - but the lack of disclosure, however inadvertent, was a major transgression. > And > there certainly are cases in which an unlicensed convention is used but > becomes irrelevant. > It is never totally irrelevant; if you use an unlicensed convention, and I am aware that you have done so, then I am certainly within my rights (and some would say I have a duty) to call the Director and be awarded my 3 IMPs. > The above logic would seem to imply that A+/A- should still be awarded > in these situations; as soon as the illegal convention was used, what > followed was not bridge. That is the view that we in this country take. > Likewise, what happens if the chain of > causality is broken, and your illegal convention gets you to the wrong > contract, but you get a top because of the opponents' bad play? > You get an average minus. You can't get a top for not playing bridge. (This is not a general assertion; I have seen many tops scored through non-bridge!) > In Kaplan's articles in The Bridge World, he gives several similar > examples, involving West making a Brozel 2C overcall over South's 1NT > (showing clubs and hearts). 1NT was cold for +90; 2H would be +110 or > -100 depending on the lead. > > Kaplan's rulings: If Brozel was legal but not alerted, adjust if the > alert suggested the wrong lead; we all agree on this. I certainly agree - I don't know about all of us, but this seems non-controversial. > If Brozel was > illegal in this event and got East to a making 2H contract when South > could have made 1NT, adjust to 1NT making (an average on the example > hand). That is not what we would do. If Brozel were illegal, the non-offenders would receive A+ and the offenders A- > If Brozel was illegal and got East to 2H, South found the > opening lead to beat 2H for +100 and a top, and North then dropped a > penalty card on the table to allow it to make, score -90 for EW (no gain > from the infraction), -110 to NS (chain of causality broken), just as if > there had been no infraction. Again, that is not what we would do. If North failed to drop his penalty card, NS would keep their top. Otherwise, NS would receive A+ and EW A-. What this means is that pairs using an illegal method can never receive better than A- (their score will not be adjusted back to something that would net them an average). But if they get a bottom, they can keep it. This may seem harsh, and may perhaps seem inconsistent with other situations in which the non-offenders may suffer through their own poor play if not directly caused by the infraction. But our view is that the use of illegal methods is a very serious infraction, and we are not inclined to require players to defend contracts reached by such means. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 10 19:45:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 19:45:17 +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 TAA04358 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 19:45:10 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0614782; 10 Aug 97 10:30 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 10:28:19 +0100 To: Richard Lighton Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Non-ACBL countries' apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Richard Lighton writes > >On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > .......omitted...... >> Richard Lighton wrote >> ..cut.. > As I recall, but I >> >can't find my Orange Book, you can't have a sub-10 point notrump at >> >any level of EBU competition. >> and: >Seriously, the ACBL are working around this law. The EBU are ignoring it. Labeo: That, I think, is unfair to the EBU. Its committee has devised a scheme by which competitions are put into categories and each category has its own system conditions. Categories exist for that minority of players who want freedom to adopt 'progressive' methods and categories exist for the great majority who want an old-fashioned game or a quiet life. That seems a sturdy and commendable effort to find a solution to the propositions that: 1. "The will of the majority is in all cases to prevail" ** 2. "the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect" ** 3. "the essence of republican government is not command, it is consent". ++ To enforce this orderly expression of its members' majority will and entitlement the E.B.U. has recourse to such powers as the laws provide. The minority, seeking to usurp the right of control, complains of this, but the ends justify the means. If the will of the majority is not encapsulated in the proposed regulations the Delegates in Council will not ratify them. [**Jefferson ++Adlai Stevenson] Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 00:12:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:12:43 +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 AAA05879 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:12:35 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1222504; 10 Aug 97 15:10 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCA59E.5F02B500@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:02:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:02:06 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 24 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >MUCH SNIPPED >It is applied as universally as possible. Thus, if you are my opponent, and >you pass in first seat, and your partner alerts and explains this as any >13+, then I will call the Director and *you will get average minus on the >board* (forcing pass does not have a licence for the current competition, >and I know this). (MY EMPHASIS ABOVE) In EBUland, won't you will still be required to play the board out first (EBU 90.16.2 "It is implicit in this that play of the board should be completed at the table before the score adjustment can be determined" and likewise EBU 90.16.3 in the case of fielded psyches)? Therefore, there is no difference whether the Director is called during the auction or at the end of the play of hand and what follows after the use of the unlicensed convention is bridge providing that the offenders score worse than 40% or -3 IMPs. > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 00:17:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:17:38 +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 AAA07069 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:17:32 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1222488; 10 Aug 97 15:10 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCA59E.5A4A0EF0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:01:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:01:56 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 11 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: > As David Martin will have realized, on balance this treatment may be generous to the offending side. SNIP Quite so and especially in the case of psyches which frequently result in extreme scores when not fielded, eg. absolute zero for the psycher. > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 03:37:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:37:46 +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 DAA08120 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:37:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0502083; 10 Aug 97 18:30 BST Message-ID: <3jWusTB7nf7zEw4l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:27:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >I believe that the regulations in force did not require an alert in cases >of "no agreement". Indeed, I have not heard of such a regulation, though >the possibility is an interesting one. Fine. No agreement does not require an alert. Assuming that 'no agreement' was correct, the failure to alert is not misinformation, and no adjustment can be made because there is no infraction. >Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask my >opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding, just >so that I can be sure of obtaining redress if I am damaged thereby? Let's not worry about what the players should do to avoid unfortunate happenings. Maybe the regulations are wrong. Maybe they should be re- written. Maybe they are right, and we should consider this rub-of-the- green. But we **MUST NOT** give redress when there has been no infraction. >I think that - quite understandably, for that is the way in which bridge >players and bridge lawyers think - the facts of the particular case under >discussion are blinding us to the general principles involved. Because it >is the consensus that West in this particular case acted foolishly, so that >we are reluctant to give *this particular West* any redress, we decide - a >posteriori - that screen position at the table is a random, "hard luck" >factor. Because we believe that West "should have known" what was going on >from his own hand, rather than that he should have believed what his >opponents told him about their own auction, we invent a principle which >says that a player must protect himself from opponents' misunderstandings >by asking stupid questions. I agree that several posts here have attacked the wrong problem. However, no infraction, no redress seems about right. >Well, so be it. If you're on side of the screen where someone tells you >what he's got, you'll be OK. If you're on the side of the screen where >someone tells you lies about what his partner's got, it's your own fault if >you believe him. This is the Law, for BLML has said so. It's an entirely >workable law; it may even be the best practical solution to cases such as >this. But I still think that possibly... You think this might be unfair? Maybe so! How would we have to change it to make this case seem fairer? The answer is to make this happening include an infraction. Is this legal? Yes, if we put forward a regulation for screens that does not supersede the Laws. Let us try a few examples: [1] When playing with screens, a monitor shall check alerts. Alerting on one side of the screen only shall be considered an infraction. The Director shall inform both members of the NOs of the alerting situation, and give each member a chance to ask questions of either opponent. [2] Re-design the screens so a player can see both opponents. Alerts and asking questions should be by the partner of the conventional bidder, as without screens. Note that this clearly brings in problems as well as saves some. [3] Electronic alerts so that a player knows whether it is alerted on the other side of the screen, though he cannot see his partner's alerts. [4] Written explanations of *all* calls to be given to both opponents. [5] 'No agreement' should be alertable. Actually, I quite like this one. It sounds fair to me. I could go on, but the basic point is clear. A player is required to tell his oppos his understandings through the use of questions, alerts and CCs. There is no existing regulation that a player has to explain to both oppos when screens are in use. If there were, then the current case would become misinformation, because the player would have been told two inconsistent things, and one must be wrong! So, David, whether the actual ruling was fair, there should have been no redress [assuming 'no agreement' was correct and non-alertable]. For a different explanation on the other side of the screen to be misinformation a change in regulation [or perhaps procedure] is required. Steve Willner wrote >> From: "David Burn" >> Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask my >> opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding...? >Let us ask what happens if we take the contrary point of view and >adjust the score. South will then ask what his infraction was and what >he should have done differently to avoid an adjustment. What will we >say? I agree, what? Alert when it was wrong to do so? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 03:53:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:53:58 +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 DAA08170 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:53:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1515283; 10 Aug 97 18:30 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 17:17:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote > the >category I call "egregious" (a bid that any partner should be entitled to >shoot you for making). I have often wondered what the definition of the word 'egregious' is in reference to calls. Thanks for an excellent definition. -- 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 Aug 11 03:57:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:57:30 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.134]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA08196 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:57:24 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1005463; 10 Aug 97 18:30 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 17:04:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote >David Burn wrote: >>It is applied as universally as possible. Thus, if you are my opponent, and >>you pass in first seat, and your partner alerts and explains this as any >>13+, then I will call the Director and *you will get average minus on the >>board* (forcing pass does not have a licence for the current competition, >>and I know this). >In EBUland, won't you will still be required to play the board out first >(EBU 90.16.2 "It is implicit in this that play of the board should be >completed at the table before the score adjustment can be determined" >and likewise EBU 90.16.3 in the case of fielded psyches)? Therefore, >there is no difference whether the Director is called during the auction >or at the end of the play of hand and what follows after the use of the >unlicensed convention is bridge providing that the offenders score worse >than 40% or -3 IMPs. It is true that the board is played out. No attempt is then made to punish a non-offending pair. I am unworried by random semantics. David Martin wrote >Labeo wrote: >> As David Martin will have realized, on balance this treatment >may be generous to the offending side. >Quite so and especially in the case of psyches which frequently result >in extreme scores when not fielded, eg. absolute zero for the psycher. As you know perfectly well, the psycher keeps his zero, since his opponents do not appear damaged. -- 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 Aug 11 09:12:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 09:12:47 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (relay-13.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08818 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 09:12:41 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1421204; 10 Aug 97 23:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 23:09:36 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Play out of turn In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Paul Barden wrote >>Is there any penalty for a defender playing out of turn before dummy, >>but after his partner? >.....cut.. David S replied and also commented: > Of course, you will have to wait until 1st October! Labeo: I would think all comment should now be based upon the 1997 code. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 10:42:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 10:42:39 +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 KAA08973 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 10:42:33 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0529078; 11 Aug 97 1:28 BST Message-ID: <$YwqxMAorl7zEwbo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:20:56 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: <3jWusTB7nf7zEw4l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3jWusTB7nf7zEw4l@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >David Burn wrote > >>I believe that the regulations in force did not require an alert in cases >>of "no agreement". Indeed, I have not heard of such a regulation, though >>the possibility is an interesting one. > >...... and it went on and on until we got to....... > >>> Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask my >>> opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding...? > and someone said: >>Let us ask what happens if we take the contrary point of view and >>adjust the score. South will then ask what his infraction was and what >>he should have done differently to avoid an adjustment. What will we >>say? > and: > I agree, what? Alert when it was wrong to do so? > Labeo: Oh come on! Are we discussing cats or railways? We have an illustrious West who judges the hand worse than my aunt Tabitha would; who knows one of his opponents at best has a poor three card trump holding - and both opponents may have pretty uninspiring holdings in the suit. West knows too that opponents have every point in the pack that he cannot see and may well judge to run if he doubles; knows he will be lucky if 4NT goes off one. And now we seem to have a consensus also that in any case he has not even been misinformed (in which case it may be East was misinformed, but suffered no damage from it, if North explained his bid). So we are not discussing that case at all. We are discussing other hands where there is misinformation, there is damage, and West has behaved sanely even if without inspiration. We are discussing cases where redress will be given. Are there not more Burning issues? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 11:32:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:32:15 +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 LAA09097 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:32:09 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0619478; 11 Aug 97 1:28 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:25:49 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Tim West-meads wrote >> the >>category I call "egregious" (a bid that any partner should be entitled to >>shoot you for making). > > I have often wondered what the definition of the word 'egregious' is >in reference to calls. Thanks for an excellent definition. > Labeo: well, that's fair...... Egregious has two meanings - it means either remarkably good or it means remarkably bad. Partners should be encouraged to shoot you if they have to cope with either. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 12:21:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:21:14 +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 MAA09209 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:20:43 +1000 Received: from mail.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wxkCc-00064F-00; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 02:27:26 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.51.184] by mail.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #2) id 0wxk5z-0006rs-00; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:20:35 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Deep waters Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:18:47 +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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote an excellent summary of what I now believe to be the BLML consensus, as follows: [DALB] > >I believe that the regulations in force did not require an alert in cases > >of "no agreement". Indeed, I have not heard of such a regulation, though > >the possibility is an interesting one. [DWS] > Fine. No agreement does not require an alert. Assuming that 'no > agreement' was correct, the failure to alert is not misinformation, and > no adjustment can be made because there is no infraction. This is flawed as a general principle, but is OK in the case in point. This evening. I held: J10976 AKQJ52 None J6 and it went pass, pass, 1H to me. I passed, and it went 2C, pass, pass, back to me. Wrongly or (in this case) rightly, I bid 3C. Now, Callaghan and I have not got a prescribed meaning for this bid, doubtless due to some oversight. But he knew it was conventional. So he alerted it. Of course "no agreement" does not always mean "no alert." However, this is picking nits. [DALB] > >Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask my > >opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding, just > >so that I can be sure of obtaining redress if I am damaged thereby? [DWS] > Let's not worry about what the players should do to avoid unfortunate > happenings. Maybe the regulations are wrong. Maybe they should be re- > written. Maybe they are right, and we should consider this rub-of-the- > green. But we **MUST NOT** give redress when there has been no > infraction. Well, all those maybes were the question I was asking, and the replies I have received lead me to believe that this group is as happy as it can be with the effect of the current regulations. I respect that judgement, and would no longer seek to gainsay it. But there is a school of thought, and a very strong school, which says this: "The ideal position that the Laws strive to emulate is one in which every player knows what every bid made by their side means, and can disclose that information fully to their opponents. If they don't - in other words, if they forget their system, or make their system up at the table as they go along, and do not tell the opponents the truth about what is happening - then they must expect to be penalised to the fullest extent of the Law." That is the reasoning behind such quasi-legal instruments as "Convention Disruption", and people like Wolff and Goldman - whose views really ought to command more respect that it appears to me that they do - are part of the "strong school" to which I have referred. This, I confess, is a very recent change of mind on my part. Not so long ago, I used to believe that if you forgot your system - or did not know what it was that your partner had just invented - so that you could not tell your opponents what was going on, you would get a bad result most of the time. If, every so often, you got a good one, that was bad luck on your present opponents. These days, I am persuaded that the "full disclosure, even when you don't know what's going on" position is the right one. It may be wholly impractical. But, even if we can't realise the ideal, it's the way in which we ought to idealise the real. [DALB] > >I think that - quite understandably, for that is the way in which bridge > >players and bridge lawyers think - the facts of the particular case under > >discussion are blinding us to the general principles involved. Because it > >is the consensus that West in this particular case acted foolishly, so that > >we are reluctant to give *this particular West* any redress, we decide - a > >posteriori - that screen position at the table is a random, "hard luck" > >factor. Because we believe that West "should have known" what was going on > >from his own hand, rather than that he should have believed what his > >opponents told him about their own auction, we invent a principle which > >says that a player must protect himself from opponents' misunderstandings > >by asking stupid questions. [DWS] > I agree that several posts here have attacked the wrong problem. > However, no infraction, no redress seems about right. South (implicitly, to be sure), told West that 4S was natural. It wasn't. If one is to prove "mistaken bid", rather than "mistaken explanation", one normally places the burden of proof on the side making the mistaken bid. Could North have proved that 4S was artificial, in his system? "No infraction, no redress" is not about right, but exactly right. However... [DALB] > > >Well, so be it. If you're on side of the screen where someone tells you > >what he's got, you'll be OK. If you're on the side of the screen where > >someone tells you lies about what his partner's got, it's your own fault if > >you believe him. This is the Law, for BLML has said so. It's an entirely > >workable law; it may even be the best practical solution to cases such as > >this. But I still think that possibly... [DWS] > > You think this might be unfair? Maybe so! How would we have to > change it to make this case seem fairer? The answer is to make this > happening include an infraction. Is this legal? Yes, if we put forward > a regulation for screens that does not supersede the Laws. Let us try a > few examples: > I am impressed. Only about three people in a million know how to spell "supersede." Don't tell me you spell-checked that message, David, or I'll lose faith. > [1] When playing with screens, a monitor shall check alerts. Alerting > on one side of the screen only shall be considered an infraction. The > Director shall inform both members of the NOs of the alerting situation, > and give each member a chance to ask questions of either opponent. Pretty close to idealising the real. Is it at all practical? The first part of it is, for sure - if a call is alerted one side only, there should be a case for redress if the player claiming damage can show that had he been the other side of the screen, his result would have been improved. I quite like this. > > [2] Re-design the screens so a player can see both opponents. Alerts > and asking questions should be by the partner of the conventional > bidder, as without screens. Note that this clearly brings in problems > as well as saves some. That just idealises what is supposed to happen without screens anyway, and has almost no practical impact. > > [3] Electronic alerts so that a player knows whether it is alerted on > the other side of the screen, though he cannot see his partner's alerts. This is a subset of [1], and would serve the same purpose. > > [4] Written explanations of *all* calls to be given to both opponents. Would work in this case, and would solve a whole lot of additional legal problems quite apart from this case. Wholly impractical, of course, especially in a European where the language barrier would be insuperable, but addresses the theoretical issue. > > [5] 'No agreement' should be alertable. Actually, I quite like this > one. It sounds fair to me. Nah. "No agreement" has been the last refuge of far too many scoundrels. To legalise it would be a retrograde step in seven-league boots. The ideal, which we are trying to realise (hope there are some Hegelians reading this, as otherwise we're all lost) is that *there is no situation in which there is no agreement." Put it this way: how unreasonable do you consider it to be to forbid a player from making a call which no one at the table will understand? > > > I could go on, but the basic point is clear. A player is required to > tell his oppos his understandings through the use of questions, alerts > and CCs. There is no existing regulation that a player has to explain > to both oppos when screens are in use. If there were, then the current > case would become misinformation, because the player would have been > told two inconsistent things, and one must be wrong! > Oh, very well. We try our best to make Laws that are consistent, that are practical, that ensure fair play for all, and that - I hope - aim at some idealised concept of the game that they try as far as possible to mirror. In that context, we see a player make a call (admittedly, an absurd call) *that he would never have made but for the arbitrary circumstance that he was on the wrong side of an arbitrarily placed piece of wood.* You, and a lot of other people in this group whose views I respect enormously, tell me that this is just bad luck - we're doing the best that we can. [DWS] > So, David, whether the actual ruling was fair, there should have been > no redress [assuming 'no agreement' was correct and non-alertable]. For > a different explanation on the other side of the screen to be > misinformation a change in regulation [or perhaps procedure] is > required. And such a change would be impossible to implement in practice. Labeo, the only guy in the whole of this who appeared to be on my side, said that we ought to look for ways of doing the impossible. I think he's right. [DWS] > > > Steve Willner wrote > >> From: "David Burn" > > >> Can it really be that in a European Championship, I have a duty to ask my > >> opponents whether or not they are in the middle of a misunderstanding...? > > >Let us ask what happens if we take the contrary point of view and > >adjust the score. South will then ask what his infraction was and what > >he should have done differently to avoid an adjustment. What will we > >say? > > I agree, what? Alert when it was wrong to do so? Wrong? No. If North alerts a call to East, should not South alert it to West? Well, I said that these were deep waters. The bandwidth so far consumed certainly indicates that this was not a trivial question, but the weight of opinion is clearly against the poor Swede and your humble correspondent. Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread - I bow to the judgement of my peers, and with this post I have said my last word. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 12:56:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:56:54 +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 MAA09346 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:56:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0529401; 11 Aug 97 3:52 BST Message-ID: <9T7swYBMvf7zEw7a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:35:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote >Labeo: We need computer screens with the player who should remain >ignorant of the Q&A automatically excluded from viewing them..... Do we indeed? It may or may not improve the game of bridge to introduce methods that change the game, benefiting some things at the expense of others, but we should never become blinkered into thinking that is the only way. Do you think screens would improve the overall players' enjoyment if introduced at the local club? > In the meantime my view is that if North/South ask a question >E and W have equal responsibilities to give correct answers as to >partnership understandings, not as to what anyone is thinking (nor >whether anyone is thinking)....nor do I like the potential for abuse >if a Q&A session were allowed with all participating when the screen >was raised. In a practical world I think we are where we are because >on balance it is the best we can do; the value of screens outweighs >any disadvantages. But we should remain open-minded to anyone who can >think of a way to enhance the procedure. Open-minded, yes: but not to assume that enhancement of anti- misinformation procedures are necessarily an improvement. -- 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 Aug 11 13:03:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:03:02 +1000 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09377 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:02:52 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA04511 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 23:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 23:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970810230108_-935746856@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Artificial Scores Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson and Labeo maintain that when some yahoo gets an avg- for some stupid act, then I have not clearly done better than him with my +1400, and can't get a top because the infraction was not a valid result. What a laugh! How come he pays off on our dollar-a-board bet? Should he pay me 75 cents instead of a dollar? Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 13:35:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:35:24 +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 NAA09514 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:35:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1410756; 11 Aug 97 3:52 BST Message-ID: <8zusodBavf7zEw54@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:35:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: <33E1CD4D.334390E4@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >It is clear that a player is only entitled to know the meaning 'by >partnership agreement'. Agreement by principle means that both partners >have the same knowledge. >So both should ideally give the same answer to the same question. >So in principle, a player should NOT be allowed to ask the question of >both opponents. >Is that clear ? (my English is not working properly today - I feel) It is clear - but it is somewhat doubtful. If nothing ever goes wrong, we have no need of TDs, ACs or BLML. Grant as a premise that things go wrong. Thus you know that the ideal of the same answer to the same question will not always be obtained. So you must not base whether a player may ask both oppos on that ideal. Whether a player should be allowed must be based on other factors. -- 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 Aug 11 15:07:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:07:33 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA10647 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:07:27 +1000 Received: from default (pm3-27.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.217]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA02824; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33EE9EA9.3EC3@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:10:01 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SANDHILLS (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mlfrench@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Artificial Scores References: <970810230108_-935746856@emout08.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > > David Stevenson and Labeo maintain that when some yahoo gets an avg- for some > stupid act, then I have not clearly done better than him with my +1400, and > can't get a top because the infraction was not a valid result. > > What a laugh! How come he pays off on our dollar-a-board bet? Should he pay > me 75 cents instead of a dollar? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) I am sure I just read in the rules that betting on bridge results is a total no-no. Surely you jest!!!! NTD From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 21:18:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA12782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:18:45 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA12777 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:18:22 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-182.innet.be [194.7.10.182]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA12757 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:17:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33EEF4FF.5A381F40@innet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:18:23 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: Artificial Scores X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <970810230108_-935746856@emout08.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > > David Stevenson and Labeo maintain that when some yahoo gets an avg- > for some > stupid act, then I have not clearly done better than him with my > +1400, and > can't get a top because the infraction was not a valid result. > > What a laugh! How come he pays off on our dollar-a-board bet? Should > he pay > me 75 cents instead of a dollar? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) Let me try and answer this one. Yes, you have done better than him. You do get a higher score than him.(and you should get his dollar) But when comparing your score with the next highest, you simply cannot get the full two (half-)points anymore. Your argument works if you have a top, or a bottom, but there is NO way of interpreting this idea for scores around average. Or rather, if you get your dollar on this board, on the next you might lose your dollar because you have an absolute bottom, but on a third, what are you going to do if you have something around average and he has A- ? You cannot have a method that only works for tops and bottoms. If you try to insert an artificial score somewhere among the real ones, you create a place where two people find themselves with adjoining scores, but they now differ four points because some schmuck didn't count his cards ? That's unfair as well. Sorry Marv ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 11 22:35:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:35:27 +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 WAA13034 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 22:35:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0609110; 11 Aug 97 13:29 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:25:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Artificial Scores In-Reply-To: <970810230108_-935746856@emout08.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote >David Stevenson and Labeo maintain that when some yahoo gets an avg- for some >stupid act, then I have not clearly done better than him with my +1400, and >can't get a top because the infraction was not a valid result. > >What a laugh! How come he pays off on our dollar-a-board bet? Should he pay >me 75 cents instead of a dollar? Yes, of course. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 12 02:06:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 02:06:02 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA16405 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 02:05:55 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA24320; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:05:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma024268; Mon Aug 11 11:05:07 1997 Received: by har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCA64E.7E82EA20@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:02:51 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCA64E.7E82EA20@har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com> From: rts48u To: David Stevenson , "'Labeo'" Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: adjusted v assigned score Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:02:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Is there no one in BLML who agrees with me? Must I go to RGB to seek support? > David: > ... and then to Oprah? > Labeo: - Comic Oprah, of course..... Some of us will go to any lengths to win free. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 12 03:51:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:51:45 +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 DAA16750 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:51:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1526625; 11 Aug 97 13:29 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:23:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote [s] >That is the reasoning behind such quasi-legal instruments as "Convention >Disruption", and people like Wolff and Goldman - whose views really ought >to command more respect that it appears to me that they do - are part of >the "strong school" to which I have referred. > >This, I confess, is a very recent change of mind on my part. Not so long >ago, I used to believe that if you forgot your system - or did not know >what it was that your partner had just invented - so that you could not >tell your opponents what was going on, you would get a bad result most of >the time. If, every so often, you got a good one, that was bad luck on your >present opponents. These days, I am persuaded that the "full disclosure, >even when you don't know what's going on" position is the right one. It may >be wholly impractical. But, even if we can't realise the ideal, it's the >way in which we ought to idealise the real. I do wonder whether this is as fair as Wolff, Goldman and yourself may think. Bridge is played at all levels, and the total information package of this type seems to me to be a top level only method. That is one reason I object to Wolff saying there should be punishment for convention disruption: 50 fines a night for every bridge club in the world is not going to popularise the game. [s] >> I agree that several posts here have attacked the wrong problem. >> However, no infraction, no redress seems about right. > >South (implicitly, to be sure), told West that 4S was natural. It wasn't. This is a misconception often seen in "alerting" rulings. South told West that 4S was not alertable. Nothing else. He was correct, and West took a wrong inference. [s] >Nah. "No agreement" has been the last refuge of far too many scoundrels. To >legalise it would be a retrograde step in seven-league boots. The ideal, >which we are trying to realise (hope there are some Hegelians reading this, >as otherwise we're all lost) is that *there is no situation in which there >is no agreement." Put it this way: how unreasonable do you consider it to >be to forbid a player from making a call which no one at the table will >understand? If you are talking the general approach, then totally unreasonable. You must consider the club player. ----- As a general concept, you must either consider Bridge players in the mass [which is where Wolff, Goldman, and several other quoted American authorities *appear* to fall down] or you must introduce regulations at the top level only that suit that level. The dangers of this second approach have been under-rated, and one must never forget that such regulations must not conflict with the Laws, which are *not* different at top level. -- 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 Aug 12 04:10:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 04:10:30 +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 EAA16826 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 04:10:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1403907; 11 Aug 97 19:03 BST Message-ID: <7sZdfEBFuw7zEwpA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:54:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Artificial Scores In-Reply-To: <33EEF4FF.5A381F40@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >> >> David Stevenson and Labeo maintain that when some yahoo gets an avg- >> for some >> stupid act, then I have not clearly done better than him with my >> +1400, and >> can't get a top because the infraction was not a valid result. >> >> What a laugh! How come he pays off on our dollar-a-board bet? Should >> he pay >> me 75 cents instead of a dollar? >Let me try and answer this one. > >Yes, you have done better than him. No you haven't. The whole point is that this is a scoring method when he has got *no* valid result. Not only have you not done better than him, you do not *know* you would have done better than him if he had played the board and got a valid score. Even 1400s lose to 1700s some days. >You do get a higher score than him.(and you should get his dollar) >But when comparing your score with the next highest, you simply cannot >get the full two (half-)points anymore. >Your argument works if you have a top, or a bottom, but there is NO way >of interpreting this idea for scores around average. It is time we got serious about this. If you are playing in a field of eleven pairs, then a "top" is when you beat ten other pairs. If there are only ten valid scores, then you cannot beat ten other scores, so you cannot get a top: furthermore you do not deserve a top. Your presumption that +1400 or whatever should be scored as a top is not reasonable: you do not know that at the table without a valid score the result would not have been +1700. It probably would have been a top, but not certainly: that makes a score of 20 mps unfair, but a score of 19.8 mps [or whatever it is] fair. The one time it does seem unfair is when there *was* a valid result, and a score should have been assigned because of an infraction. If that score would clearly have been +620, +650 or +680 and an AC cannot make up its mind, then it does seem harsh and unfair that you do not get a top for your +1400. In the case of one other person: you get +1400, he gets no valid score, no you do not deserve your dollar. Perhaps you think you will beat him with +1400 96% of the time? Fine, then collect your 92 cents: that's fair. -- 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 Aug 12 05:10:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:10:49 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA17080 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:10:42 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA08938 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:10:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > David Burn wrote > > [s] > > >That is the reasoning behind such quasi-legal instruments as "Convention > >Disruption", and people like Wolff and Goldman - whose views really ought > >to command more respect that it appears to me that they do - are part of > >the "strong school" to which I have referred. > > [snip] > > I do wonder whether this is as fair as Wolff, Goldman and yourself may > think. Bridge is played at all levels, and the total information > package of this type seems to me to be a top level only method. That is > one reason I object to Wolff saying there should be punishment for > convention disruption: 50 fines a night for every bridge club in the > world is not going to popularise the game. > I strongly disagree with the idea of "convention disruption" as a crime within bridge law rather than a crime against partner, BUT when Wolff originally proposed it, he was only referring to the highest levels of the game--National and World Championship events. He was proposing that partnerships _at that level_ really should know what they are doing. Maybe partnerships at that level _should_ know what they are doing, but people have lapses of memory through tiredness, and new situations turn up that even the best prepared partnerships have not thought of. I do not claim to be a player of anything resembling that level, but I do think my most regular partnership is well-prepared. Our habit is to note on our scorecard anything that needs discussing on the way home. We are rarely without subject of conversation! Usually it is of the type "Do you think my hand on board X qualifies for treatment Y?" or "should we consider . . .?" "No!", but just now and then something weird happens that we can not cover with our "meta-agreements." Bridge would be a less interesting game if an imaginative opponent could not outguess us now and then! -- Richard Lighton | You should play the game for fun. The instant you find (lighton@idt.net) | yourself playing for any other reason, you should rack Wood-Ridge NJ | it up and go on to something else. USA | -- Charles Goren From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 12 05:49:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:49:14 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA17210 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:49:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA22274 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:49:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Labeo wrote: > >Richard Lighton now states: > > ...cut... > > >Second, it's time to hassle another organization. > > > >In its two lowest levels of convention regulation (Simple an Next Step > >systems) the EBU restricts opening 1NT to the range 12-18 (in simple > >system events, to a 3 point range within that). As I recall, but I > >can't find my Orange Book, you can't have a sub-10 point notrump at > >any level of EBU competition. What say you, David? (Stevenson or Burn) > > > Labeo: > O.K. You are not far out, Richard, with what you are > saying, although it is not altogether the best time to raise it > since the EBU is in the throes of settling revised regulations. But > it is anticipated these will incorporate features of the kind. > Here is twopennyworth (just over 3 US cents) on the > subject: Until ten years ago, I was a subject of the UK. :-) Currency conversion I can manage! > 1. In my opinion national authorities should have the power to > regulate system within their territories. Even you would agree that there has to be a limit. "You may play only Acol if you belong to the EBU" would be beyond that. > 2. Since the law-givers have not yet been so enlightened as to > give the power explicitly in the laws, I deem it fair for these > authorities to make use of any powers they do have under the laws > to achieve their purpose of placing limits around system for the > benefit of their members. Part of the problem is that the authorities seldom have a clue what their members think is reasonable. As an example, the ACBL changed the rules at the beginning of 1995 and prohibited using 1NT as a strong, artificial, and forcing bid. We had to change system. People who knew us asked why. We explained. The universal opinion was "That's absurd! Who cares what your strong opening is?" (Seven months later, the ACBL changed the rules back) > 3. There are democratic means to remove the members of the regulating > body in England, and I presume in other places too. If most members > of the subscribed bridge population in a nation disagree with the > manner in which the game is regulated they have a clear remedy. It > follows that where a national authority has gone down the route under > attack and the members of its regulatory committee have not been > voted out of office, one is entitled to draw the conclusion that the > majority of the rank and file are content. This would be my > expectation since I believe the silent majority are players who > broadly want some limitation put upon what they regard as excess, > or at least an inconvenience to the game, and that they are entitled > to it. I would assert that in anything like a National Bridge Organization, it is very difficult to change the members of a regulatory committee. The advantage of the incumbant is far greater than in a mere political election, and most players really are not concerned about the rights of the systemmongers. Most people's systems are well within the legal boundaries. They are not even interested in whether such and such should be constrained. > 4. In regard to what is the case in the ACBL I have endeavoured > throughout to stay with principle and history, avoiding judgemental > language. I believe it is for its own players to judge whether what > is happening is desirable and that our external opinion is not of > great importance for the ACBL situation. As for the approach of my > own national authority to this question, as far as I understand what > it has in train I approve of what it is doing. > 5. Finally, as to 'hassle' I think I may well have now succeeded in > decoying the slinger's stone away from the English Bridge Union > to the more fugacious target of my person! I chose to use the word "hassle" because it seems to me that the ACBL regulations are the ones that usually come under attack here and on RGB. I have some familiarity with the Orange Book, and some of the convention restrictions therein seem at least as absurd as those for which the ACBL is "renowned." I recall that there is one where you may not use a certain type of lead if your opening 1NT has a range other than 12.5-13.5 (and all of the rest of the Baron system according to Leo). I trust the EBU does not do anything in its regulation review so insane as to restore the prohibition on opening 1NT with a 5-card suit! -- Richard Lighton | You should play the game for fun. The instant you find (lighton@idt.net) | yourself playing for any other reason, you should rack Wood-Ridge NJ | it up and go on to something else. USA | -- Charles Goren From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 12 11:52:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:52:17 +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 LAA18096 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 11:52:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1314388; 12 Aug 97 2:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 02:27:21 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote >On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Labeo wrote: >> >Richard Lighton now states: >> 1. In my opinion national authorities should have the power to >> regulate system within their territories. > >Even you would agree that there has to be a limit. "You may play >only Acol if you belong to the EBU" would be beyond that. I have never understood this attitude. If the EBU were stupid enough to want to hassle its members in such a way then even by the reading of L40D with which I disagree, it is certainly legal for them to forbid any conventional call of any sort below 5S. That would kill off duplicate bridge in England fairly fast. But why should they? What is different about natural and conventional bidding? If the EBU is completely stupid, the Law book by everyone's reading gives them sufficient power to destroy duplicate bridge. So how does it save the world to stop them regulating part? It doesn't. In fact the EBU tries very hard to do what is best for their members. There are few people who believe that the EBU is attempting to spoil the game. Yes, there are many people who think specific decisions are wrong, but that is the lot of every legislator since King John and Magna Carta. What are you trying to achieve by this strange division between regulating natural and conventional bidding? To keep an SO on the rails is ludicrous! Whether you trust the EBU [or the ACBL] this division is of no help. [s] >I chose to use the word "hassle" because it seems to me that the ACBL >regulations are the ones that usually come under attack here and on >RGB. I have some familiarity with the Orange Book, and some of the >convention restrictions therein seem at least as absurd as those for >which the ACBL is "renowned." I recall that there is one where you >may not use a certain type of lead if your opening 1NT has a range >other than 12.5-13.5 (and all of the rest of the Baron system according >to Leo). I am pleased at Richard's use of the word 'seem'. I know the logic behind this decision, and I think it has a certain validity. It is this type of thing that causes the unthinking sheep to claim it is unfair once someone points it out to him. He does not worry about the logic: if *he* does not want to use the particular bid licensed [not a lead: it is a sequence such as 1D x Pass to show values, specifically 5.5-8.5 HCP] then he presumes that the EBU has licensed it to for no other reason than to spite him. >I trust the EBU does not do anything in its regulation review so >insane as to restore the prohibition on opening 1NT with a 5-card >suit! I hope not: I cannot consider passing on such a hand as Qxxxx Kxx Kx Qxx vulnerable against not. In fact at the top level, it appears that in future I shall be allowed to open 1NT on Qxxxx Kxx Qx Qxx Seriously though, the problem with licensing is seen in this comment: if there were a reason not to permit such an opening, it would not be easy to convince Richard of this, especially as he would probably just assume the EBU was off its trolley. ------------ The current method is for SOs to determine what should be permitted to be played under their jurisdiction. Legislation can hardly allow for incompetent SOs, especially if they are NCBOs. The attempt to disallow regulation of natural calls is a strange anomaly, which should be unnecessary. Furthermore, the fact that people complain that NCBOs have got it wrong means that the complainers are human, and is not necessarily correct. -- 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 Aug 12 12:46:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:46:33 +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 MAA18222 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 12:46:27 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1316174; 12 Aug 97 3:39 BST Message-ID: <9BW6XRAwu87zEwrw@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:34:24 +0100 To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Artificial Scores In-Reply-To: <970810230108_-935746856@emout08.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970810230108_-935746856@emout08.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com writes >David Stevenson and Labeo maintain that when some yahoo gets an avg- for some >stupid act, then I have not clearly done better than him with my +1400, and >can't get a top because the infraction was not a valid result. > >What a laugh! How come he pays off on our dollar-a-board bet? Should he pay >me 75 cents instead of a dollar? > Labeo: who speaks for me? Labeo maintains that scoring methods, from Laws 77 and 78 upwards, and downwards, are all arbitrary. It is fair to argue for change but what you substitute is still arbitrary. In the end you know how the competition will be scored before you decide to play and still you choose to play. If you don't like the menu, and no-one is persuaded to alter it, choose another restaurant. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 12 15:06:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:06:17 +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 PAA18509 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:06:10 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0604692; 12 Aug 97 5:57 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 04:15:25 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Richard Lighton wrote >>On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Labeo wrote: >>> >Richard Lighton now states: > ...cut... David Stevenson: > In fact the EBU tries very hard to do what is best for their members. >There are few people who believe that the EBU is attempting to spoil the >game. Yes, there are many people who think specific decisions are >wrong, but that is the lot of every legislator since King John and Magna >Carta. > Labeo - We can go back to Domitian (whose every law was scrapped) or even Hammurabi...'twas ever so. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 12 15:08:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:08:45 +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 PAA18526 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:08:38 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0710764; 12 Aug 97 5:57 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 03:54:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Richard Lighton writes >On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Labeo wrote: >> >Richard Lighton now states: >> >> ...cut... >> > > >> 1. In my opinion national authorities should have the power to >> regulate system within their territories. > >Even you would agree that there has to be a limit. "You may play >only Acol if you belong to the EBU" would be beyond that. > Labeo: In practice yes, although theoretically if that was what the members wanted........... Incidentally the development currently of an English Standard System, to be taught to beginners throughout England (and perhaps? Wales?Scotland?) is part modelled on the French approach which tends to create a bridge community in which the significant majority all play uniform methods. It comes close to achieving the same outcome. > :::more cut::: >Part of the problem is that the authorities seldom have a clue what >their members think is reasonable. As an example, the ACBL changed >the rules at the beginning of 1995 and prohibited using 1NT as a strong, >artificial, and forcing bid. We had to change system. People who knew >us asked why. We explained. The universal opinion was "That's absurd! >Who cares what your strong opening is?" (Seven months later, the ACBL >changed the rules back) > In a private exchange with another correspondent I have observed that in a democratic ambience disapproval is expressed by exception. The majority is commonly passive until emotion runs high enough to stimulate a response. This allows regulators to get on with it until they step on the boundary rope. >> >I would assert that in anything like a National Bridge Organization, >it is very difficult to change the members of a regulatory committee. >The advantage of the incumbant is far greater than in a mere political >election, and most players really are not concerned about the rights >of the systemmongers. Most people's systems are well within the legal >boundaries. They are not even interested in whether such and such should >be constrained. > In England the Committee in question has changed significantly more than once since you left us. Recently the committee has been re- elected without even the challenge of an alternative candidate. A fresh election is due in October; let us see if the current proposals for system regulation, now published in Council and due for ratification, promote a hostile candidature. Council has been remarkably at ease with the basis of the proposals to now. {Barnfield chairs a committee including Stevenson, Burn, Sandra Penfold, Pryor, Liggins, Udall; plus ex-officio Bavin (CTD), Stocken, Harris (Chairman/Vice Chairman respectively of the Union); and with regular non-voting attendance of Endicott, Faulkner (Vice President and Chairman Tournament Committee, respectively).} > >I trust the EBU does not do anything in its regulation review so >insane as to restore the prohibition on opening 1NT with a 5-card >suit! > My records may be faulty; when was this the case? What the old 'yellow book' says is " In regard to 1NT openers which are natural and intended to be of balanced distribution, any distributional constraints (e.g. no 4-card major) must be declared on the convention card, but the committee does not require that in any case they should be alerted. Similarly any special considerations such as 'not opening with a bad 12 count' or 'all balanced or semi-balanced hands within the stated range are opened 1NT' must be declared on the convention card but are not alertable." Nothing here to preclude a 5-card suit, major or minor. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 13 09:02:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:02:31 +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 JAA24228 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:02:26 +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 JAA13798 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.63.221.24]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA10988 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:02:22 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:02:22 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199708122302.JAA10988@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: Gratuitous UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This happened at our local club: North A Q 4 K 10 9 6 10 7 Q J 4 2 West East J 10 K 9 3 2 A 4 3 2 7 A Q 6 2 K 9 8 5 4 3 A 10 7 6 5 South 8 7 6 5 Q J 8 5 J K 9 8 3 Dealer West. Bidding West North East South 1NT 2C 2D(1) 3C 3H pass 4D all pass West took some time before alerting East's 2D bid, saying "I'm taking that as a transfer", at which point South called the director. Play was allowed to continue, the director asking to be called again at the end of the hand. No player called for the director at the end of the hand, but the director came by in any case, and enquired about the auction. Upon finding that The E-W agreement was to play "system off" after interference, he ruled that East was in possession of UI, and disallowed the final 4D bid (which made 5). He adjusted the contract to 3H down 5 and advised EW of their right to appeal. This sort of thing happens rather frequently at club level, without any player thinking twice about it. Should the director have simply allowed the final score to stand? To my mind, there was no logical alternative to the 4D bid in any case. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 13 10:02:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:02:59 +1000 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [205.252.116.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24408 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:02:50 +1000 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as66s24.erols.com [207.172.52.24]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA09232 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970812200707.008516d0@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:07:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI In-Reply-To: <199708122302.JAA10988@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:02 AM 8/13/97 +1000, ardelm@ozemail.com.au wrote: >This happened at our local club: > North > A Q 4 > K 10 9 6 > 10 7 > Q J 4 2 > West East > J 10 K 9 3 2 > A 4 3 2 7 > A Q 6 2 K 9 8 5 4 3 > A 10 7 6 5 > South > 8 7 6 5 > Q J 8 5 > J > K 9 8 3 > >Dealer West. > >Bidding West North East South > 1NT 2C 2D(1) 3C > 3H pass 4D all pass > >West took some time before alerting East's 2D bid, saying "I'm taking that as >a transfer", at which point South called the director. Play was allowed to >continue, the director asking to be called again at the end of the hand. No >player called for the director at the end of the hand, but the director came >by in any case, and enquired about the auction. Upon finding that The E-W >agreement was to play "system off" after interference, he ruled that East >was in possession of UI, and disallowed the final 4D bid (which made 5). He >adjusted the contract to 3H down 5 and advised EW of their right to appeal. > >This sort of thing happens rather frequently at club level, without any >player thinking twice about it. Should the director have simply allowed the >final score to stand? To my mind, there was no logical alternative to the 4D >bid in any case. > > >Tony Musgrove > I think you are correct about the logical alternatives. There is no way that East can logically allow the partnership to play in a heart fit that can at best be 5-1, when there is a known 8 card or better diamond fit. E must bid over 3H. If a ruling forces W to bid over the 4D call, E must bid yet again, and the pair will find it's way to 5D, which made. That's bad for the non-offenders, so the final result should be 4D making 5. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 13 10:21:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:21:38 +1000 Received: from shell3.ba.best.com (root@shell3.ba.best.com [206.184.139.134]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA24444 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:21:28 +1000 Received: from shell3.ba.best.com (thomaso@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell3.ba.best.com (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA19839 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199708130020.RAA19839@shell3.ba.best.com> cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:02:22 +1000." <199708122302.JAA10988@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:20:46 -0700 From: Thomas Andrews Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rolling back to 3H on this hand is insane. The only possible meaning for 3H, if east thought 2D was to play, is "I've got awesome diamond support and lots of high cards in hearts." Something like: Qx AKQx AQxx xxx The only questionable call in this auction is west's pass of 4D. Did west have UI? You've given no evidence that he did, and without it, I can't see any cause for adjustment. Clearly, though, west *did* guess that his partner's 4D call was an "oops" bid, and not a slam try. Given his comment ("I'm taking this as a heart transfer"), I assume this guess was not surprising, even without UI. (Actually, East had at least a couple of logical alternatives on this auction, but none of them would end up in any contract other than a diamond contract, I think. And I doubt NS want them to end in 5D, given the frigidity of that contract.) = Thomas Andrews thomaso@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/ "Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn't the faintest idea what the heck is really going on." - Mike Royko > This happened at our local club: > North > A Q 4 > K 10 9 6 > 10 7 > Q J 4 2 > West East > J 10 K 9 3 2 > A 4 3 2 7 > A Q 6 2 K 9 8 5 4 3 > A 10 7 6 5 > South > 8 7 6 5 > Q J 8 5 > J > K 9 8 3 > > Dealer West. > > Bidding West North East South > 1NT 2C 2D(1) 3C > 3H pass 4D all pass > > West took some time before alerting East's 2D bid, saying "I'm taking that as > a transfer", at which point South called the director. Play was allowed to > continue, the director asking to be called again at the end of the hand. No > player called for the director at the end of the hand, but the director came > by in any case, and enquired about the auction. Upon finding that The E-W > agreement was to play "system off" after interference, he ruled that East > was in possession of UI, and disallowed the final 4D bid (which made 5). He > adjusted the contract to 3H down 5 and advised EW of their right to appeal. > > This sort of thing happens rather frequently at club level, without any > player thinking twice about it. Should the director have simply allowed the > final score to stand? To my mind, there was no logical alternative to the 4D > bid in any case. > > > Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 13 10:54:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:54:24 +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 KAA24558 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:54:16 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23516; 12 Aug 97 17:53 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Aug 1997 09:02:22 PDT." <199708122302.JAA10988@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:53:38 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9708121753.aa23516@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > This happened at our local club: > North > A Q 4 > K 10 9 6 > 10 7 > Q J 4 2 > West East > J 10 K 9 3 2 > A 4 3 2 7 > A Q 6 2 K 9 8 5 4 3 > A 10 7 6 5 > South > 8 7 6 5 > Q J 8 5 > J > K 9 8 3 > > Dealer West. > > Bidding West North East South > 1NT 2C 2D(1) 3C > 3H pass 4D all pass > > West took some time before alerting East's 2D bid, saying "I'm taking that as > a transfer", at which point South called the director. Play was allowed to > continue, the director asking to be called again at the end of the hand. No > player called for the director at the end of the hand, but the director came > by in any case, and enquired about the auction. Upon finding that The E-W > agreement was to play "system off" after interference, he ruled that East > was in possession of UI, and disallowed the final 4D bid (which made 5). He > adjusted the contract to 3H down 5 and advised EW of their right to appeal. > > This sort of thing happens rather frequently at club level, without any > player thinking twice about it. Should the director have simply allowed the > final score to stand? To my mind, there was no logical alternative to the 4D > bid in any Yes. The director apparently doesn't understand the Laws. Pass by East is certainly not a logical alternative. However, I think 3S by East is a logical alternative. Without the UI (i.e. assuming that West explained the 2D bid as "to play"), what would 3H mean? Well, West has to have something good in diamonds in order to be trying to play the hand, at the 3-level or higher, opposite a possible bust. East, of course, can't bid 3NT on his own, but I think 3S makes sense here, encouraging partner to go on to 3NT with clubs stopped and the right hand. (Note: I'm making the assumption that East is a good player; an East of lesser ability might not be able to reason in this manner.) After a 3S bid by East, I don't know what would happen. West, who is not in possession of UI (let's assume East did not make a face when West gave his misexplanation), is allowed to "wake up" and remember that 2D is natural. (Of course, he has to call the director and correct his explanation so that the opponents aren't misinformed.) If that were to happen, West would bid their cold 3NT. But this is too much to assume. More likely, West would take 3S as some sort of cue-bid, showing interest in a heart slam. So West, with good controls in the minors, might cue-bid 4C, or he might just try RKCB for hearts---I don't know. East, who must assume that West understood the 2D bid correctly, now has to figure out what West is trying to do---head for a diamond slam? I have no idea how the auction would continue if East and West bid properly and ethically. But although the director misapplied the Laws, I think he was right to look with suspicion on 4D. I think it's right to look with suspicion on any bid that occurs after partner misexplains a bid, whose purpose is to inform partner "you misunderstood me, I'm bidding my suit again to show you what I really have." If there's a logical alternative, bids like this should in general be disallowed, IMHO. At Albuquerque, the following came up: Partner RHO Me LHO 1H 2NT(1) 3H(2) 3S 4H 5D dbl all pass (1) Explained as a club-spade two-suiter. (I had long spades and knew there was a mistake.) (2) Competitive. RHO had a normal 1=2=5=5 hand. Partner called the director, who correctly disallowed the 5D bid. The point here is that if RHO had acted in accordance with the Laws, even if she really wanted to take a save over 4H, she could have bid 4NT or 5C with that hand, asking partner to pick one of the minors---not 5D, a bid clearly picked to correct partner's understanding of her previous bid. So in the example above, since there seems to be good alternative to 4D, I'd be concerned that the actual 4D call is taking advantage of the UI and should therefore be disallowed. The actual result, 3H down 5, is clearly wrong; I'm not sure what the score should be adjusted to, but it may well be even worse (perhaps 6NT doubled down 3?). (Note that I'm not fully convinced that 3S is the right bid in the actual auction. I'm sure you can make a case for it, but it's arguable that this case isn't good enough to make 3S a logical alternative.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 13 11:55:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:55:26 +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 LAA24701 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:55:20 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1324915; 13 Aug 97 1:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 06:15:59 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Richard Lighton wrote >>On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Labeo wrote: >>> >Richard Lighton now states: ....much removed.... > David S then remarks: > Seriously though, the problem with licensing is seen in this comment: >if there were a reason not to permit such an opening, it would not be >easy to convince Richard of this, especially as he would probably just >assume the EBU was off its trolley. > Labeo: or that it was simply legislating with no better object than to restrain the players who really know what the game is all about from freedom of action against those other inferior beings who dare to join in ? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 13 20:47:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:47:29 +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 UAA25761 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:47:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1426605; 13 Aug 97 11:44 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:04:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970812200707.008516d0@pop.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote >ardelm@ozemail.com.au wrote: >>This happened at our local club: [s] >>Dealer West. >> >>Bidding West North East South >> 1NT 2C 2D(1) 3C >> 3H pass 4D all pass [s] >I think you are correct about the logical alternatives. There is no way >that East can logically allow the partnership to play in a heart fit that >can at best be 5-1, when there is a known 8 card or better diamond fit. E >must bid over 3H. If a ruling forces W to bid over the 4D call, E must bid >yet again, and the pair will find it's way to 5D, which made. That's bad >for the non-offenders, so the final result should be 4D making 5. Thomas Andrews wrote >Rolling back to 3H on this hand is insane. The only possible meaning >for 3H, if east thought 2D was to play, is "I've got awesome diamond >support and lots of high cards in hearts." Are you sure you play in clubs? When the average player in a complicated auction bids 3H it means they have long hearts. Why does the heart fit have to be at most 5-1? Have you *never* seen a 1NT opening on Kx KQJxxx Kx ? QJx It's very rare? Yes, of course. But how does East *know* this is not that rare occasion? I have opened 1NT in my time with a 6card suit. If the auction goes in an unlooked-for way, I have later come into the auction with my 6card suit. My partner looks at me as though I have just been found bathing my 3-eyed son on Venus, but he treats my bid as natural! I am not disagreeing with anyone's final ruling *but* you must not consider that 3H cannot be natural: of course it can! Adam Beneschan wrote >However, I think 3S by East is a logical alternative. Without the UI >(i.e. assuming that West explained the 2D bid as "to play"), what >would 3H mean? Well, West has to have something good in diamonds in >order to be trying to play the hand, at the 3-level or higher, >opposite a possible bust. East, of course, can't bid 3NT on his own, >but I think 3S makes sense here, encouraging partner to go on to 3NT >with clubs stopped and the right hand. (Note: I'm making the >assumption that East is a good player; an East of lesser ability might >not be able to reason in this manner.) What possible bust? 2D was bid over 2C: with a bust he would have passed. Why are you assuming East is a good player? We have an ordinary mixup from a club: it's one hell of an assumption that we are talking about a good player. -- 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 Aug 13 22:12:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:12:02 +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 WAA26049 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 22:11:54 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1215236; 13 Aug 97 13:05 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCA7E9.5C946960@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:03:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:03:57 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 85 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I wrote: > >> Also, if memory serves me correctly as I do not >>have my copy of the Supplement to hand, there is also some advice that >>suggests that TDs might be forgiven for awarding +3/-3 IMPs in teams >>matches when the most/least favourable assigned scores likely/at all >>>probable would involve the award of a notable score. > >DWS wrote: > > I shall need chapter and verse on this one: this sounds like what I >am worrying about. > >My memory was only partly correct. The quote that I have in mind is in >Endicott & Hansen's 'Commentry on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge' >where section 12.19 states: > >EBL 12.19 (i) > >Our general advice to Directors remains that where a result has been obtained >at the table they should endeavour to follow the prescription in Law 12C2 if >they decide to adjust a score. However, it may be as well to consider >circumstances in which this advice may not hold good. > >EBL 12.19 (ii) > >We have in mind situations where the Director judges that two conditions are >present. The first is that the score adjustment which appears to fit the >requirements in Law 12C2 is particularly extreme; he would be awarding to one >or both sides a notable score which would represent an extremely large swing. > The second circumstance is that the Director believes the Appeals Committee >is more than likely to conclude that with the irregularity removed the >outcome is by no means certain, and would probably institute a "split" score >adjustment giving the non-offending side only a "part" adjustment equating to >its view of equity. > >EBL 12.19 (iii) > >In such circumstances one would not argue strongly with the Director who said >in effect: "I am not at all sure about the outcome here and do not want to >rock the boat by awarding a somewhat violent adjustment, so I will take >refuge in an award of plus and minus 3 IMPs. Let the Appeals Committee >decide whether there is a better equity to be found." > >In looking for this quote I also reminded myself that the EBU also advocates >the converse type of score adjustments, ie. giving an assigned score when an >artificial one would normally be given because a board could not be played. >The EBU Supplement to the EBL Directors Guide states: > >EBU 12.26 > >If a team A gets a good board against team B and, because of an infraction by >team B, the board cannot be played at the second table, then the >non-offenders are entitled to an assigned adjusted score under Law 12A1 (see >EBU 80.16.2v). > >and EBU 80.16.2v is as follows: > >(v) > >one or more cards are found to have been exchanged in the hand of each of two >partners (the opponents' cards being correct), either: > >the board will be cancelled/redealt as appropriate and the offending team, >whose players in the first room held hands found to be misboarded on arrival >in the second room, will receive 'average minus' (or are fined the standard >amount: see EBU 12.24 and 90.4); or (if more favourable to the non-offending >side): > >if in the opinion of the TD a result superior to what he considers the par on >the hand was obtained by the non-offending side in the first room, he may >award an adjusted score, allowing the non-offenders the benefit of their >superior score. In this event there is no further penalty. > >Again, this is clearly very sensible and entirely fair but possibly not >strictly legal (unless we regard this as awarding an artificial adjusted score that just happens to be equal to the value of the assigned >adjusted score). > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 14 00:01:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:01:09 +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 AAA26393 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:01:02 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1215213; 13 Aug 97 14:50 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCA7ED.946F2150@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:34:09 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 13:34:07 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 23 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SNIP > >>Labeo wrote: > >>> As David Martin will have realized, on balance this treatment >>may be generous to the offending side. >I wrote: >>Quite so and especially in the case of psyches which frequently result >>in extreme scores when not fielded, eg. absolute zero for the psycher. DWS wrote: > > As you know perfectly well, the psycher keeps his zero, since his >opponents do not appear damaged. > I am sorry for not expressing my point clearly and therefore allowing misunderstandings to occur. The situation that I had in mind is where a psyche is illegally fielded, the offending side does quite well and eventaully receives an Art AS of 40% when it is quite likely that they >would have got an absolute bottom without the fielding. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 14 04:53:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 04:53:19 +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 EAA00197 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 04:53:11 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AB08694; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:52:48 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:52:48 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > >>Dealer West. > >> > >>Bidding West North East South > >> 1NT 2C 2D(1) 3C > >> 3H pass 4D all pass [snip] > Are you sure you play in clubs? When the average player in a > complicated auction bids 3H it means they have long hearts. Why does > the heart fit have to be at most 5-1? Have you *never* seen a 1NT > opening on > Kx > KQJxxx > Kx ? > QJx Yes. I have never seen 1NT opened with a 6-card major, even in the beginners' classes where "open all balanced 15-17s 1NT" is taught. I HAVE seen 1NT opened with a 6-card minor, and done that myself occasionally, but again, not by beginners, who invariably open 1 of the long suit. I agree with the contention that hearts are at best 5-1 and 3H must be pulled. (And if the NT bidder holds the hand you give above ~ aren't we now dealing with a pass of 3H being disallowed as fielding a psych? *I* certainly think 1NT on those cards is a clear psych!) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 14 05:33:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:33:57 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA00361 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:33:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1202047; 13 Aug 97 20:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:15:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote >>I wrote: >> >>> Also, if memory serves me correctly as I do not >>>have my copy of the Supplement to hand, there is also some advice that >>>suggests that TDs might be forgiven for awarding +3/-3 IMPs in teams >>>matches when the most/least favourable assigned scores likely/at all >>>>probable would involve the award of a notable score. >> >>DWS wrote: >> >> I shall need chapter and verse on this one: this sounds like what I >>am worrying about. >> >>My memory was only partly correct. The quote that I have in mind is in >>Endicott & Hansen's 'Commentry on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge' >>where section 12.19 states: I presume you typed this in? I have been trying to get hold of an electronic copy, and if you have one *please* let me know! >> >>EBL 12.19 (i) >> >>Our general advice to Directors remains that where a result has been obtained >>at the table they should endeavour to follow the prescription in Law 12C2 if >>they decide to adjust a score. However, it may be as well to consider >>circumstances in which this advice may not hold good. >> >>EBL 12.19 (ii) >> >>We have in mind situations where the Director judges that two conditions are >>present. The first is that the score adjustment which appears to fit the >>requirements in Law 12C2 is particularly extreme; he would be awarding to one >>or both sides a notable score which would represent an extremely large swing. I am not happy with this as a reason on its own. >> The second circumstance is that the Director believes the Appeals Committee >>is more than likely to conclude that with the irregularity removed the >>outcome is by no means certain, and would probably institute a "split" score >>adjustment giving the non-offending side only a "part" adjustment equating to >>its view of equity. Effectively this is saying, let's be practical. I do not object to this. As previously noted, my worry concerns TDs that do not know what they are doing: there are circumstances where L12C1 might be invoked somewhat illegally, but I only want that to happen where a TD knows [a] that it is illegal [b] why it is illegal [c] why he is doing it [d] that he is serving equity More to the point, I hate the idea of "Lets give 60-40 otherwise we will have to do lots of work and anyway they will appeal." I do not know what happens to other TDs, but less than 20% of my judgement rulings are appealed, and I hate the idea of doing things 'because they will appeal'. >> >>EBL 12.19 (iii) >> >>In such circumstances one would not argue strongly with the Director who said >>in effect: "I am not at all sure about the outcome here and do not want to >>rock the boat by awarding a somewhat violent adjustment, so I will take >>refuge in an award of plus and minus 3 IMPs. Let the Appeals Committee >>decide whether there is a better equity to be found." See, that is why I am doubtful about this: my rulings are regularly not appealed. >>In looking for this quote I also reminded myself that the EBU also advocates >>the converse type of score adjustments, ie. giving an assigned score when an >>artificial one would normally be given because a board could not be played. >>The EBU Supplement to the EBL Directors Guide states: [s] >>Again, this is clearly very sensible and entirely fair but possibly not >>strictly legal (unless we regard this as awarding an artificial adjusted >score that just happens to be equal to the value of the assigned >>adjusted score). Quite. Again, I am happy so long as the TD knows what he was doing and why. There was a cause celebre in the ACBL last year where the whole thing would have gone away if the TDs had followed this approach. [Actually, it would not have been too bad at all if the TDs could have been bothered to open a Law book, but that is another story.] Note: no internet access 14/8-25/8 -- 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 Aug 14 05:42:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:42:14 +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 FAA00406 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:42:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0909053; 13 Aug 97 20:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:15:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote >>I wrote: > >>>Quite so and especially in the case of psyches which frequently result >>>in extreme scores when not fielded, eg. absolute zero for the psycher. > >DWS wrote: >> >> As you know perfectly well, the psycher keeps his zero, since his >>opponents do not appear damaged. >> >I am sorry for not expressing my point clearly and therefore allowing >misunderstandings to occur. The situation that I had in mind is where a >psyche is illegally fielded, the offending side does quite well and >eventaully receives an Art AS of 40% when it is quite likely that they >>would have got an absolute bottom without the fielding. Fielded psyches result in 60-30, ie an ArtAS of 40%, and a PP of 10%. The TD has the right to increase the PP, and if he thinks they were deliberately avoiding a 0% board, can make the PP 40% [or even 50%]. That should teach them. In practice though, this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. People do not look back in satisfaction at their 30% results, pleased that they did not get a 0%, so I believe the present system is workable and effective. Note: no internet access 14/8-25/8 -- 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 Aug 14 05:49:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:49:15 +1000 Received: from accord.cco.caltech.edu (hastings@accord.cco.caltech.edu [131.215.48.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00436 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 05:49:10 +1000 Received: (from hastings@localhost) by accord.cco.caltech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA09528; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 12:49:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Curtis A. Hastings" Message-Id: <199708131949.MAA09528@accord.cco.caltech.edu> To: fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >(And if the NT bidder holds the hand you give above ~ aren't we >now dealing with a pass of 3H being disallowed as fielding a psych? *I* >certainly think 1NT on those cards is a clear psych!) RTFLB. A psyche is defined as a "gross misstatement of honor strength or length," at least 2HCP or 2 cards. Since opening 1NT with 5M332 when the appropriate number of HP are held for many pairs, 6M322 is only a 1 card difference. Ergo it is not a psyche (even though it is antisystemic). Curt From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 14 06:00:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 06:00:39 +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 GAA00478 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 06:00:29 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AB04325; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:59:30 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:59:30 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: "Curtis A. Hastings" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) In-Reply-To: <199708131949.MAA09528@accord.cco.caltech.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Curtis A. Hastings wrote: > >(And if the NT bidder holds the hand you give above ~ aren't we > >now dealing with a pass of 3H being disallowed as fielding a psych? *I* > >certainly think 1NT on those cards is a clear psych!) > > RTFLB. A psyche is defined as a "gross misstatement of honor strength > or length," at least 2HCP or 2 cards. > > Since opening 1NT with 5M332 when the appropriate number of HP > are held for many pairs, 6M322 is only a 1 card difference. > > Ergo it is not a psyche (even though it is antisystemic). The '2 and 2' guideline notwithstanding, I would imagine that the hand given by David would be classed as a "gross misstatement of honor strength or length" by a LARGE majority of players in my area. I note also that, correctly or not, opening 1NT with a singleton -- again a misstatement by 1 card but considered 'gross' by a large majority of players in my area -- is almost always treated as a psychic when it comes up in a ruling. And doing so twice (unless you alert all 1NT bids as 'may contain a singleton') is generally punished more severely than other "repeated psych = concealed agreement" cases. I cannot speak for the rest of ACBLand or the world. But that's what it looks like from here. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 14 12:35:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:35:54 +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 MAA01568 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:35:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1114799; 14 Aug 97 3:20 BST Message-ID: <46u9q1BFhm8zEwRO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 03:07:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI In-Reply-To: <199708131949.MAA09528@accord.cco.caltech.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Curtis A. Hastings" wrote >>(And if the NT bidder holds the hand you give above ~ aren't we >>now dealing with a pass of 3H being disallowed as fielding a psych? *I* >>certainly think 1NT on those cards is a clear psych!) > >RTFLB. A psyche is defined as a "gross misstatement of honor strength >or length," at least 2HCP or 2 cards. This definition [2HCP or 2cards] is not in the Law book, which is a ggod thing since it is clearly wrong. It is a very general guide, nothing more. >Since opening 1NT with 5M332 when the appropriate number of HP >are held for many pairs, 6M322 is only a 1 card difference. > >Ergo it is not a psyche (even though it is antisystemic). [No internet access 15/8-25/8] -- 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 Aug 14 14:31:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:31:03 +1000 Received: from accord.cco.caltech.edu (hastings@accord.cco.caltech.edu [131.215.48.152]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA01933 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:30:57 +1000 Received: (from hastings@localhost) by accord.cco.caltech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA29598 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:30:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Curtis A. Hastings" Message-Id: <199708140430.VAA29598@accord.cco.caltech.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI (oops) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oops, David is right. But I still maintain that calling 1NT on 6M322 a psyche is an outlandish position. I guess the rule of {2+2} was an acbl rule which appeared somewhere other than in the Laws. curt From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 14 19:41:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:41:42 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA02895 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:40:17 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-189.innet.be [194.7.10.189]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA22313 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:40:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33F1F132.7E787244@innet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:38:58 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Are you sure you play in clubs? When the average player in a > complicated auction bids 3H it means they have long hearts. Why does > the heart fit have to be at most 5-1? Have you *never* seen a 1NT > opening on > Kx > KQJxxx > Kx ? > QJx > > It's very rare? Yes, of course. But how does East *know* this is > not > that rare occasion? I have opened 1NT in my time with a 6card suit. > If > the auction goes in an unlooked-for way, I have later come into the > auction with my 6card suit. My partner looks at me as though I have > just been found bathing my 3-eyed son on Venus, but he treats my bid > as > natural! > > I am not disagreeing with anyone's final ruling *but* you must not > consider that 3H cannot be natural: of course it can! > David, you are missing one thing. When you play with an irregular partner, you do not have a full system. You know you don't. You know some bids might be misunderstood. If you bid diamonds in this situation, you are not sure if partner will interpret it as diamonds or hearts, but when he bids hearts, you are damn sure he thought it was transfer. On the other side, if your partner bids diamonds, you know he cannot be sure if you understand. You might well bid hearts just to be on the safe side. If he returns to diamonds, it was meant as natural all along. No need for any UI. I assume everybody agrees with me that knowing you have not discussed some auction is AI ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 14 21:12:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 21:12:52 +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 VAA03083 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 21:12:25 +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 ESMTP id NAA06963 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 13:12:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33F2E8E4.60B53748@innet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:15:48 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Poll (was Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Curtis A. Hastings wrote: > > > >(And if the NT bidder holds the hand you give above ~ aren't we > > >now dealing with a pass of 3H being disallowed as fielding a psych? > *I* > > >certainly think 1NT on those cards is a clear psych!) > > > > RTFLB. A psyche is defined as a "gross misstatement of honor > strength > > or length," at least 2HCP or 2 cards. > > > > Since opening 1NT with 5M332 when the appropriate number of HP > > are held for many pairs, 6M322 is only a 1 card difference. > > > > Ergo it is not a psyche (even though it is antisystemic). > > The '2 and 2' guideline notwithstanding, I would imagine that the hand > given by David would be classed as a "gross misstatement of honor > strength > or length" by a LARGE majority of players in my area. > > I note also that, correctly or not, opening 1NT with a singleton -- > again > a misstatement by 1 card but considered 'gross' by a large majority of > players in my area -- is almost always treated as a psychic when it > comes > up in a ruling. And doing so twice (unless you alert all 1NT bids as > 'may > contain a singleton') is generally punished more severely than other > "repeated psych = concealed agreement" cases. > > I cannot speak for the rest of ACBLand or the world. But that's what > it > looks like from here. And I see that's Alaska - quite a long way away. > > Gordon Bower I think this is not something we should make rules about, but try to come to a majority consensus. So let's pose a Question : Do you consider opening 1NT (described as 'normal distribution' - no 5-card major, no singleton) with a) 6M322 b) 6M331 (singleton Ace) c) 5431 (singleton Ace) d) 5431 (small singleton) a psychic bid or not ? When you know that the next question you will have to answer as a TD is that - if not a psyche - you must rule misinformation - and thus in a small number of cases - an adjusted score. Please answer off-list, to me, I will tally and post results. People with e-mail addresses ending .com, .edu and the like please tell me where they are from. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 14 22:20:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:20:00 +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 WAA03259 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 22:19:53 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0721705; 14 Aug 97 13:06 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 13:00:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Gratuitous UI In-Reply-To: <33F1F132.7E787244@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >David, you are missing one thing. I am not missing that: all I said [repeated for convenience] is: >> I am not disagreeing with anyone's final ruling *but* you must not >> consider that 3H cannot be natural: of course it can! >When you play with an irregular partner, you do not have a full system. >You know you don't. >You know some bids might be misunderstood. >If you bid diamonds in this situation, you are not sure if partner will >interpret it as diamonds or hearts, but when he bids hearts, you are >damn sure he thought it was transfer. >On the other side, if your partner bids diamonds, you know he cannot be >sure if you understand. >You might well bid hearts just to be on the safe side. >If he returns to diamonds, it was meant as natural all along. [No internet access 15/8-25/8] -- 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 Aug 14 23:16:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 23:16:57 +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 XAA03398 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 23:16:50 +1000 Received: from cph40.ppp.dknet.dk (cph40.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.40]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA02634 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:16:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: Poll (was Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:16:36 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33f5fdb5.2574572@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <33F2E8E4.60B53748@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <33F2E8E4.60B53748@innet.be> 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 Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:15:48 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >Do you consider opening 1NT (described as 'normal distribution' - no >5-card major, no singleton) with > >a) 6M322 >b) 6M331 (singleton Ace) >c) 5431 (singleton Ace) >d) 5431 (small singleton) > >a psychic bid or not ? I cannot simply answer yes or no to these. If the 1NT call was made because the player believed that 1NT was the best way to describe the hand, then it is not a psyche. If 1NT was chosen to misrepresent the hand in order to create a swing, then it is a psyche. =46or all four distributions I can make up hands where the answer could be no and other hands where the answer would clearly be yes. But it would also depend on the partnership. My usual partner and I play very disciplined 1NT openings, so for us the answer would simply be "yes" to all four. With another of my partners, unusual 1NT shapes can occur, and the answer would depend on the specific hand. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 00:51:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 00:51:20 +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 AAA05924 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 00:51:11 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1213169; 14 Aug 97 15:42 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCA8C8.49D96200@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:39:44 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 15:39:43 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 40 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP > I presume you typed this in? Almost! Actually, my lady wife, who is a far faster typist than I, kindly helped me. >I have been trying to get hold of an >electronic copy, and if you have one *please* let me know! Sadly, I do not. >>> >>>EBL 12.19 (i) >>> >>>Our general advice to Directors remains that where a result has been >>>obtained >>>at the table they should endeavour to follow the prescription in Law 12C2 >>>if >>>they decide to adjust a score. However, it may be as well to consider >>>circumstances in which this advice may not hold good. >>> >>>EBL 12.19 (ii) >>> >>>We have in mind situations where the Director judges that two conditions >>>are >>>present. The first is that the score adjustment which appears to fit the >>>requirements in Law 12C2 is particularly extreme; he would be awarding to >>>one >>>or both sides a notable score which would represent an extremely large >>>swing. > > I am not happy with this as a reason on its own. Hear, hear! And I agree with the rest of your comments as well. > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 00:53:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 00:53:15 +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 AAA05949 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 00:53:05 +1000 Received: from lizard (bangor-1.ime.net [209.90.195.58]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA22162; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970814105416.374786d4@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: Jesper Dybdal , Bridge-Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Poll (was Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:16 PM 8/14/97 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:15:48 +0000, Herman De Wael > wrote: >>Do you consider opening 1NT (described as 'normal distribution' - no >>5-card major, no singleton) with >> >>a) 6M322 >>b) 6M331 (singleton Ace) >>c) 5431 (singleton Ace) >>d) 5431 (small singleton) >> >>a psychic bid or not ? > >I cannot simply answer yes or no to these. > >If the 1NT call was made because the player believed that 1NT was >the best way to describe the hand, then it is not a psyche. If >1NT was chosen to misrepresent the hand in order to create a >swing, then it is a psyche. So, you mean that two players using the same system (and supposedly the same style), could each choose to open the same 5431 hand 1NT, but it is possible that only one of them psyched? I'll buy this, but you're going to have a hard time selling it to the masses. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 01:25:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:25:46 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06331 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:25:38 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA16391 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:25:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.44) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma016352; Thu Aug 14 10:24:44 1997 Received: by har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCA8A4.502C1360@har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:22:13 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCA8A4.502C1360@har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com> From: rts48u To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:22:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: < More to the point, I hate the idea of "Lets give 60-40 otherwise we=20 ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:32:36 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA19053; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:32:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.44) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma019016; Thu Aug 14 10:31:45 1997 Received: by har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCA8A5.5458B0A0@har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:29:29 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCA8A5.5458B0A0@har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com> From: rts48u To: "'G. R. Bower'" , "Curtis A. Hastings" Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:29:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: G. R. Bower[SMTP:fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 1997 7:59 AM Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) (snip) I note also that, correctly or not, opening 1NT with a singleton -- = again a misstatement by 1 card but considered 'gross' by a large majority of players in my area -- is almost always treated as a psychic when it = comes up in a ruling. And doing so twice (unless you alert all 1NT bids as = 'may contain a singleton') is generally punished more severely than other "repeated psych =3D concealed agreement" cases. I cannot speak for the rest of ACBLand or the world. But that's what it looks like from here. Gordon Bower The same rather paranoid reaction seems to occur in district 4, although = at least one of our finest tournament players, with some merit, insists = it can be an excellent bid in some circumstances when the singleton is = an ace. Unfortunately the Absolute Control of Bidding Lunkheads don't seem to = agree. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 02:06:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:06:37 +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 CAA06829 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:06:29 +1000 Received: from cph49.ppp.dknet.dk (cph49.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.49]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA09669 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 18:06:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: adjusted v assigned score (was Case One Appeal at Albuquerque NABC) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 18:06:22 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34002cb0.14600824@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 [I posted this yesterday, but it seems to have been lost somewhere - apologies if you get it twice] On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:15:51 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >David Martin wrote >>>In such circumstances one would not argue strongly with the Director = who said >>>in effect: "I am not at all sure about the outcome here and do not = want to >>>rock the boat by awarding a somewhat violent adjustment, so I will = take >>>refuge in an award of plus and minus 3 IMPs. Let the Appeals = Committee >>>decide whether there is a better equity to be found." > > See, that is why I am doubtful about this: my rulings are regularly=20 >not appealed. In particular, if the idea is to let the committee handle the case, a "violent adjustment" is much more likely to bring the case to the committee than a +-3 IMP ruling. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 02:12:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:12:44 +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 CAA06873 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:12:37 +1000 Received: from cph49.ppp.dknet.dk (cph49.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.49]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA09863 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 18:12:29 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Re: Poll (was Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 18:12:28 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34012d99.14834220@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <1.5.4.16.19970814105416.374786d4@ime.net> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970814105416.374786d4@ime.net> 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 Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:52:49 -0400 (EDT), Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 03:16 PM 8/14/97 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>If the 1NT call was made because the player believed that 1NT was >>the best way to describe the hand, then it is not a psyche. If >>1NT was chosen to misrepresent the hand in order to create a >>swing, then it is a psyche. > >So, you mean that two players using the same system (and supposedly the = same >style), could each choose to open the same 5431 hand 1NT, but it is = possible >that only one of them psyched? I'll buy this, but you're going to have = a >hard time selling it to the masses. In principle yes, but if they're playing exactly the same system and style, then not in practice - it will be impossible to find an example of a hand that one such player would find best shown with 1NT, while another would use 1NT as a deliberate misrepresentation of the hand. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 02:39:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:39:03 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06971 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:38:57 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA14950 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:38:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) In-Reply-To: <01BCA8A5.5458B0A0@har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, rts48u wrote: > I note also that, correctly or not, opening 1NT with a singleton -- again > a misstatement by 1 card but considered 'gross' by a large majority of > players in my area -- is almost always treated as a psychic when it comes > up in a ruling. And doing so twice (unless you alert all 1NT bids as 'may > contain a singleton') is generally punished more severely than other > "repeated psych = concealed agreement" cases. See below. If you are going to alert it, it is an agreement that is illegal in ACBLand. The requirement is that partner will never expect (i.e. make allowance for) it. > > I cannot speak for the rest of ACBLand or the world. But that's what it > looks like from here. > > Gordon Bower > > The same rather paranoid reaction seems to occur in district 4, although > at least one of our finest tournament players, with some merit, insists > it can be an excellent bid in some circumstances when the singleton is > an ace. > Unfortunately the Absolute Control of Bidding Lunkheads don't seem to agree. > Craig > > There used to be a file in the ACBL regulations about this. There may still be, but I can't find it in a quick search. What it said was that ACBL regulations prohibit AN AGREEMENT to open supposedly balanced hands with a singleton. However, it did say that there was not, nor ever had been, a prohibition on making the bid when it seemed right. It gave a couple of examples (of 2NT openers) with a singleton Ace which the writer (Wolff, I think) thought were obvious. I remember one team of 8 match where a 3=4=5=1 hand was so obviously a 1NT opener that 3 out of 4 people who held the hand did just that. -- Richard Lighton | You should play the game for fun. The instant you find (lighton@idt.net) | yourself playing for any other reason, you should rack Wood-Ridge NJ | it up and go on to something else. USA | -- Charles Goren From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 05:42:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 05:42:32 +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 FAA07685 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 05:42:25 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0911787; 14 Aug 97 20:18 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:59:15 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: <9T7swYBMvf7zEw7a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9T7swYBMvf7zEw7a@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote > >>Labeo: We need computer screens with the player who should remain >>ignorant of the Q&A automatically excluded from viewing them..... > > Do we indeed? It may or may not improve the game of bridge to >introduce methods that change the game, benefiting some things at the >expense of others, but we should never become blinkered into thinking >that is the only way. Do you think screens would improve the overall >players' enjoyment if introduced at the local club? > I must curb my tendency to tease. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 06:04:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:04:31 +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 GAA07758 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:04:25 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1009448; 14 Aug 97 20:18 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:56:52 +0100 To: Richard Lighton , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The ACBL's apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Richard Lighton writes >It is always possible that the "you may not open 1NT with a 5-card >suit" assertion is incorrect. It was mentioned by a friend in >correspondence a while back. I have sent some e-mail asking for more >details, but I suspect he is away at the moment. A retraction will >be published if necessary! > I have now dug up the 1987 Year Book of the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee: I quote:- "4(i) The normal range of an opening natural one no-trump bid is considered by the Committee to be 3 or 4 points, and normal distribution 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2. The normal range of a Weak Two bid is considered to be 5 points, normal suit length five cards. (ii) Pairs are free to adopt greater ranges of point count and/or distribution and/or length of suit: such practice is described as a wide-range bid. The player's convention card must state what to expect of such a bid, with particular reference to variations for vulnerability, position relative to dealer, etc. whether by explicit arrangement or as a partnership practice. " There is pressure on disclosure but no prohibition. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 06:31:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:31:06 +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 GAA07843 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:30:58 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA13080; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:30:45 -0800 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:30:45 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: Richard Lighton Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Richard Lighton wrote: [on opening 1NT with a singleton] > See below. If you are going to alert it, it is an agreement that > is illegal in ACBLand. The requirement is that partner will never > expect (i.e. make allowance for) it. The current GCC allows conventional 1NT openings if forcing and promising 16+ HCP. It defines a notrump bid as natural "if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and one or two doubletons)." > What it said was that ACBL regulations prohibit AN AGREEMENT to open > supposedly balanced hands with a singleton. However, it did say that > there was not, nor ever had been, a prohibition on making the bid > when it seemed right. It gave a couple of examples (of 2NT openers) > with a singleton Ace which the writer (Wolff, I think) thought were > obvious. I certainly believe that the ACBL's intention is to ban opening 1NT with a singleton by agreement. But if I were directing and someone was playing this supposedly illegal method, I can think of two explanations they could give me, after either of which I would feel obligated to let them off the hook. #1. "We open 1NT with all 4432s, 4333s, 5332s, and some 6332s in the appropriate range, as well as certain 5431s when the singleton is an ace or king and all other suits are covered. Thus, our 1NT opening contains 'generally, no singleton or void', just as a Precision 1D response to 1C is 'generally 0-7' though it can be an impossible negative. #2. "Whether it contains a singleton or not, my bid of 1NT is an offer to take seven tricks without naming any suit as trumps. The definition atop the GCC notwithstanding, 1NT is an entirely natural bid. So (until you ban all conventional responses to natural 1NT bids next year) you can put your convention chart away." As for the poll -- my own impression is that 1NT is a strictly defined bid for most partnerships and that, for these partnerships, opening with singletons or 6-card majors is entirely unexpected by the partner of the NT bidder. Assuming this to be true, it seems reasonable to treat it the first time as an allowable violation of system but thereafter as a concealed nonstandard partnership agreement. I personally think that regularly opening 5431s with a natural notrump should be legal but alertable. But then -- I'm just a guy way up in Alaska with a director's card. The ACBL isn't particularly interested in MY opinion. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 07:23:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:23:11 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08020 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:23:05 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-71.ts-6.lax.idt.net [169.132.209.215]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA18785; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 17:22:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33F375F9.F6E95153@idt.net> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:17:45 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Offshape NT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01BCA8A5.5458B0A0@har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I recently inquired of an ACBL Director, here in Los Angeles, about the ACBL's policy in re 1NT openings with singletons, and was informed that the ACBL really doesn't HAVE a policy. He blamed an article by Bobby Wolfe, in which Mr. Wolfe is supposed to have defended the player's right to use his judgement about such things. I personally know of at least two players, professionals, here in Southern California, who have a reputation for opening off-shape 1NT's, without, in my experience, any alerts, pre-alerts, or other warnings. My concern in this is not so much the off-shape no trump as the possibility, (even the high likelihood, IMHO) that these players are in effect not playing the same convention card as their partner. At the recently concluded National tournament in Albuquerque, I had an opponent (a pro) bid 3NT over his partner's 1D opening. This was alerted, and then explained as showing 13-15, with no four card major. His actual hand was AJxx, Jxxx, AKx, Kx (!) We misdefended, for a very round zero. I complained to the director, and he talked to the partnership about it. She claimed he'd never done it before (they'd played about 6 sessions together), and he claimed it was just a "Bridge Judgement" on his part. I'm pretty sure the "Bridge Judgement" went something like this: "If I can't guess which major she holds, she'll end up playing this stupid hand. I'd better bid NT. Maybe there's no major fit, and I can probably play the wrong contract better than she can play the right one anyway." He declared both hands that round. When the round was over, I gave her the ticket to sign, and she pointed to him and said, "He plays them, and he signs them." I wonder what the group thinks of this little event. Irv rts48u wrote: > ---------- > From: G. R. Bower[SMTP:fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 1997 7:59 AM > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) > (snip) > > I note also that, correctly or not, opening 1NT with a singleton -- > again > a misstatement by 1 card but considered 'gross' by a large majority of > > players in my area -- is almost always treated as a psychic when it > comes > up in a ruling. And doing so twice (unless you alert all 1NT bids as > 'may > contain a singleton') is generally punished more severely than other > "repeated psych = concealed agreement" cases. > > I cannot speak for the rest of ACBLand or the world. But that's what > it > looks like from here. > > Gordon Bower > > The same rather paranoid reaction seems to occur in district 4, > although at least one of our finest tournament players, with some > merit, insists it can be an excellent bid in some circumstances when > the singleton is an ace. > Unfortunately the Absolute Control of Bidding Lunkheads don't seem to > agree. > Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 07:42:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:42:12 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA08157 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:42:04 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02655; 14 Aug 97 14:41 PDT To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:30:45 PDT." Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:41:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9708141441.aa02655@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > #2. "Whether it contains a singleton or not, my bid of 1NT is an offer to > take seven tricks without naming any suit as trumps. The definition atop > the GCC notwithstanding, 1NT is an entirely natural bid. So (until you ban > all conventional responses to natural 1NT bids next year) you can put your > convention chart away." This last won't wash. As has often been stated on this list and r.g.b, the terms "natural" and "convention" are difficult to define. However, I think anyone who has tried to come up with some definition of "convention" (including me) would try to put more restrictions on a "natural" notrump bid (except for possibly 3NT) than just "I'm offering to play for X number of tricks." Otherwise, you'd have to allow anyone to open 1NT on just about anything (like AKJ10xx/Axxx/xx/x: "Well, I have seven tricks . . ."). Also, if you allow this argument, you'd have to say Flannery 2H, showing five hearts and four spades, is not a convention since you're offering to take eight tricks in hearts. No one has yet been able to convince me that Flannery 2H is not a convention. There has to be more to the definition of "natural" than just "Any time I'm willing to play in my bid, it must be natural". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 07:59:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:59:10 +1000 Received: from galadriel.otago.ac.nz (galadriel.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08256 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:59:01 +1000 Received: from [139.80.48.84] (ou048084.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.84]) by galadriel.otago.ac.nz (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA17605 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:58:53 +1200 (NZST) X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:04:59 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael H. Albert" Subject: Revokes without penalty Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following incident caused some ill-feeling at a recent local tournament(1). Dummy was tabled with 12 cards showing, and as a result revoked early in the play. When the 13th card was exposed it became clear that the defensive line adopted had been quite significantly sub-optimal and that the missing card in dummy had probably influenced this line. Now we all know 64B3, usually stated as "dummy cannot revoke" (2). On the other hand 64C says "director responsible for equity". It had always been my feeling in this situation, that since all players at the table are responsible for dummy, the defenders have no equity stake. In other words, my first and only reaction would be to rule "result stands". The ill feeling, and inappropriate reactions of one of the players involved made the issue moot in this particular case, but here I am soliciting the opinion of BLML on the matter anyhow. Michael PS: I was a player, not the director, and this did not occur in a match in which I was directly involved. Footnotes (1) for the terminally curious, the Alexandra 5A teams, played, for some reason, that I being a recent immigrant, cannot begin to hope to fathom, in Clyde. (2) I note in passing that the wording is more general, "... failing to play any card faced on the table ..." Is this meant to include penalty cards (specifically minor ones?) If so, it seems inconsistent with the use of "must" in Law 50 relating to the disposition thereof. Or is it simply that the penalty for a revoke which occurs while failing to play a faced penalty card, is the penalty for failing to play the penalty card and not for the revoke (got that?) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 10:20:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:20:11 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08746 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:20:04 +1000 Received: from cph51.ppp.dknet.dk (cph51.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.51]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA22505 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:19:57 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revokes without penalty Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 02:19:58 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33f79e7b.14487772@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, 15 Aug 1997 10:04:59 +1200, "Michael H. Albert" wrote: >Now we all know 64B3, usually stated as "dummy cannot revoke" (2). On = the >other hand 64C says "director responsible for equity". It had always = been >my feeling in this situation, that since all players at the table are >responsible for dummy, the defenders have no equity stake. The defenders are not responsible for dummy having 13 cards or for dummy following suit. The score should be adjusted in this situation. >(2) I note in passing that the wording is more general, "... failing to >play any card faced on the table ..." Is this meant to include penalty >cards (specifically minor ones?) Yes. >If so, it seems inconsistent with the use >of "must" in Law 50 relating to the disposition thereof. Or is it simply >that the penalty for a revoke which occurs while failing to play a faced >penalty card, is the penalty for failing to play the penalty card and = not >for the revoke (got that?) I'm not sure I get it. =46ailing to play a penalty card _is_ a revoke (L61). I think the idea is that if the other side does not notice a failure to play a faced card (penalty or dummy), then they do not deserve the benefit of the trick transfer, but they do deserve the L64C equity. This ensures that nobody stands to gain tricks by not calling attention to a revoke by dummy or a failure to play a penalty card. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 22:50:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:50:23 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10953 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:50:16 +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 IAA10685; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970815085037.006b6d18@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:50:37 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Poll (was Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <33F2E8E4.60B53748@innet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:15 PM 8/14/97 +0000, you wrote: >Question : > >Do you consider opening 1NT (described as 'normal distribution' - no >5-card major, no singleton) with > >a) 6M322 >b) 6M331 (singleton Ace) >c) 5431 (singleton Ace) >d) 5431 (small singleton) > >a psychic bid or not ? >When you know that the next question you will have to answer as a TD is >that - if not a psyche - you must rule misinformation - and thus in a >small number of cases - an adjusted score. > > >Please answer off-list, to me, I will tally and post results. >People with e-mail addresses ending .com, .edu and the like please tell >me where they are from. a) Yes. b) Yes. c) Yes, if 5M431, otherwise no. d) Same as (c). However, I would think that at least as many partnerships consider 'normal distribution' for a 1NT opening to include any 5332, i.e. no six-card suit, no singleton. Neither treatment (five card majors systemically permitted or not) requires an alert (ACBL), although must, of course, be revealed on inquiry. With that agreement, the answers become: a) No. b) Yes. c) No. d) No. As to the question for the TD, I would disabuse the questioner of the notion that 'if not a psyche - you must rule misinformation', and point out that tactical deviations from system, if not gross misdescriptions, are not psyches, nor do they, if genuinely unexpected by partner, give rise to misinformation (i.e. assuming no past history that would create an 'implicit understanding' different from the revealed one). These could well be tactical deviations, in which case no psyche, no misinformation, no potential for adjustment. /eric (US) Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 15 23:30:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:30:42 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11084 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:30:32 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA12432 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970815093055.006b39cc@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 09:30:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Implicit Agreements (WAS: Offshape NT) In-Reply-To: References: <01BCA8A5.5458B0A0@har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:38 PM 8/14/97 -0400, Richard wrote: >See below. If you are going to alert it, it is an agreement that >is illegal in ACBLand. The requirement is that partner will never >expect (i.e. make allowance for) it. Richard has accurately stated the ACBL's position, including, in his second sentence, the ludicrous and illogical assumption that causes TDs and ACs who attempt to apply the ACBL's doctrine on "implicit understandings" to come up with rulings that are so often inconsistent to the point of near-randomness. This ridiculous premise is that "partner will expect it" and "partner will make allowance for it" are equivalent statements. They are not. The first is a statement about what's going on in partner's mind. The second is a statement about the actions partner takes at the table. TDs and ACs should not be required to read players' minds. IMO, the requirement should be that partner will never make allowance for it. Period. When a player deviates from system, the determining issue for the TD/AC should be whether or not his partner may have bid in such a way as to make allowance for the possibility of such deviation. A perfectly ethical player may well "expect" his partner to deviate from system (either tactically or psychically) in certain circumstances, but will "bend over backwards" to avoid taking any advantage of such expectation. This should not be considered illegal. Once the TD/AC is convinced that the deviator's partner did not base his subsequent actions on any knowlege that there might have been a deviation from system, the fact that this is the second such deviation this week shouldn't be relevant (although it may, of course, affect the original determination, by making the TD/AC harder to convince). But in the ACBL, two such deviations in the same week are a prima facie infraction, regardless of what happens subsequently. That means that the outcome of a particular adjudication may well depend entirely on the random circumstance of whether or not the deviating pair happened to catch a TD or AC which was aware of the prior deviation. 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 Aug 16 00:01:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 00:01:10 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11236 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 00:01:04 +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 KAA14199 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970815100128.006b8ed4@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:01:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) In-Reply-To: <9708141441.aa02655@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:41 PM 8/14/97 PDT, Adam wrote: >> #2. "Whether it contains a singleton or not, my bid of 1NT is an offer to >> take seven tricks without naming any suit as trumps. The definition atop >> the GCC notwithstanding, 1NT is an entirely natural bid. So (until you ban >> all conventional responses to natural 1NT bids next year) you can put your >> convention chart away." > >This last won't wash. As has often been stated on this list and >r.g.b, the terms "natural" and "convention" are difficult to define. >However, I think anyone who has tried to come up with some definition >of "convention" (including me) would try to put more restrictions on a >"natural" notrump bid (except for possibly 3NT) than just "I'm >offering to play for X number of tricks." Otherwise, you'd have to >allow anyone to open 1NT on just about anything (like >AKJ10xx/Axxx/xx/x: "Well, I have seven tricks . . ."). > >Also, if you allow this argument, you'd have to say Flannery 2H, >showing five hearts and four spades, is not a convention since you're >offering to take eight tricks in hearts. No one has yet been able to >convince me that Flannery 2H is not a convention. There has to be >more to the definition of "natural" than just "Any time I'm willing to >play in my bid, it must be natural". There is a huge difference between an offer to play in one's bid (i.e. a bid which "*shows* willingness" to play there) and a bid whose meaning implies that one is willing to play there (i.e. any non-forcing bid). If we open two of our short suit to show a 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0 minimum opening bid, it is conventional, notwithstanding the fact that partner is expected to pass with a misfitting 7-2-2-2 lacking game-going values. A bid of XY that conveys the message "I suggest we play for X tricks in denomination Y" is natural. A bid of XY that conveys the message "I have blah blah blah and I'm willing to play in whatever you think the right contract is opposite blah blah blah, including XY" is conventional whenever the "blah blah blah" says anything other than, or in addition to, "I have length in suit Y" (which may include an agreement that "length" means at least Z cards), and, possibly, "I have a hand of such-and-such strength". David's hypothesized agreement about 1NT openings is clearly in the former category, while Flannery 2H is clearly in the latter. 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 Aug 16 00:58:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 00:58:02 +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 AAA13737 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 00:57:56 +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 KAA28664 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12551; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:58:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:58:04 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708151458.KAA12551@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Implicit Agreements (WAS: Offshape NT) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > IMO, the requirement should be > that partner will never make allowance for it. Period. Just to remind everyone, there is also the disclosure requirement (L75A and L75C). I don't think Eric is overlooking them (as he is addressing another issue entirely), but they could well be the basis for a score adjustment in relevant circumstances. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 16 01:09:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 01:09:48 +1000 Received: from freenet1.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13876 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 01:09:39 +1000 Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet6.carleton.ca [134.117.136.26]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA10497 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA12902; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708151413.KAA12902@freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >There used to be a file in the ACBL regulations about this. There may >still be, but I can't find it in a quick search. > >What it said was that ACBL regulations prohibit AN AGREEMENT to open >supposedly balanced hands with a singleton. However, it did say that >there was not, nor ever had been, a prohibition on making the bid >when it seemed right. It gave a couple of examples (of 2NT openers) >with a singleton Ace which the writer (Wolff, I think) thought were >obvious. > >I remember one team of 8 match where a 3=4=5=1 hand was so obviously >a 1NT opener that 3 out of 4 people who held the hand did just that. >-- >Richard Lighton | You should play the game for fun. The instant you find >(lighton@idt.net) | yourself playing for any other reason, you should rack >Wood-Ridge NJ | it up and go on to something else. >USA | -- Charles Goren > As a point of information: In the August 1997 edition of the ACBL Bulletin, the Ruling the Game column by Brian Moran had the following Q&A: "Question( from Arizona): we have had several arguments on the subject of opening 1NT with a singleton or a void. Is this legal? I would appreciate information on this. Answer: Unless the opening 1NT is played as strong and forcing (as in the Romex system), partnerships may not agree to make the bid with a singleton or void. There is not penalty for doing so, so long as partner is unaware of that possibility. Repeated use of an opening 1NT with a singleton or a void, however, may lead to an implicit and illegal agreement for a partnership." Reprinted without permission, but with no ill-intent. :-) Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 16 05:05:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 05:05:31 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA15199 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 05:05:24 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22913 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:05:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA00334; Fri, 15 Aug 97 14:05:22 CDT Message-Id: <9708151905.AA00334@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 14:05 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: RE: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:38:44 -0400 (EDT), Richard Lighton wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, rts48u wrote: > > > I note also that, correctly or not, opening 1NT with a singleton -- again > > a misstatement by 1 card but considered 'gross' by a large majority of > > players in my area -- is almost always treated as a psychic when it comes > > up in a ruling. And doing so twice (unless you alert all 1NT bids as 'may > > contain a singleton') is generally punished more severely than other > > "repeated psych = concealed agreement" cases. > > See below. If you are going to alert it, it is an agreement that > is illegal in ACBLand. The requirement is that partner will never > expect (i.e. make allowance for) it. [snip] > There used to be a file in the ACBL regulations about this. There may > still be, but I can't find it in a quick search. > > What it said was that ACBL regulations prohibit AN AGREEMENT to open > supposedly balanced hands with a singleton. However, it did say that > there was not, nor ever had been, a prohibition on making the bid > when it seemed right. It gave a couple of examples (of 2NT openers) > with a singleton Ace which the writer (Wolff, I think) thought were > obvious. > > I remember one team of 8 match where a 3=4=5=1 hand was so obviously > a 1NT opener that 3 out of 4 people who held the hand did just that. The file you are seeking is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Clubs-and-Bodies/ACBL/Tech/Rulings/R-NOTRMP There are several related files at this site that I could not find on the ACBL w eb page the last time I checked, which was a few months ago. Browse through the two directories http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Clubs-and-Bodies/ACBL/Tech/Rulings/ and http://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Clubs-and-Bodies/ACBL/Tech/Public/ However, these files haven't been updated ig over two years. Chyah? Marcus? -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 16 11:28:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:28:17 +1000 Received: from upsmot04 (upsmot04.msn.com [204.95.110.86]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16391 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:27:56 +1000 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot04 (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id SAA14223; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:29:42 -0700 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 97 01:20:13 UT From: "Sue O'Donnell" Message-Id: To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, "Michael H. Albert" Subject: RE: Revokes without penalty Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: ---------- The following incident caused some ill-feeling at a recent local tournament(1). Dummy was tabled with 12 cards showing, and as a result revoked early in the play. When the 13th card was exposed it became clear that the defensive line adopted had been quite significantly sub-optimal and that the missing card in dummy had probably influenced this line. Now we all know 64B3, usually stated as "dummy cannot revoke" (2). On the other hand 64C says "director responsible for equity". It had always been my feeling in this situation, that since all players at the table are responsible for dummy, the defenders have no equity stake. In other words, my first and only reaction would be to rule "result stands". The ill feeling, and inappropriate reactions of one of the players involved made the issue moot in this particular case, but here I am soliciting the opinion of BLML on the matter anyhow. Michael Duplicate Decisions #14 distinguishes between a revoke by dummy when all cards are visible, and any situation when one of dummy's cards is obscured. I'll quote from the 1997 edition (without permission, but with no ill-intent, as Tony Edwards said): "If a card that should have been played earlier in the hand to follow suit is restored to dummy, failure to have played that card constitutes a revoke although no penalties (no penalty trick or tricks) are awarded (Law 64.B.3.). However, Law 64.C requires the Director to assign an adjusted score when the non-offenders get a poorer result than they would have achieved had the revoke not occurred. "If one of dummy' cards is obscured, as by being stuck behind another, and the discrepancy goes unnoticed for some time, and its absence is found to have damaged the defenders, and adjusted score (Law 12) may be in order for failing to display dummy properly (Law 41.D)." Seems that the situation you described falls into the second category. Sue O'Donnell From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 16 16:18:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:18:33 +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 QAA17292 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:18:26 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1014853; 16 Aug 97 7:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:40:50 +0100 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revokes without penalty In-Reply-To: <33f79e7b.14487772@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33f79e7b.14487772@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:04:59 +1200, "Michael H. Albert" > wrote: > .....taken away..... >>(2) I note in passing that the wording is more general, "... failing to >>play any card faced on the table ..." Is this meant to include penalty >>cards (specifically minor ones?) > Labeo: Thought> can a card not visible be said to be "faced"? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 16 16:25:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:25:39 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17317 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:25:33 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1525487; 16 Aug 97 7:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:10:32 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Implicit Agreements (WAS: Offshape NT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970815093055.006b39cc@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970815093055.006b39cc@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 12:38 PM 8/14/97 -0400, Richard wrote: > >>See below. If you are going to alert it, it is an agreement that >>is illegal in ACBLand. The requirement is that partner will never >>expect (i.e. make allowance for) it. > >Richard has accurately stated the ACBL's position, including, in his second >sentence, the ludicrous and illogical assumption that causes TDs and ACs >who attempt to apply the ACBL's doctrine on "implicit understandings" to >come up with rulings that are so often inconsistent to the point of >near-randomness. (.......SNIPPED.... before and after this:) > >. TDs and ACs should >not be required to read players' minds. IMO, the requirement should be >that partner will never make allowance for it. Period. When a player >deviates from system, the determining issue for the TD/AC should be whether >or not his partner may have bid in such a way as to make allowance for the >possibility of such deviation. Labeo: Oh no. The basis of the game is honest full disclosure to opponents of your methods, including any that you have developed by partnership practice. The opponents are entitled to know what hands *you* may have for your call, not merely whether *your partner* could have catered for something undisclosed. It is not only the positive knowledge of what is happening on the particular board that is important but also the possibilities of what may be happening according to your methods but not yet brought into the light. As to the wider generality of what you are saying - In the ACBL: 1. Do TDs consult before ruling when it is not just a 'book' ruling? 2. Is there a 'TD grapevine' along which news of fresh discoveries of partnership habits may travel? 3. Are there records kept centrally by player name of rulings other than book rulings? If so, can TDs access these from wherever they are? Or feed them to the ACBL for inclusion? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 16 16:26:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:26:59 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17335 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:26:53 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1107040; 16 Aug 97 7:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:35:50 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) In-Reply-To: <9708141441.aa02655@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9708141441.aa02655@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > > >Also, if you allow this argument, you'd have to say Flannery 2H, >showing five hearts and four spades, is not a convention since you're >offering to take eight tricks in hearts. No one has yet been able to >convince me that Flannery 2H is not a convention. There has to be >more to the definition of "natural" than just "Any time I'm willing to >play in my bid, it must be natural". Labeo: The definition of convention says (1997): " ....conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in...." A bid showing a willingness to play in Hearts becomes a convention if, in addition, it says something about the holding in another suit - be it void or length. Essentially any call that describes holdings in more than one suit is a convention. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 16 16:32:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:32:46 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA17365 for ; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:32:41 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0904084; 16 Aug 97 7:12 BST Message-ID: <2ukI8BAghT9zEwJU@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:19:28 +0100 To: "G. R. Bower" Cc: Richard Lighton , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "G. R. Bower" writes ..mostly cut.. > I personally think that regularly opening 5431s with a natural notrump should be legal but alertable. > >But then -- I'm just a guy way up in Alaska with a director's card. The >ACBL isn't particularly interested in MY opinion. > Labeo: Hello Alaska! It's strange you should say that. A lot of years ago in our local club we had a pair who played an entirely natural system, except for Stayman and Blackwood (which I think they had added after they had learnt to play). Their idea of a 1NT opener was anything from A Q x / K X X / K J 9 x / A K J to x.x.x / x.x.x./ x. / A K Q J x.x. and we all took it in our stride. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 17 11:42:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 11:42:57 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23675 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 11:42:50 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1024671; 17 Aug 97 2:35 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 02:24:30 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Non-ACBL countries' apparent attitude towards the Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Richard Lighton wrote >> >>On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Richard Lighton wrote > > My view has been expressed that I consider this legal. There is no >point arguing *that* IMO because the arguments over legality are not >going to change if it is the EBU rather than the ACBL and I consider >that subject talked out. However, I am confident that the EBU is >attempting to do the best for its membership. Some people have argued >that the ACBL imposes restrictions to be bloody-minded. Such arguments >have never been convincing IMO but I do not know the ACBL well enough >to be sure. However, I can assure you that nothing is further from the >minds of the people taking such decisions for the EBU. Labeo: It is patently not the case that any bridge authority creates any regulation 'just to be bloody minded'. But we should all pause to consider that the most profound tragedies are the consequence of things done out of high minded belief. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 17 11:45:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 11:45:56 +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 LAA23695 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 11:45:50 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1117073; 17 Aug 97 2:35 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 02:29:56 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New EBU licensing levels In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes cut> > The troub The trouble is that neither I nor anyone who agrees can think of suitable names. >Has anyone out there any suggestions? The levels are roughly as >follows: > >Level One For beginners and novices > Only very simple Acol permitted > Currently called Simple Systems >Level Two For clubs where people worry about what their opponents > play and for very simple local competitions > Acol, Precision, Strong Clubs but no Multi, Romex, > Vienna: Blue Club only if simplified > A new level [allowing much more than the current Next > Step system] >Level Three For normal clubs and most pairs competitions > Acol, Precision, Strong Clubs, Blue Club, Romex, Vienna, > a wide variety of well-known conventions > Currently called General Licence >Level Four For clubs where the game develops and most competitions > with eight boards against the same opponent > Either/or clubs [like AUC, Power, Carrot] plus many more > conventions, especially amongst opening two/three bids; > many Multi-type openings; transfer overcalls > Currently called Restricted Licence >Level five For competitions that are international in type > WBF or EBL rules, with Level Four conventions as well > Allowing rather more than Experimental Licence but > without HUMs probably, which some Experimental Licence > systems include > > So has anyone any suggestions? Labeo: I suggest you call them 'Level One', 'Level Two', 'Level Three', and so on. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 17 22:01:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:01:18 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA25263 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:00:53 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-150.innet.be [194.7.10.150]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA29351 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 14:00:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33F6F54B.F0120737@innet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:57:47 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-Laws Subject: Poll results X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19970815085037.006b6d18@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Question : > > > >Do you consider opening 1NT (described as 'normal distribution' - no > >5-card major, no singleton) with > > > >a) 6M322 > >b) 6M331 (singleton Ace) > >c) 5431 (singleton Ace) > >d) 5431 (small singleton) > > > >a psychic bid or not ? > >When you know that the next question you will have to answer as a TD > is > >that - if not a psyche - you must rule misinformation - and thus in a > >small number of cases - an adjusted score. > > > > The results : I got 14 answers the results by region : answered "yes" (a psychic bid) A B C D Britain 2 3 2 2 out of 4 rest of Europe 2 2 0 2 out of 4 total Europe 4 5 2 4 out of 8 ACBL 4 4 3 4 out of 6 total 8 9 5 8 out of 14 or slightly above half, with the exception of the singleton Ace. I find this a very strange result, especially considering that 9 people gave the same answer to all four questions. (5 yes, 4 no) Might it be that collectively, we feel there are three kinds of bids: - completely systematic - real psychs - small deviations from system and that these examples are all in the intermediate category? Some call these bids psychs, some don't. But I don't think there is a big difference in our actual rulings. Some will simply rule L40, whereas others might go to the trouble of finding the bid within the system, therefor the explanation incomplete and an adjusted score possible. However, since the correct explanation would then have been 'once every six months it happens ...', there would usually be no damage, and no adjustment. I am of the second opinion. I would say that if a player decides the current hand is best described (in the current circumstances) with a certain bid, then that bid for that hand falls within the system. But then, apparantly a majority of the group disagrees. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 18 09:05:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:05:19 +1000 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.72.6.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA00378 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:05:12 +1000 Received: from mail.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0x0EUu-0006fI-00; Sun, 17 Aug 1997 23:12:36 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.46.122] by mail.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #2) id 0x0EO8-0006ZB-00; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:05:37 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:03:40 +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 Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 12:38:44 -0400 (EDT), Richard Lighton wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, rts48u wrote: > > > > > I note also that, correctly or not, opening 1NT with a singleton -- again > > > a misstatement by 1 card but considered 'gross' by a large majority of > > > players in my area... [snip] About twenty years ago, Richard Granville pointed out that to open 1S with a three-card suit and an eight count could not be considered a psyche. After all, a mis-statement of suit length by one card could hardly be considered "gross", since it was the minimum possible distortion. It did, however, represent a "25% distortion" - that is, you had only 75% of the number of spades you had promised. Since to over-state the number of spades you held by 25% was not gross, then it certainly could not be considered gross to over-state the number of high-card points you held by less than 25% (8 instead of 11). There may have been a flaw in this somewhere. Damned if we could find it, though. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 18 18:44:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA02267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:44:58 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA02262 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:44:52 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id JAA26862 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:44:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 97 09:43 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: "David Burn" > About twenty years ago, Richard Granville pointed out that to open 1S > with > a three-card suit and an eight count could not be considered a psyche. > After all, a mis-statement of suit length by one card could hardly be > considered "gross", since it was the minimum possible distortion. It > did, > however, represent a "25% distortion" - that is, you had only 75% of the > number of spades you had promised. Since to over-state the number of > spades > you held by 25% was not gross, then it certainly could not be > considered > gross to over-state the number of high-card points you held by less than > 25% (8 instead of 11). > Er 3/11 =27% but OK. > There may have been a flaw in this somewhere. Damned if we could find > it, > though. > Well overall the hand has only 75%x75% of the holding promised, a distortion of 44%, which must surely merit consideration as a psyche. Though IMO an important qualification for a psyche is that a different call must exist which is clearly a better* description of the hand within the system (In this case pass springs to mind). * better allows for some tactical consideration, potential rebid problems, avoidance of minors at pairs, etc. An aside, last night I sat down for a Chicago and opened off-shape/out of range 1NT three times in the four hands. Hand 1 a 4-4-A-4 13 count (also out-of-turn as I forgot I had dealt on behalf of LHO). Hand 2 a flat 15 count third-in-hand (knowing partner is aggressive as opener/responder), Hand 4 a horrid eleven count (at 60 in). Obviously I don't consider such behaviour unethical - but what if it had been the first 4-board match of a team event with an infrequent partner. Would any adjustments be in order, and if so why? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 20 00:52:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:52:49 +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 AAA03879 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:52:41 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1329560; 19 Aug 97 15:45 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCACB6.AF0AB0B0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:43:48 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Failure to Play a Penalty Card When Required Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:43:46 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 56 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a recent mailing, somebody mentioned revokes and penalty cards in the same message. This set me thinking as follows. I have a penalty card which I inadvertantly forget to play when required to by the Laws. Instead, I play another card from my unfaced hand and declarer immediately follows with a card from his hand or dummy as appropriate. Now I wake up and apologise....... Law 52 says that declarer must accept my play because he has subsequently played a card to the trick. (In the 1987 Laws, Law 52 only applied to major penalty cards but this oversight seems to have been corrected in the new Laws as Law 52 now simply refers to penalty cards without qualification.) So far, so good. *My card is played and must remain so*. Now I turn to Law 61 which defines a revoke as, amongst other things, a "......failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law....". So the card that I have played in error constitutes a revoke. Law 63 tells me that this revoke is not established until a member of the offending side leads or plays to the next trick, indicates a lead or play to the next trick, makes or acquiesces in a claim/concession or illegally draws attention to the revoke. So my revoke is not established. Law 62 now tells me that *I must correct my revoke* if I become aware of it before it becomes established! It seems to me that Laws 52 and 62 are in direct contradiction with each other. I am inclined to believe that Law 62 was written only to cover the case where there is a direct failure to follow suit and that Law 52 only should therefore be applied the failure to play a penalty card. However, this raises other issues. If declarer is now damaged by my revoke, is he entitled to an adjusted score under Law 64C? Also, what if my revoke had occurred on the 12th trick? Should it still not be corrected? Finally, what if the card that I played in error was itself a genuine revoke, ie. not the same suit as the card that was led when the penalty card is the same suit as the lead? My personal view at present (ie. until someone persuades me otherwise!) is that I would allow corrections of genuine revokes but not of revokes which are merely failures to play a penalty card (even on trick 12). In the case of merely failing to play a penalty card, I would assign an adjusted score if necessary but only to prevent the offenders from keeping any good score that they have obtained through their infraction. If declarer's carelessness in playing after the infraction has resulted in a poor score for his side then they can keep this. What do others think? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 20 03:04:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 03:04:35 +1000 Received: from null.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 DAA04783 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 03:04:26 +1000 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by null.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22376; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708191702.NAA09729@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: DAVIDM@casewise.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Martin on Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:43:46 +0100) Subject: Re: Failure to Play a Penalty Card When Required Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin writes: > I have a penalty card which I inadvertantly forget to play when required > to by the Laws. Instead, I play another card from my unfaced hand and > declarer immediately follows with a card from his hand or dummy as > appropriate. Now I wake up and apologise....... > Law 52 says that declarer must accept my play because he has > subsequently played a card to the trick. So far, so good. *My card > is played and must remain so*. > Now I turn to Law 61 which defines a revoke as, amongst other things, a > "......failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by > law....". So the card that I have played in error constitutes a revoke. This is clear; Law 64B3 says that a revoke for failure to play a faced card is not subject to penalty, which implies that failure to play a required faced card is a revoke. (Did some previous version of the Laws explicitly include penalty cards here?) > Law 62 now tells me that *I must correct my revoke* if I become aware of > it before it becomes established! > It seems to me that Laws 52 and 62 are in direct contradiction with each > other. > I am inclined to believe that Law 62 was written only to cover the case > where there is a direct failure to follow suit and that Law 52 only > should therefore be applied the failure to play a penalty card.` My interpretation is that declarer's acceptance of the play under Law 52 makes it legal with respect to the penalty card rules; he is allowed to accept it under Law 52A1(a). However, Law 60A2 (play by non-offenders after an illegal play makes it legal) enumerates which illegal plays become legal, and does not mention failure to play a penalty card, so it isn't clear. > However, this raises other issues. If declarer is now damaged by my > revoke, is he entitled to an adjusted score under Law 64C? I would say no, because declarer accepted the illegal play. Whether he accepted it carelessly under 52A1(b) or voluntarily under 52A1(a) should not affect his right of redress. You could argue for adjusting the score under the "could have known it would be to his advantage" principle, as you would if declarer was locked out of dummy and led from dummy out of turn, and a defender followed to the lead. But if the offender could not have known that his infraction would work to his advantage, there is no adjustment even if it happened to do so. > Also, what > if my revoke had occurred on the 12th trick? Should it still not be > corrected? Again no, since it was accepted. > Finally, what if the card that I played in error was itself > a genuine revoke, ie. not the same suit as the card that was led when > the penalty card is the same suit as the lead? The obligation to follow suit takes precedence over all other obligations under the Laws; therefore, you must correct this revoke. The declarer is not allowed to condone this violation; it is irrelevant whether the penalty card was of the suit led (so that declarer knew it was a revoke) or not. (I have had this happen at the bridge club, when the defender forgot about the club on the table when following to a club lead, but I didn't try to condone the revoke.) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page) 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 Aug 20 07:39:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:39:38 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA05670 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:39:31 +1000 Received: from default (pm3-12.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.202]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA11021; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33FA134E.666@pinehurst.net> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:42:38 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SANDHILLS (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HermanDW@innet.be CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi...Big discussion here regarding when a revoke is established in non-acbl areas. Is it the same as ACBL that revoke is established when offending side leads or plays to the next trick or is it established as soon as it occurs? I would appreciate very much an answer. I believe that it is the same as acbl world-wide. Help!!! Thanks, Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 20 17:35:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA07236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:35:56 +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 RAA07231 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 17:35:47 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA19166 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:31:11 +0200 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:31:11 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Nancy T Dressing Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: revoke In-Reply-To: <33FA134E.666@pinehurst.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > Hi...Big discussion here regarding when a revoke is established in > non-acbl areas. Is it the same as ACBL that revoke is established when > offending side leads or plays to the next trick or is it established as > soon as it occurs? I would appreciate very much an answer. I believe > that it is the same as acbl world-wide. Help!!! Thanks, Nancy Yes, the relevant law (63) is the same in ACBL-land as in the rest of the world. The ACBL has, however, revised law 61B (who may ask if somebody revoked) and thus Law 63A4 is no longer relevant. 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 Aug 22 02:18:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 02:18:22 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA18578 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 02:18:14 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id LAA00606 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:18:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FQPP00L Thu, 21 Aug 97 11:12:20 Message-ID: <9708211112.0FQPP00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 97 11:12:20 Subject: OFFSHAPE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk O>From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au O>To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org O>From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Thu Aug 14 16:48:02 1997 O>Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by O>news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA22987 for O>; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:48:02 -0500 (CDT) O>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id O>HAA08025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:23:11 +1000 O>Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by O>octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08020 for O>; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 07:23:05 +1000 O>Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-71.ts-6.lax.idt.net [169.132.209.215]) O> by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA18785; O> Thu, 14 Aug 1997 17:22:55 -0400 (EDT) O>Message-ID: <33F375F9.F6E95153@idt.net> O>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 14:17:45 -0700 O>From: Irwin J Kostal O>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) O>MIME-Version: 1.0 O>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au O>Subject: Re: Offshape NT O>X-Priority: 3 (Normal) O>References: <01BCA8A5.5458B0A0@har-pa1-12.ix.netcom.com> O>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii O>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit O>Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au O>Precedence: bulk O> O>I recently inquired of an ACBL Director, here in Los Angeles, about the O>ACBL's policy in re 1NT openings with singletons, and was informed that O>the ACBL really doesn't HAVE a policy. He blamed an article by Bobby O>Wolfe, in which Mr. Wolfe is supposed to have defended the player's O>right to use his judgement about such things. O> O>I personally know of at least two players, professionals, here in O>Southern California, who have a reputation for opening off-shape 1NT's, O>without, in my experience, any alerts, pre-alerts, or other warnings. O>My concern in this is not so much the off-shape no trump as the O>possibility, (even the high likelihood, IMHO) that these players are in O>effect not playing the same convention card as their partner. O> O>At the recently concluded National tournament in Albuquerque, I had an O>opponent (a pro) bid 3NT over his partner's 1D opening. This was O>alerted, and then explained as showing 13-15, with no four card major. O>His actual hand was AJxx, Jxxx, AKx, Kx (!) In the LM Pairs, I held a similar hand and also chose to bid 3N with the same agreement as above. My partner had been playing all the hands and I felt it was about time I declared a contract. O>We misdefended, for a very O>round zero. I complained to the director, and he talked to the O>partnership about it. She claimed he'd never done it before (they'd O>played about 6 sessions together), and he claimed it was just a "Bridge O>Judgement" on his part. I'm pretty sure the "Bridge Judgement" went O>something like this: "If I can't guess which major she holds, she'll O>end up playing this stupid hand. I'd better bid NT. Maybe there's no O>major fit, and I can probably play the wrong contract better than she O>can play the right one anyway." He declared both hands that round. When O>the round was over, I gave her the ticket to sign, and she pointed to O>him and said, "He plays them, and he signs them." O>I wonder what the group thinks of this little event. Is the field entitled to know that one member of the pair is managing the bidding on the hands to steer the contracts to him AND that his partner knows it and cooperates? L75A says that special partnership agreements...must be fully ...available.... I can imagine that there can be times that I might make a different call or play if I knew that a particular player was managing the bidding with a cooperating partner- always cognizant that I am making it at my own peril. Last I heard, both players of a partnership are to use the same agreements. The situation described above seems to indicate that one player deviates frequently from the agreements and their partner knows it and plays for it, however, the opponents are not aware of it unless they witness a telling comment [naturally, after it is too late to do them any good] as the party above did..."she pointed to him and said, "He plays them, and he signs them." ". I am not against managing hands per se, but I also do not feel that this pair has done their part toward adequate disclosure. R Pewick Houston, Tx r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.2 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 22 04:55:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 04:55:15 +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 EAA19359 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 04:55:09 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-30.ts-6.lax.idt.net [169.132.209.174]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA10853; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 14:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33FC8DAE.79358E8C@idt.net> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:49:18 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OFFSHAPE X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9708211112.0FQPP00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > O>From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > O>To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > ..... > O>Subject: Re: Offshape NT > ...... > O>I recently inquired of an ACBL Director, here in Los Angeles, about > the > O>ACBL's policy in re 1NT openings with singletons, and was informed > that > O>the ACBL really doesn't HAVE a policy. He blamed an article by > Bobby > O>Wolfe, in which Mr. Wolfe is supposed to have defended the player's > O>right to use his judgement about such things. > O> > O>I personally know of at least two players, professionals, here in > O>Southern California, who have a reputation for opening off-shape > 1NT's, > O>without, in my experience, any alerts, pre-alerts, or other > warnings. > O>My concern in this is not so much the off-shape no trump as the > O>possibility, (even the high likelihood, IMHO) that these players are > in > O>effect not playing the same convention card as their partner. > O> > O>At the recently concluded National tournament in Albuquerque, I had > an > O>opponent (a pro) bid 3NT over his partner's 1D opening. This was > O>alerted, and then explained as showing 13-15, with no four card > major. > O>His actual hand was AJxx, Jxxx, AKx, Kx (!) > > In the LM Pairs, I held a similar hand and also chose to bid 3N > with > the same agreement as above. My partner had been playing all the > hands > and I felt it was about time I declared a contract. As it happens, this was the first round, when it happened to me. > > > O>We misdefended, for a very > O>round zero. I complained to the director, and he talked to the > O>partnership about it. She claimed he'd never done it before (they'd > O>played about 6 sessions together), and he claimed it was just a > "Bridge > O>Judgement" on his part. I'm pretty sure the "Bridge Judgement" went > > O>something like this: "If I can't guess which major she holds, > she'll > O>end up playing this stupid hand. I'd better bid NT. Maybe there's > no > O>major fit, and I can probably play the wrong contract better than > she > O>can play the right one anyway." He declared both hands that round. > When > O>the round was over, I gave her the ticket to sign, and she pointed > to > O>him and said, "He plays them, and he signs them." > > O>I wonder what the group thinks of this little event. > > Is the field entitled to know that one member of the pair is > managing the bidding on the hands to steer the contracts to him AND > that > his partner knows it and cooperates? L75A says that special > partnership > agreements...must be fully ...available.... > > I can imagine that there can be times that I might make a > different > call or play if I knew that a particular player was managing the > bidding > with a cooperating partner- always cognizant that I am making it at my > > own peril. > > Last I heard, both players of a partnership are to use the same > agreements. The situation described above seems to indicate that one > player deviates frequently from the agreements and their partner knows > > it and plays for it, however, the opponents are not aware of it unless > > they witness a telling comment [naturally, after it is too late to do > them any good] as the party above did..."she pointed to him and said, > "He plays them, and he signs them." ". I am not against managing > hands > per se, but I also do not feel that this pair has done their part > toward > adequate disclosure. > > > R Pewick > Houston, Tx > r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org As you might imagine, I agree with you, though on the evidence available (and the assertions of the players themselves) there is not nearly enough evidence to convict. I did fill out a player memo, in the hope that someone else will file if there are other instances. This is probably a forlorn hope, but..... Irv From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 22 16:37:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:37:35 +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 QAA22026 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:37:29 +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 CAA12766 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 02:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 02:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970822023654_1411426814@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This past weekend I played a hand where this subject came up, with the arguments fresh in my mind from the recent discussion here. However, I find this a very difficult hand to determine what the "ideal" ruling should be, so I thought I would toss it out here. We were E/W. Dealer: South Vul: None KQT8 AJ6 AKQJ6 4 9762 AJ4 KQ87 53 92 83 AT9 QJ8762 53 T942 T754 K53 West North East South Pass Pass 2C 2S [1] Pass 3S[2] Dbl 4C 4H Dbl All Pass [1] Agreed meaning is showing either clubs or hearts & diamonds. However, partner failed to alert (because he thought it didn't apply to this situation). [2] Alerted as lead directing. Result: Down several (I never did write down the final result since I knew it almost certainly wouldn't stand). Director's decision was Average minus for us & Average for our opponents (since in the 4H bid was from outer space) at the end of the session. This was acceptable to me & my partner (after all, we caused the huge confusion), however it felt "wrong" in a technical sense. Question #1: Should a score have been assigned to either pair (or perhaps should N/S be required to keep their bad result)? Question #2: What's your opinion of the director giving the N/S pair average? David A. Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 23 06:15:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 06:15:44 +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 GAA27492 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 06:15:38 +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 QAA12812 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 16:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970822161331_480990256@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OFFSHAPE Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Most "clients" are too dumb to realize a pro is deviating from convention card agreements, let alone make allowances for them. I have no objection to pros who bid off-shape, off-HCP notrumps and weak two bids, as long as I feel the client is not effectively adjusting his/her bidding to suit. Those bids get me more tops than bottoms, and I enjoy making sure the client knows what the pro is doing (although most don't care). Imagine the scornful comments that would be made if a tennis player hired a pro as a partner in order to do well in a club doubles tournament. Few would do such a thing. Almost all restrict their employment of pros to class instruction, personal drills, and other more effective methods of improving their skills. Bridge "clients" who sincerely want to play better bridge would do well to emulate tennis players, and pay pros only for private sessions of bidding, play of the hand, and defensive instruction. There was a practice in the 20's and 30's, when ballroom dancing was very popular, for older women to hire good male dancers to escort them for an evening of dining and dancing. The men were called "gigolos," and were considered to have a not very admirable profession. The analogy with many bridge pros seems apt. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 24 01:09:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:09:13 +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 BAA01918 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 01:09:04 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA04151 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 11:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14620; Sat, 23 Aug 1997 11:09:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 11:09:18 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708231509.LAA14620@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OFFSHAPE Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > Is the field entitled to know that one member of the pair is > managing the bidding on the hands to steer the contracts to him AND that > his partner knows it and cooperates? L75A says that special partnership > agreements...must be fully ...available.... See also L75C. There is no question in my mind that the field is entitled to know the partnership agreements and practices. The only question is how those are to be disclosed: voluntarily or only in response to a question. I'd much prefer to play in a game where voluntary disclosure is the norm, but it's not clear that the Laws require it. Enforcement is, of course, a problem in practice. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 24 08:11:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:11:01 +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 IAA03251 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:10:55 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0519993; 23 Aug 97 22:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 22:54:42 +0100 To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: OFFSHAPE In-Reply-To: <970822161331_480990256@emout19.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970822161331_480990256@emout19.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com writes >Most "clients" are too dumb to realize a pro is deviating from convention >card agreements, let alone make allowances for them. I have no objection to >pros who bid off-shape, off-HCP notrumps and weak two bids, as long as I feel >the client is not effectively adjusting his/her bidding to suit. > (cut) >There was a practice in the 20's and 30's, when ballroom dancing was very >popular, for older women to hire good male dancers to escort them for an >evening of dining and dancing. The men were called "gigolos," and were >considered to have a not very admirable profession. The analogy with many >bridge pros seems apt. > Labeo: Is there a point of law here? Regulations requiring both members of a partnership to play the same system inhibit pairs from constructing system so that one player plays most of the hands, but it is difficult to intervene when it is achieved through alleged bridge judgement. Until a pattern emerges at least. Very few 'clients' expect to play better bridge; they play with pros in order to get better results, and often one suspects the enhanced income that winning generates may well drive the pro's actions. Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 24 08:33:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:33:31 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA03317 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:33:24 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1419045; 23 Aug 97 23:31 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 23:30:17 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: OFFSHAPE In-Reply-To: <199708231509.LAA14620@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199708231509.LAA14620@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >> Is the field entitled to know that one member of the pair is >> managing the bidding on the hands to steer the contracts to him AND that >> his partner knows it and cooperates? L75A says that special partnership >> agreements...must be fully ...available.... > >See also L75C. There is no question in my mind that the field is >entitled to know the partnership agreements and practices. The only >question is how those are to be disclosed: voluntarily or only in >response to a question. I'd much prefer to play in a game where >voluntary disclosure is the norm, but it's not clear that the Laws >require it. Enforcement is, of course, a problem in practice. Labeo: The requirement is in the laws and is undeniable. "A player *may not make* a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless ...etc...etc.............or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play....... etc. etc. etc." [Law 40B] This wording makes no suggestion of any need for the opponent to enquire; the onus is on the side having the agreement. If they do not disclose they may not use. That is what it says - in plain English. Incidentally, remember the bit about 'may reasonably be expected to understand' the next time you are discussing the matter of top players being expected to mind their own backs. Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 25 18:00:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:00:40 +1000 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA10286 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:00:07 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip [193.125.70.58]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id LAA14284 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:48:03 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199708250748.LAA14284@adm.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:46:03 +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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Blizard wrote. > This past weekend I played a hand where this subject came up, with the > arguments fresh in my mind from the recent discussion here. However, > I find this a very difficult hand to determine what the "ideal" ruling should > be, so I thought I would toss it out here. We were E/W. > > Dealer: South > Vul: None > > KQT8 > AJ6 > AKQJ6 > 4 > 9762 AJ4 > KQ87 53 > 92 83 > AT9 QJ8762 > 53 > T942 > T754 > K53 > > West North East South > > Pass > Pass 2C 2S [1] Pass > 3S[2] Dbl 4C 4H > Dbl All Pass > > [1] Agreed meaning is showing either clubs or hearts & diamonds. However, > partner failed to alert (because he thought it didn't apply to this > situation). > [2] Alerted as lead directing. > > Result: Down several (I never did write down the final result since I > knew it almost certainly wouldn't stand). > > Director's decision was Average minus for us & Average for our opponents > (since in the 4H bid was from outer space) at the end of the session. > This was acceptable to me & my partner (after all, we caused the huge > confusion), however it felt "wrong" in a technical sense. > > Question #1: Should a score have been assigned to either pair (or perhaps > should N/S be required to keep their bad result)? If TD determined that poor result for NS comes from their own mistake (4H bid in this board), he can leave the score stands for NS. As for EW, TD can assign them score under L12 or artificial adjusted score. > Question #2: What's your opinion of the director giving the N/S pair > average? Best solution is to give either A+(NO side), or to live the score stands. (see above). > David A. Blizzard > Sergei Litvak. RCBL Chief TD. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 25 18:50:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:50:51 +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 SAA10420; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 18:50:39 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id KAA18195; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:50:16 +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 sma017927; Mon Aug 25 10:49:34 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 KAA29730; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:49:33 +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 KAA25343; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:49:33 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by pasadena (1.37.109.15/) id AA142038969; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:49:29 +0200 Message-Id: <199708250849.AA142038969@pasadena> Subject: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 10:49:29 METDST Cc: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David A. Blizzard (DBlizzard@aol.com) wrote: DB> This past weekend I played a hand where this subject came up, DB> with the arguments fresh in my mind from the recent discussion DB> here. However, I find this a very difficult hand to determine DB> what the "ideal" ruling should be, so I thought I would toss DB> it out here. We were E/W. DB> DB> Dealer: South DB> Vul: None DB> DB> KQT8 DB> AJ6 DB> AKQJ6 DB> 4 DB> 9762 AJ4 DB> KQ87 53 DB> 92 83 DB> AT9 QJ8762 DB> 53 DB> T942 DB> T754 DB> K53 DB> DB> West North East South DB> Pass DB> Pass 2C 2S [1] Pass DB> 3S[2] Dbl 4C 4H DB> Dbl All Pass DB> DB> [1] Agreed meaning is showing either clubs or hearts & diamonds. DB> However, partner failed to alert (because he thought it didn't DB> apply to this situation). So, you received the UI that partner misintrepreted your 2S bid. You were not allowed to use this information! So, your 4C bid is rather suspicious. You should assume that 3S is to play (why has partner failed to open 3S if he has so many of them? Perhaps he has four hearts or does not want a spade lead with e.g. eight spades from the 10). So, I think 4C is a clear violation of properties. DB> Result: Down several (I never did write down the final result DB> since I knew it almost certainly wouldn't stand). DB> DB> Director's decision was Average minus for us & Average for our opponents DB> (since in the 4H bid was from outer space) at the end of the session. DB> This was acceptable to me & my partner (after all, we caused the huge DB> confusion), however it felt "wrong" in a technical sense. I also feel that it was wrong. A penalty should have been added for EW's VoP. DB> Question #1: Should a score have been assigned to either pair DB> (or perhaps should N/S be required to keep their bad result)? No to the question in parentheses. The 4H bid may seem a bit strange, but can be logically defended. I (as South) might very well have thought along these lines: E has long Clubs W has long Spadesd N does not have a one-suiter in a red suit, because he did not bid it over 3S So, there is a good chance that N has something like a 3-suiter with short Clubs and we have a 4-4 or even 5-4 in hearts that we may not be able to find when I pass and W bids 5C. So, I do not think 4H is egregious enough to mertit keeping a bad score. I would assign an adjusted score based on playing 3 Spades doubled. A possible way play would go: heart lead to Q and A, Sspade King to the Ace, Club Q, Club to the 10, ruffed by N, Spade Q, Spade to the J and EW end up with 6 tricks, -500 for EW, +500 for NS. DB> Question #2: What's your opinion of the director giving the N/S pair DB> average? A bad decision; as I said before, I do not think the (unsound) 4H bid is egregious enough to merit less than 60%. The question NOT asked: Should EW have been penalized for the 4C bid? Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 25 21:47:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:47:25 +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 VAA10972 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:47:18 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id MAA10761 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:46:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 97 12:34 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling 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: <970822023654_1411426814@emout15.mail.aol.com> DBlizzard@aol.com wrote: > This past weekend I played a hand where this subject came up, with the > arguments fresh in my mind from the recent discussion here. However, > I find this a very difficult hand to determine what the "ideal" ruling > should > be, so I thought I would toss it out here. We were E/W. > > Dealer: South > Vul: None > > KQT8 > AJ6 > AKQJ6 > 4 > 9762 AJ4 > KQ87 53 > 92 83 > AT9 QJ8762 > 53 > T942 > T754 > K53 > > West North East South > > > > Pass > Pass 2C 2S [1] Pass > 3S[2] Dbl 4C 4H > Dbl All Pass > > [1] Agreed meaning is showing either clubs or hearts & diamonds. > However, > partner failed to alert (because he thought it didn't apply to this > situation). > [2] Alerted as lead directing. > > Result: Down several (I never did write down the final result since I > knew it almost certainly wouldn't stand). > > Director's decision was Average minus for us & Average for our opponents > (since in the 4H bid was from outer space) at the end of the session. > This was acceptable to me & my partner (after all, we caused the huge > confusion), however it felt "wrong" in a technical sense. > > Question #1: Should a score have been assigned to either pair (or > perhaps > should N/S be required to keep their bad result)? > > Question #2: What's your opinion of the director giving the N/S pair > average? Horrible, lazy, and ill thought through. Firstly it is obvious that UI was made available to both East and West. Only when this has been addressed should we consider other issues. Unlike Con I am quite happy with the 4C bid. East is obliged to think that conventions are on and that 3S is a systemic response. Since pass would allow EW to play in spades anyway a bid of 3S suggesting a lead, and willingness to play at the 4 level in C or D/H is entirely logical, even if 3S is natural it must surely be *at least* invitational and 4C says "pard my spades are good enough to accept your invite and my hand is of the club persuasion". When it comes to West the UI is the alert of 3 spades, and he must assume that 4C is some sort of constructive strength showing bid in support of spades. This clearly suggests that doubling 4H is better than bidding 4S, but is 4S an LA given the relative strength of the major suit holdings? IMO not even in ACBL-Land (but maybe). Result stands(, or adjust to 4Sx-3/4). Secondly was there MI? Why didn't partner make an attempt to explain your agreements to NS after the alert/explanation of 3S, or on hearing 4C? He must surely have been woken up to the fact that 2S was intended as conventional (undoubtably UI, but it is OK to use UI to correct an explanation to opponents). The evidence strongly suggests that the conventional use of 2S had not previously been agreed (ie it was an extended use of the agreed defence to a strong club). I'd be very reluctant to adjust on the basis of MI, lacking some greater evidence to the contrary. However, if some evidence was present: Did the MI damage EW? The pass on the first round of the auction looks totally standard, regardless of what 2S means. I can see how the MI might lead South to think that North's double of 3S showed hearts, so yes the MI contributed to South's 4H bid. Did South protect his own interests? When a simple raise by one opponent is described as "lead directing" by the other then any moderately experienced player should be suspicious. But maybe the confusion was enough to make it difficult, having finally worked out that an adjustment is in order: Assuming that West alerts the 2S bid the auction is likely to go 2C 2S P 3H P/D 4C D/P P 4D P P P For NS+130, a sacrifice/attempt at 5Cx is plausible so -300 EW. Luckily the hand presents few interesting play possibilities (in these contracts) so the contract is all that matters. So calculating the adjustment seems ridiculously simple compared to deciding whether an adjustment is warranted. In effect there are plenty of rulings that could have been given, and a number of judgements to be made. Only the actual ruling strikes me as truly wrong. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 25 23:32:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:32:06 +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 XAA11348 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:31:59 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1501230; 25 Aug 97 14:18 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCB153.2C90F2B0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:34:04 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Failure to Play a Penalty Card When Required Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 12:34:03 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 61 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Due to problems with my home server, I am not sure if this message was sent successfully and so I am sending it again. Apologies if you receive two copies. Also, I have not received any replies, so if the first attempt did reach the light of day then please resend any replies direct to me. Thanks. > > >In a recent mailing, somebody mentioned revokes and penalty cards in the same >message. This set me thinking as follows. > >I have a penalty card which I inadvertantly forget to play when required to >by the Laws. Instead, I play another card from my unfaced hand and declarer >immediately follows with a card from his hand or dummy as appropriate. Now I >wake up and apologise....... > >Law 52 says that declarer must accept my play because he has subsequently >played a card to the trick. (In the 1987 Laws, Law 52 only applied to major >penalty cards but this oversight seems to have been corrected in the new Laws >as Law 52 now simply refers to penalty cards without qualification.) So far, >so good. *My card is played and must remain so*. > >Now I turn to Law 61 which defines a revoke as, amongst other things, a >"......failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by >law....". So the card that I have played in error constitutes a revoke. > >Law 63 tells me that this revoke is not established until a member of the >offending side leads or plays to the next trick, indicates a lead or play to >the next trick, makes or acquiesces in a claim/concession or illegally draws >attention to the revoke. So my revoke is not established. > >Law 62 now tells me that *I must correct my revoke* if I become aware of it >before it becomes established! > >It seems to me that Laws 52 and 62 are in direct contradiction with each >other. > >I am inclined to believe that Law 62 was written only to cover the case where >there is a direct failure to follow suit and that Law 52 only should >therefore be applied the failure to play a penalty card. However, this >raises other issues. If declarer is now damaged by my revoke, is he entitled >to an adjusted score under Law 64C? Also, what if my revoke had occurred on >the 12th trick? Should it still not be corrected? Finally, what if the card >that I played in error was itself a genuine revoke, ie. not the same suit as >the card that was led when the penalty card is the same suit as the lead? > >My personal view at present (ie. until someone persuades me otherwise!) is >that I would allow corrections of genuine revokes but not of revokes which >are merely failures to play a penalty card (even on trick 12). In the case >of merely failing to play a penalty card, I would assign an adjusted score if >necessary but only to prevent the offenders from keeping any good score that >they have obtained through their infraction. If declarer's carelessness in >playing after the infraction has resulted in a poor score for his side then >they can keep this. > >What do others think? > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 25 23:55:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:55:20 +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 XAA11423 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:55:13 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1504977; 25 Aug 97 14:48 BST Message-ID: <$PxE4HAAEOA0EwO+@rbarden.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 02:33:52 +0100 To: DBlizzard@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling In-Reply-To: <970822023654_1411426814@emout15.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970822023654_1411426814@emout15.mail.aol.com>, DBlizzard@aol.com writes >This past weekend I played a hand where this subject came up, with the >arguments fresh in my mind from the recent discussion here. However, >I find this a very difficult hand to determine what the "ideal" ruling should >be, so I thought I would toss it out here. We were E/W. > >Dealer: South >Vul: None > > KQT8 > AJ6 > AKQJ6 > 4 >9762 AJ4 >KQ87 53 >92 83 >AT9 QJ8762 > 53 > T942 > T754 > K53 > >West North East South > > > Pass >Pass 2C 2S [1] Pass >3S[2] Dbl 4C 4H >Dbl All Pass > >[1] Agreed meaning is showing either clubs or hearts & diamonds. However, >partner failed to alert (because he thought it didn't apply to this >situation). >[2] Alerted as lead directing. > >Result: Down several (I never did write down the final result since I >knew it almost certainly wouldn't stand). > >Director's decision was Average minus for us & Average for our opponents >(since in the 4H bid was from outer space) at the end of the session. >This was acceptable to me & my partner (after all, we caused the huge >confusion), however it felt "wrong" in a technical sense. > >Question #1: Should a score have been assigned to either pair (or perhaps >should N/S be required to keep their bad result)? > >Question #2: What's your opinion of the director giving the N/S pair >average? > >David A. Blizzard The ideal ruling: Have East taken out and shot. He has heard his partner not alert 2S. He knows he is about to make an ethically dubious 4C bid. So he invents a spurious "lead directing" explanation, which I don't believe for a moment is a matter of partnership agreement. Have North write out 100 times "I will not open 2C until I have game in my own hand." Ban West from playing fancy conventions until he can remember when they apply. Advise South that when the auction doesn't make sense, he should ask questions before bidding. --- Unfortunately this exceeds a director's powers somewhat. A director who recognised these limitations would want to question both East and South as to their motives. Absent this, I don't think East is entitled to remove the double of 3S; however I think South would have bid 4H even if East had passed. I think I would let the table result stand, but I'd fine East a top unless he had a convincing explanation for his actions. Happily, the result of this would be to give all four players zero matchpoints for the board, which is exactly what they deserve. -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 26 13:55:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:55:56 +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 NAA17095 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 13:55:46 +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 XAA13762 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:55:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:55:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970825235341_-1905042657@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-08-25 11:54:37 EDT, paul@rbarden.demon.co.uk (Paul Barden) writes: << >Vul: None > > KQT8 > AJ6 > AKQJ6 > 4 >9762 AJ4 >KQ87 53 >92 83 >AT9 QJ8762 > 53 > T942 > T754 > K53 > >West North East South > > > Pass >Pass 2C 2S [1] Pass >3S[2] Dbl 4C 4H >Dbl All Pass > >[1] Agreed meaning is showing either clubs or hearts & diamonds. However, >partner failed to alert (because he thought it didn't apply to this >situation). >[2] Alerted as lead directing. > >Result: Down several (I never did write down the final result since I >knew it almost certainly wouldn't stand). > >Director's decision was Average minus for us & Average for our opponents >(since in the 4H bid was from outer space) at the end of the session. >This was acceptable to me & my partner (after all, we caused the huge >confusion), however it felt "wrong" in a technical sense. > >Question #1: Should a score have been assigned to either pair (or perhaps >should N/S be required to keep their bad result)? > >Question #2: What's your opinion of the director giving the N/S pair >average? > >David A. Blizzard The ideal ruling: Have East taken out and shot. He has heard his partner not alert 2S. He knows he is about to make an ethically dubious 4C bid. So he invents a spurious "lead directing" explanation, which I don't believe for a moment is a matter of partnership agreement. >> Hmm. Didn't expect that my 4C bid would come under this much fire. So I will defend it (and my explanation) although much of my logic has already been listed. I will buy that I perhaps should have bid 5C, but that bid never occured to me at the table, and I'm not sure it's right (I think 4C/5C is about 50/50, so given this rationale anything I bid could be consider wrong. 3S isn't explictly lead directing, but implictly it must be. Here are our applicable agreements (facing a strong near game forcing opening): With nothing but spades partner will PASS. He wouldn't raise spades since a misfit is probable, and with a misfit the opponents probably can't make anything, or we will pay to much. With a probable misfit (for example a void in clubs or a singleton in both red suits) he bids 2NT ("we're probably in trouble, let's try to find some place not to bad, and it's not your suit(s)). We never try for game after the opponents open a strong artificial opener. If game might be on we bid it to put the pressure on the opponents. Yes, this is an explicit agreement in our partnership. So partner must have excellent club support & excellent support for at least one of the red suits. (Actually it is explicit that this applies to all immediate bids over the "Suction" bid except no-trump bids). So the reasonable alternatives for 3S are "fit showing" or "lead directing" (I know of no other reasonable alternatives, although concede that there might be - excluding a psychic bid). We don't play any sort of fit showing bids in our partnership so logically this must be a lead director (which we do play over "preemptive bids" which this could be considered). Also, note that from my perspective (the UI I had) partner was as likely to have forgotten to have alerted as to have forgotten the convention (actually, probably more so, since we have used this regularly). So my alert of the bid was to protect my opponents in case partner had merely forgotten to alert. If partner had forgotten the convention we were already in trouble. As a matter of fact we would probably been in serious trouble without the 4H bid, what's partner's response to 4C? I expect that the lowest we would have played was 4Sx, assuming I decided to play in our spade "fit" (when partner rebid his spades over 4C) and try for the possible game, rather than our known club fit. Possibly we would have been higher. BTW, partner's explanation for his "forget" was that even though we play Suction over all strong artifical openings, he thought it didn't apply over 2C openings (even though we have used it before in these situations). We aren't too concerned about this because he certainly isn't going to forget again. David A. Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 26 15:04:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:04:29 +1000 Received: from shark.sapr.gaz (sapr.gaz.ru [194.190.180.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA17260 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:04:08 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:01:55 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:04:44 +0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, this is my first message and I speak English not very good ---- From: Tim West-meads To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: ÐÏÎÅÄÅÌØÎÉË 25 Á×ÇÕÓÔÁ 1997 17:02 Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling >In-Reply-To: <970822023654_1411426814@emout15.mail.aol.com> >DBlizzard@aol.com wrote: >> This past weekend I played a hand where this subject came up, with the >> arguments fresh in my mind from the recent discussion here. However, >> I find this a very difficult hand to determine what the "ideal" ruling >> should >> be, so I thought I would toss it out here. We were E/W. >> >> Dealer: South >> Vul: None >> >> KQT8 >> AJ6 >> AKQJ6 >> 4 >> 9762 AJ4 >> KQ87 53 >> 92 83 >> AT9 QJ8762 >> 53 >> T942 >> T754 >> K53 >> >> West North East South >> >> >> >> Pass >> Pass 2C 2S [1] Pass >> 3S[2] Dbl 4C 4H >> Dbl All Pass >> >> [1] Agreed meaning is showing either clubs or hearts & diamonds. >> However, >> partner failed to alert (because he thought it didn't apply to this >> situation). >> [2] Alerted as lead directing. >> >> Result: Down several (I never did write down the final result since I >> knew it almost certainly wouldn't stand). >> >> Director's decision was Average minus for us & Average for our opponents >> (since in the 4H bid was from outer space) at the end of the session. >> This was acceptable to me & my partner (after all, we caused the huge >> confusion), however it felt "wrong" in a technical sense. >> >> Question #1: Should a score have been assigned to either pair (or >> perhaps >> should N/S be required to keep their bad result)? >> >> Question #2: What's your opinion of the director giving the N/S pair >> average? >Horrible, lazy, and ill thought through. > >Firstly it is obvious that UI was made available to both East and West. >Only when this has been addressed should we consider other issues. >Unlike Con I am quite happy with the 4C bid. East is obliged to think >that conventions are on and that 3S is a systemic response. Since pass >would allow EW to play in spades anyway a bid of 3S suggesting a lead, >and willingness to play at the 4 level in C or D/H is entirely logical, >even if 3S is natural it must surely be *at least* invitational and 4C >says "pard my spades are good enough to accept your invite and my hand is >of the club persuasion". Do you think that is unique explain? I disagree. I think that this bid says "pd, i have natural spades with club supporting and one red suit supporting. If you have spade support - spade defence is good". Possible hands - 5-4-3-1, 6-4-3-0 or 5-4-4-0 with spades KQ and club K or A > >When it comes to West the UI is the alert of 3 spades, and he must assume >that 4C is some sort of constructive strength showing bid in support of >spades. This clearly suggests that doubling 4H is better than bidding >4S, but is 4S an LA given the relative strength of the major suit >holdings? IMO not even in ACBL-Land (but maybe). Result stands(, or >adjust to 4Sx-3/4). According to my explain and not using UI for EW, we have some ways of next bidding: a) E passed after double. What must S do? If double is negative - he bid 4H, but in this case N double is a great mistake: he have minimum and have'nt 4h. If double is penalty (it is bad agreement, IMHO, but some pairs plays it) - good decision is to pass: 2 spade cards and club K. b) E bid 4C - that is normal bid.He showing long club and planing bid 4S after 4D/H. I think S must doubled (if first double is penalty, if negative - see above). But he was bidding 4H - this is mistake too.Resume: final contract 4H - the result of mistake NS pair and NS result stands here. But what about W double? I see only one explain for E- attack-defence double: "pd, please, bid 4s or your suit if you have attack hand and pass if your hand have defence values". There is no alternatives to E to bid 4S. After this W who think that pd have natural spade must pass after opponent's double. Resume: EW result - 4Sx down three/four. > >Secondly was there MI? Why didn't partner make an attempt to explain >your agreements to NS after the alert/explanation of 3S, or on hearing >4C? He must surely have been woken up to the fact that 2S was intended >as conventional (undoubtably UI, but it is OK to use UI to correct an >explanation to opponents). The evidence strongly suggests that the >conventional use of 2S had not previously been agreed (ie it was an >extended use of the agreed defence to a strong club). I'd be very >reluctant to adjust on the basis of MI, lacking some greater evidence to >the contrary. However, if some evidence was present: > >Did the MI damage EW? The pass on the first round of the auction looks >totally standard, regardless of what 2S means. I can see how the MI >might lead South to think that North's double of 3S showed hearts, so yes >the MI contributed to South's 4H bid. > >Did South protect his own interests? When a simple raise by one opponent >is described as "lead directing" by the other then any moderately >experienced player should be suspicious. But maybe the confusion was >enough to make it difficult, having finally worked out that an adjustment >is in order: > >Assuming that West alerts the 2S bid the auction is likely to go >2C 2S P 3H >P/D 4C D/P P >4D P P P > >For NS+130, a sacrifice/attempt at 5Cx is plausible so -300 EW. >Luckily the hand presents few interesting play possibilities (in these >contracts) so the contract is all that matters. > >So calculating the adjustment seems ridiculously simple compared to >deciding whether an adjustment is warranted. > >In effect there are plenty of rulings that could have been given, and a >number of judgements to be made. Only the actual ruling strikes me as >truly wrong. > >Tim West-Meads. > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 26 15:28:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:28:15 +1000 Received: from shark.sapr.gaz (sapr.gaz.ru [194.190.180.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA17343 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:27:56 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:25:51 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:28:42 +0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OOPS! Sorry, I only now observe [2]. Of course, previous message is not correct. If E explain 3S how is lead directing, he not passed after N double, but bid 4c automatically and passed 4s after W double. But S bid 4h is mistake - no questions. I think that average minus to EW is wright result, but NS result stands. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 27 01:32:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 01:32:31 +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 BAA21643 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 01:32:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1225718; 26 Aug 97 15:59 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 04:04:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deep waters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote >In message <9T7swYBMvf7zEw7a@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >>Labeo wrote >> >>>Labeo: We need computer screens with the player who should remain >>>ignorant of the Q&A automatically excluded from viewing them..... >> >> Do we indeed? It may or may not improve the game of bridge to >>introduce methods that change the game, benefiting some things at the >>expense of others, but we should never become blinkered into thinking >>that is the only way. Do you think screens would improve the overall >>players' enjoyment if introduced at the local club? >> > I must curb my tendency to tease. Humph. :) -- 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 Aug 27 01:54:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 01:54:34 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA21902 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 01:54:28 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1508671; 26 Aug 97 15:59 BST Message-ID: <64Hd6DBRukA0Ewsi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 04:20:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: revoke 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, 19 Aug 1997, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >> Hi...Big discussion here regarding when a revoke is established in >> non-acbl areas. Is it the same as ACBL that revoke is established when >> offending side leads or plays to the next trick or is it established as >> soon as it occurs? I would appreciate very much an answer. I believe >> that it is the same as acbl world-wide. Help!!! Thanks, Nancy > >Yes, the relevant law (63) is the same in ACBL-land as in the rest of >the world. The ACBL has, however, revised law 61B (who may ask if >somebody revoked) and thus Law 63A4 is no longer relevant. The ACBL has revised nothing. They are given an option by the Laws and have exercised such an option. L63B has replaced L63A4. It has little relevance in Zones who have exercised the option to allow defenders to ask each other whether they have no cards left of the particular suit. Basically, a revoke is established by a member of the offending side playing to the next trick, or naming a card to be played to the next trick, or claiming or acquiescing to a claim. This is world-wide. If a defender asks his partner whether he has a card of the suit led, and he has not, then in the ACBL this is legal, so the card is corrected with no revoke penalty [but the original card becomes a major penalty card]. Elsewhere, the revoke is not established but is treated as though it is [!!!]. -- 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 Aug 27 06:18:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:18:39 +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 GAA22893 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:18:32 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0709686; 26 Aug 97 20:50 BST Message-ID: <2CrWbBArMzA0Ewf+@rbarden.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 20:48:59 +0100 To: DBlizzard@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling In-Reply-To: <970825235341_-1905042657@emout15.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970825235341_-1905042657@emout15.mail.aol.com>, DBlizzard@aol.com writes >In a message dated 97-08-25 11:54:37 EDT, paul@rbarden.demon.co.uk (Paul >Barden) writes: > ><< >Vul: None > > > > KQT8 > > AJ6 > > AKQJ6 > > 4 > >9762 AJ4 > >KQ87 53 > >92 83 > >AT9 QJ8762 > > 53 > > T942 > > T754 > > K53 > > > >West North East South > > > > > > > Pass > >Pass 2C 2S [1] Pass > >3S[2] Dbl 4C 4H > >Dbl All Pass > > > >[1] Agreed meaning is showing either clubs or hearts & diamonds. However, > >partner failed to alert (because he thought it didn't apply to this > >situation). > >[2] Alerted as lead directing. > > > >Result: Down several (I never did write down the final result since I > >knew it almost certainly wouldn't stand). > > > >Director's decision was Average minus for us & Average for our opponents > >(since in the 4H bid was from outer space) at the end of the session. > >This was acceptable to me & my partner (after all, we caused the huge > >confusion), however it felt "wrong" in a technical sense. > > > >Question #1: Should a score have been assigned to either pair (or perhaps > >should N/S be required to keep their bad result)? > > > >Question #2: What's your opinion of the director giving the N/S pair > >average? > > > >David A. Blizzard > > The ideal ruling: > > Have East taken out and shot. He has heard his partner not alert 2S. > He knows he is about to make an ethically dubious 4C bid. So he invents > a spurious "lead directing" explanation, which I don't believe for a > moment is a matter of partnership agreement. > >> > >Hmm. Didn't expect that my 4C bid would come under this much fire. So I >will defend it (and my explanation) although much of my logic has already >been >listed. I will buy that I perhaps should have bid 5C, but that bid never >occured >to me at the table, and I'm not sure it's right (I think 4C/5C is about >50/50, >so given this rationale anything I bid could be consider wrong. > >3S isn't explictly lead directing, but implictly it must be. Here are our >applicable agreements (facing a strong near game forcing opening): > >With nothing but spades partner will PASS. He wouldn't raise spades since >a misfit is probable, and with a misfit the opponents probably can't make >anything, >or we will pay to much. > >With a probable misfit (for example a void in clubs or a singleton in both >red >suits) he bids 2NT ("we're probably in trouble, let's try to find some place >not >to bad, and it's not your suit(s)). > >We never try for game after the opponents open a strong artificial opener. >If game might be on we bid it to put the pressure on the opponents. Yes, >this is an explicit agreement in our partnership. > >So partner must have excellent club support & excellent support for at least >one of the red suits. (Actually it is explicit that this applies to all >immediate >bids over the "Suction" bid except no-trump bids). So the reasonable >alternatives >for 3S are "fit showing" or "lead directing" (I know of no other reasonable >alternatives, >although concede that there might be - excluding a psychic bid). We don't >play any sort of fit showing bids in our partnership so logically this must >be a >lead director (which we do play over "preemptive bids" which this could be >considered). > >Also, note that from my perspective (the UI I had) partner was as likely to >have >forgotten to have alerted as to have forgotten the convention (actually, >probably >more so, since we have used this regularly). So my alert of the bid was to >protect my opponents in case partner had merely forgotten to alert. If >partner >had forgotten the convention we were already in trouble. As a matter of fact >we would probably been in serious trouble without the 4H bid, what's >partner's >response to 4C? I expect that the lowest we would have played was 4Sx, >assuming I decided to play in our spade "fit" (when partner rebid his spades >over 4C) and try for the possible game, rather than our known club fit. > Possibly we >would have been higher. > >BTW, partner's explanation for his "forget" was that even though we play >Suction over all strong artifical openings, he thought it didn't apply over >2C >openings (even though we have used it before in these situations). We aren't >too concerned about this because he certainly isn't going to forget again. > >David A. Blizzard I was perhaps a bit hard on your explanation, but I think the normal call over 3Sx is pass. Perhaps partner has bid 3S on a 5503 shape or similar. Pass suggests playing opposite this, is lead directing, and has the further advantage that South may not stand it even if partner was going to pull. As I said before, a TD should listen to East's explanation of his actions. But the one you've given isn't good enough for me. -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 27 11:09:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:09:05 +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 LAA23800 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:08:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1321231; 27 Aug 97 1:23 BST Message-ID: <2rMuOlD9L3A0Ew80@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 01:21:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OFFSHAPE In-Reply-To: <970822161331_480990256@emout19.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote >Most "clients" are too dumb to realize a pro is deviating from convention >card agreements, let alone make allowances for them. I have no objection to >pros who bid off-shape, off-HCP notrumps and weak two bids, as long as I feel >the client is not effectively adjusting his/her bidding to suit. Those bids >get me more tops than bottoms, and I enjoy making sure the client knows what >the pro is doing (although most don't care). > >Imagine the scornful comments that would be made if a tennis player hired a >pro as a partner in order to do well in a club doubles tournament. Few would >do such a thing. Almost all restrict their employment of pros to class >instruction, personal drills, and other more effective methods of improving >their skills. Bridge "clients" who sincerely want to play better bridge would >do well to emulate tennis players, and pay pros only for private sessions of >bidding, play of the hand, and defensive instruction. > >There was a practice in the 20's and 30's, when ballroom dancing was very >popular, for older women to hire good male dancers to escort them for an >evening of dining and dancing. The men were called "gigolos," and were >considered to have a not very admirable profession. The analogy with many >bridge pros seems apt. If people wish to enjoy themselves in a legal way, whether it be to hire a bridge professional, tennis professional or gigolo, what is wrong with that? Have you never hired someone *in any profession whatever* to improve your quality of life? -- 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 Aug 27 18:11:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:11:10 +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 SAA24969 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:11:01 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA20290 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:10:20 +0200 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:10:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: revoke In-Reply-To: <64Hd6DBRukA0Ewsi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote > >On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > >> Hi...Big discussion here regarding when a revoke is established in > >> non-acbl areas. Is it the same as ACBL that revoke is established when > >> offending side leads or plays to the next trick or is it established as > >> soon as it occurs? I would appreciate very much an answer. I believe > >> that it is the same as acbl world-wide. Help!!! Thanks, Nancy > > > >Yes, the relevant law (63) is the same in ACBL-land as in the rest of > >the world. The ACBL has, however, revised law 61B (who may ask if > >somebody revoked) and thus Law 63A4 is no longer relevant. > > The ACBL has revised nothing. They are given an option by the Laws > and have exercised such an option. L63B has replaced L63A4. It has > little relevance in Zones who have exercised the option to allow > defenders to ask each other whether they have no cards left of the > particular suit. No, the 1975 version of the laws allowed defenders to ask eachother. This was removed in the 1987 laws. The ACBL had problems getting this implemented so they submitted a revision to the text to the WBF law committee (essentially the 1975 text, plus the "Zonal option" stuff). The WBF approved this change and the ACBL choose to exercise their rights. So, it is an ACBL revision approved by the WBF. (Is this relevant? No, probably not, why am I wasting bandwidth here?) > If a defender asks his partner whether he has a card of the suit led, > and he has not, then in the ACBL this is legal, so the card is corrected > with no revoke penalty [but the original card becomes a major penalty > card]. Elsewhere, the revoke is not established but is treated as > though it is [!!!]. I'm not sure why you'd put the exclamation marks here. The illegal question establishes the revoke (63A4), and thus it is treated as an established revoke. 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 Aug 28 01:15:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 01:15:56 +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 BAA28774 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 01:15:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0601278; 27 Aug 97 16:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:23:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Poll (was Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <34012d99.14834220@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote >On Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:52:49 -0400 (EDT), Tim Goodwin > wrote: >>At 03:16 PM 8/14/97 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>>If the 1NT call was made because the player believed that 1NT was >>>the best way to describe the hand, then it is not a psyche. If >>>1NT was chosen to misrepresent the hand in order to create a >>>swing, then it is a psyche. >> >>So, you mean that two players using the same system (and supposedly the same >>style), could each choose to open the same 5431 hand 1NT, but it is possible >>that only one of them psyched? I'll buy this, but you're going to have a >>hard time selling it to the masses. > >In principle yes, but if they're playing exactly the same system >and style, then not in practice - it will be impossible to find >an example of a hand that one such player would find best shown >with 1NT, while another would use 1NT as a deliberate >misrepresentation of the hand. Why the same style? I know that under ACBL, EBU and some other SO's regulations, players are required to play the same system, but surely not the same style. -- 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 Aug 28 01:22:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 01:22:38 +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 BAA28825 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 01:22:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0516705; 27 Aug 97 16:09 BST Message-ID: <4vstP5A6yDB0EwUs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:42:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "G. R. Bower" wrote >As for the poll -- my own impression is that 1NT is a strictly defined bid >for most partnerships and that, for these partnerships, opening with >singletons or 6-card majors is entirely unexpected by the partner of the >NT bidder. Assuming this to be true, it seems reasonable to treat it the >first time as an allowable violation of system but thereafter as a >concealed nonstandard partnership agreement. This approach which is becoming standard in certain parts of the ACBL seems to be usurping the Director's judgement and not following the Laws of the game. To judge something as a CPU you require some idea of experience, certainly. But to automatically make anything a CPU which has happened once before is indefensible, and should not be a Director's approach. An example from Guernsey. A player opened 2NT to show 8-12 HCP with the minors. She actually had 20 HCP, with the minors. When her partner was asked if this had happened before, he said "Yes, the silly cow opened 2NT with a strong hand a few weeks ago, and I told her *never* to do it again!". That is not a CPU: he was not expecting it to recur. [I leave it to my readers to argue whether he should have been .] A CPU is basically something that a player may be allowing for. If the bidding goes 1S 1NT to you, and you have 22 HCP, and you think "Partner often psyches" and you allow for it, then it is required to be disclosed, and may be illegal. If you think "Gottim!" and smack the double card down joyously, then there is no evidence of a CPU even if partner has psyched and he psyched a spade yesterday as well. > I personally think that >regularly opening 5431s with a natural notrump should be legal but >alertable. That is a different matter. >But then -- I'm just a guy way up in Alaska with a director's card. The >ACBL isn't particularly interested in MY opinion. Aaaaaaah, but we are listening to you - so long as you remember we have other interests apart from the ACBL. -- 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 Aug 28 01:41:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 01:41:52 +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 BAA29174 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 01:41:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1317708; 27 Aug 97 16:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:55:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: revoke 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, 26 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: >> If a defender asks his partner whether he has a card of the suit led, >> and he has not, then in the ACBL this is legal, so the card is corrected >> with no revoke penalty [but the original card becomes a major penalty >> card]. Elsewhere, the revoke is not established but is treated as >> though it is [!!!]. > >I'm not sure why you'd put the exclamation marks here. The illegal >question establishes the revoke (63A4), and thus it is treated as >an established revoke. That is 1987. In 1997, the question does *not* establish the revoke, the card is corrected, and the unestablished corrected revoke is treated *as* an established revoke. [L63B instead of L63A4.] I stand by my exclamation marks . -- 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 Aug 28 01:46:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 01:46:39 +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 BAA29203 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 01:46:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1117408; 27 Aug 97 16:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:03:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling In-Reply-To: <$PxE4HAAEOA0EwO+@rbarden.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Barden wrote >Happily, the result of this would be to give all four players zero >matchpoints for the board, which is exactly what they deserve. I like this. It is the sympathetic approach that we all crave for ... It reminds me of the David Burn [afair] approach to directing: give 'em -2800 for *any* infraction. Lead out of turn? -2800. Only 12 cards? -2800. Insufficient bid? -2800. Hesitation? -2800. It's simple, easy to apply, would cut down the number of infractions [oh yes, it would!!], and would lead to some *very* interesting flat boards. -- 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 Aug 28 03:00:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 03:00:17 +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 DAA29648 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 03:00:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1022531; 27 Aug 97 16:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:08:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alexey Gerasimov wrote >Sorry, this is my first message and I speak English not very good Welcome, nice to see you. Do not worry about your English, we already have to understand the Americans. :))))) -- 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 Aug 28 03:27:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 03:27:44 +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 DAA29877 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 03:27:36 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA25984 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:27:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.33) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma025955; Wed Aug 27 12:26:21 1997 Received: by har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCB2EC.6E6D15C0@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:23:39 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCB2EC.6E6D15C0@har-pa1-01.ix.netcom.com> From: rts48u To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:23:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 10:08 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling Alexey Gerasimov wrote >Sorry, this is my first message and I speak English not very good Welcome, nice to see you. Do not worry about your English, we already have to understand the Americans. :))))) If you had ever understood us we wouldn't have had to spill the bloody = tea in the first place. Why not send us the Crown Prince as = reparations...he clearly has the moral fibre to be President! :-))) Glad u r back on line...have missed your always interesting comments. Craig Senior (a.k.a. Y. Doodle) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 28 04:59:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 04:59:06 +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 EAA00474 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 04:58:57 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA20371; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:58:34 -0800 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:58:34 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <4vstP5A6yDB0EwUs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > To judge something as a CPU you require some idea of experience, > certainly. But to automatically make anything a CPU which has happened > once before is indefensible, and should not be a Director's approach. > Most of my directing is done at a club where I have known the players for several years, so fortunately most of the time I do have a feel for what is an unexpected psych and what is a habit. This is a luxury most directors, especially at tournaments, don't have. I think the current trend in the ACBL is justified along these lines: "I see this player in action once every __ weeks. I know of a previous occasion on which he has done this before. In all likelihood, someone who knows him as well as his partner does has seen it on other occasions, also." The reasoning strikes me as statistically valid in the long run but in danger of being wrong on any given occasion. Short of a ridiculously troublesome system of reporting and recording every psych ever made, I'm not sure I see a better way. (I don't think letting all of the 'maybe-CPU-maybe-not' cases go without punishment is a better way.) > An example from Guernsey. A player opened 2NT to show 8-12 HCP with > the minors. She actually had 20 HCP, with the minors. When her partner > was asked if this had happened before, he said "Yes, the silly cow > opened 2NT with a strong hand a few weeks ago, and I told her *never* > to do it again!". That is not a CPU: he was not expecting it to recur. > [I leave it to my readers to argue whether he should have been .] Indeed not. Here the partner has (wisely) taken a step to prevent any CPU from emerging. (One's partner usually knows how to inflict a much more effective punishment than any director, could, anyway.) > > A CPU is basically something that a player may be allowing for. If > the bidding goes 1S 1NT to you, and you have 22 HCP, and you think > "Partner often psyches" and you allow for it, then it is required to be > disclosed, and may be illegal. If you think "Gottim!" and smack the > double card down joyously, then there is no evidence of a CPU even if > partner has psyched and he psyched a spade yesterday as well. > I disagree. A CPU, to me, is anything you know about partner's bidding that the opponents don't. Whether you change your own bidding as a result or not. If you do allow for it, you are making it clear to all that a (C?)PU exists. Not allowing for it may mean you don't know. It may mean that you are just trying to be ethical. It may mean you are fed up with your partner's psyching and want to make him go for 2800. (Or, in this case, 380, for 1NTX making two, vulnerable.) OK, here's a question for the list to consider. I hope it will give us something new to think about. (If not, sorry, folks, for dragging us through this issue again.) In my regular partnership we play fairly conservative weak two-bids. Or actual agreement is as follows: "QT9xxx or better. No void. Less than 4 spades for 2H and less than 4 hearts for 2S. 4 to 10 HCP." That part is written on our card. We have also agreed (and reveal if asked -- but we almost never are asked) that "Partner may violate this agreement as he sees fit (opening weak 7222 or strong 5431, etc.) provided he is prepared for me to bid exactly as if he had not violated it." I also have a vague sense of, if partner lies, what type of lie it is going to be, e.g., she has never done it with a void. 1> Is the above legal? (In ACBL? In EBU? Elsewhere?) 2> There have been occasions in the past where we have violated the (first half of) our agreement, disclosed the full agreement, and gotten a top. If we do so again, playing at your table, will you call the cops? If we do so again, playing in your game, will you rule against us as a director? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 28 09:04:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:04:21 +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 JAA01386 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:04:14 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1305100; 27 Aug 97 23:56 BST Message-ID: <23uYaDA4hKB0Ewk1@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 23:21:44 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Adjusted vs. assigned score: Recent Regional Ruling In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Alexey Gerasimov wrote >>Sorry, this is my first message and I speak English not very good > > Welcome, nice to see you. > > Do not worry about your English, we already have to understand the >Americans. :))))) > and David Stevenson....:((((( -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 28 09:17:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:17:20 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA01459 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:17:13 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0508918; 27 Aug 97 23:56 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 23:49:32 +0100 To: "G. R. Bower" Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "G. R. Bower" writes > >On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > >> To judge something as a CPU you require some idea of experience, >> certainly. But to automatically make anything a CPU which has happened once before is indefensible, and should not be a Director's approach. >> (.....cut.....) > >> >> A CPU is basically something that a player may be allowing for. If >> the bidding goes 1S 1NT to you, and you have 22 HCP, and you think >> "Partner often psyches" and you allow for it, then it is required to be >> disclosed, and may be illegal. If you think "Gottim!" and smack the >> double card down joyously, then there is no evidence of a CPU even if >> partner has psyched and he psyched a spade yesterday as well. >> > >I disagree. A CPU, to me, is anything you know about partner's bidding >that the opponents don't. Whether you change your own bidding as a result >or not. If you do allow for it, you are making it clear to all that a >(C?)PU exists. Not allowing for it may mean you don't know. It may mean >that you are just trying to be ethical. It may mean you are fed up with >your partner's psyching and want to make him go for 2800. (Or, in this >case, 380, for 1NTX making two, vulnerable.) Labeo: This is right. Opponents are entitled to know what you know from partnership experience or discussion about what partner may be doing, whether you are catering for it or not. *They* must be put in a position to cater for it if they wish. >OK, here's a question for the list to consider. I hope it will give us >something new to think about. (If not, sorry, folks, for dragging us >through this issue again.) In my regular partnership >we play fairly conservative weak two-bids. Or actual agreement is as >follows: "QT9xxx or better. No void. Less than 4 spades for 2H and less >than 4 hearts for 2S. 4 to 10 HCP." That part is written on our card. We >have also agreed (and reveal if asked -- but we almost never are asked) >that "Partner may violate this agreement as he sees fit (opening weak 7222 >or strong 5431, etc.) provided he is prepared for me to bid >exactly as if he had not violated it." I also have a vague sense of, if >partner lies, what type of lie it is going to be, e.g., she has never done >it with a void. > >1> Is the above legal? (In ACBL? In EBU? Elsewhere?) > Labeo: *No* Please refer to Law 40B. You *may not use* the bid if you do not disclose the special understanding, and that has nothing to do with whether opponent asks or not. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 29 09:23:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:23:52 +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 JAA08278 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:23:46 +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 TAA28105 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA16208; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:23:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:23:49 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708282323.TAA16208@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > Please refer to Law 40B. You *may not use* the bid if you > do not disclose the special understanding, and that has nothing to do > with whether opponent asks or not. I wish it were so simple. L40B says "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." If those regulations don't provide for disclosure on the CC or via alerts or some such, it is not obvious how disclosure should be accomplished other than in response to a question. I agree, of course, that in an ideal world disclosure would be accomplished without any questions. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 29 11:52:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:52:59 +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 LAA08712 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:52:46 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1305388; 29 Aug 97 1:19 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 01:14:04 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <199708282323.TAA16208@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199708282323.TAA16208@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Labeo >> ..cut.. > >I wish it were so simple. L40B says "in accordance with the >regulations of the sponsoring organization." If those regulations >don't provide for disclosure on the CC or via alerts or some such, it >is not obvious how disclosure should be accomplished other than in >response to a question. > >I agree, of course, that in an ideal world disclosure would be >accomplished without any questions. The shortcomings of the SOs should not be visited on the laws. But presumably opponents are always told in some way, as the laws require, about your system. The point is that the laws put the onus on each side to disclose its own system, and not on the opponents to enquire. (And the laws are quite specific in saying that if you do not disclose it you may not do it; if an SO were to provide no means of disclosure it would be condemning players to using only calls everyone will understand and excluding special understandings. I do not meet situations these days in which no provision is made for telling opponents what you play.) -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 29 16:16:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:16:05 +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 QAA09354 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:15:50 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-54.ts-7.lax.idt.net [169.132.210.54]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA18800; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 02:15:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3406679E.A430BA97@idt.net> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 23:09:34 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Labeo CC: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: > snip, snip, snip > ...(And the laws are quite specific in saying that if you do not > disclose > it you may not do it; if an SO were to provide no means of disclosure > it would be condemning players to using only calls everyone will > understand and excluding special understandings. I do not meet > situations these days in which no provision is made for telling > opponents what you play.) > > -- Labeo > > "Salus populi suprema est lex" > - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) Labeo, Labeo!!! don' t go giving the ACBL ideas! They're already too clever at banning what they don't like, without help from you. Irv From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 29 19:07:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 19:07:54 +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 TAA09627 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 19:07:38 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id KAA21326 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:07:22 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 97 10:06 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) 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: From: Labeo > >> ..cut.. > > > >I wish it were so simple. L40B says "in accordance with the > >regulations of the sponsoring organization." If those regulations > >don't provide for disclosure on the CC or via alerts or some such, it > >is not obvious how disclosure should be accomplished other than in > >response to a question. > > > >I agree, of course, that in an ideal world disclosure would be > >accomplished without any questions. > > The shortcomings of the SOs should not be visited on the laws. But > presumably opponents are always told in some way, as the laws require, > about your system. The point is that the laws put the onus on each > side to disclose its own system, and not on the opponents to enquire. > (And the laws are quite specific in saying that if you do not disclose > it you may not do it; if an SO were to provide no means of disclosure > it would be condemning players to using only calls everyone will > understand and excluding special understandings. I do not meet > situations these days in which no provision is made for telling > opponents what you play.) Labeo, you seem to be avoiding the perfectly reasonable point that Steve is making. While it is just about possible to get the basic structure and meanings of any system onto a standard CC there is absolutely no possibility of getting all the nuances of both player's styles to fit as well. I have never seen it suggested that players must provide a detailed range of supporting materials/notes to cover this gap (and I believe that such regulations would drive many away from the competitive game). I believe we are forbidden from volunteering such information when a bid is made, and that the structure of alerts/questions is in place to address exactly this issue. At best we can hedge our CCs with phrases like "normally", "in principle", or "please ask", which suggest to others that there is additional information they might require. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 29 23:48:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:48:36 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA10410 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 23:48:28 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA32434 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16377; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:48:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:48:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199708291348.JAA16377@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > The point is that the laws put the onus on each > side to disclose its own system, and not on the opponents to enquire. This is precisely the question in dispute. I wish the above were true, but I don't believe it can be read unambiguously in the text. It depends on how broadly one wishes to interpret the powers of the SO. There is, of course, no dispute about full disclosure in response to a question (L75C). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 31 01:42:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:42:15 +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 BAA19591 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:42:07 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0615881; 30 Aug 97 16:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:02:18 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >From: Labeo >> >> ..cut.. >> > >>> ...cut and cut and cut.... Then Tim Westmeads comes in: >> Labeo, you seem to be avoiding the perfectly reasonable point that Steve is making. While it is just about possible to get the basic structure and meanings of any system onto a standard CC there is absolutely no possibility of getting all the nuances of both player's styles to fit as well. I have never seen it suggested that players must provide a detailed range of supporting materials/notes to cover this gap (and I believe that such regulations would drive many away from the competitive game). > Labeo: I hope I am not ducking any issue. 1. I am not prepared to condone players getting away with doing these things, knowingly, without fulfilling their duty by opponents and telling them so that they can fairly cater for them. Yes, I see the difficulties but they *must* be overcome since the first duty is fair and full disclosure to opponents. 2. Obviously different SOs will have different ideas about methods of disclosure and it is not for me to tell any one of them it is wrong. BUT the duty to disclose in some way is there : for my part I would be contented enough generally - but not in international conditions where there is extremely detailed disclosure (at least in theory) - if such an agreement required an alert. But that is for the SO to say; I do think every SO should tell competitors how any special understanding is to be announced - the law, by inference, requires it to do so. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 31 01:46:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:46:24 +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 BAA19607 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 01:46:18 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1229995; 30 Aug 97 16:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:10:49 +0100 To: Irwin J Kostal Cc: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <3406679E.A430BA97@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3406679E.A430BA97@idt.net>, Irwin J Kostal writes >Labeo wrote: > >> snip, snip, snip > Labeo, Labeo!!! don' t go giving the ACBL ideas! They're already too >clever at banning what they don't like, without help from you. > >Irv > Oh, my god! I couldn't bear the thought of being responsible for what the ACBL might do. As you will see from a despatch to Steve Willner today, I have had second thoughts ..... I think if you are supposed to tell opponents something and can't find the way to do it, you should call the director and explain to him what the dilemma is. Opponents at very least are likely to hear you, but however it goes you have transferred the responsibility. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 31 02:05:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:05:34 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA19808 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 02:05:29 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0719023; 30 Aug 97 16:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 15:57:05 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <199708291348.JAA16377@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199708291348.JAA16377@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Labeo >> The point is that the laws put the onus on each >> side to disclose its own system, and not on the opponents to enquire. > >This is precisely the question in dispute. I wish the above were true, >but I don't believe it can be read unambiguously in the text. It >depends on how broadly one wishes to interpret the powers of the SO. > >There is, of course, no dispute about full disclosure in response to a >question (L75C). > Labeo: what I do say, ad nauseam if needs be, is that a player *MAY NOT USE* a call based on a special understanding without disclosing it. The law says this *quite unambiguously*, and since opponent may have no reason to suspect the existence of the understanding it is for the side using it to make certain opponent is told, not to wait for the question that opponent does not know to ask (and which Law 40B does not require). I am not certain what your reference to the powers of the SO means; I am referring to the requirements of the laws on disclosure, not to the 'powers' of SOs - although I take it you intend presumably their inferred *duty* to specify the method of disclosure. There is, however, another level to this discussion. Disregarding any regulation, legal or otherwise, of the subject, ANY call may be psyched; prior discussion of what may prove to be 'psychic' incorporates the possibility in system and the action is then no longer psychic because it is part of the system agreements. Psychic action is undiscussed action not premeditated by the partnership. Jointly premeditated action is systemic, regardless of whether the partner may 'cater for it' or not, and opponents are entitled to a full disclosure of the system. Players who reach understandings as to their actions which they then do not volunteer to opponents fail to match up to their responsibilities to opponents, and to hide behind an excuse that they had no opportunity to disclose is just not good enough. If they find themselves in this position they should deal with their own infraction by calling the director and setting out the facts for him. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 31 09:45:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 09:45:37 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20638 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 09:45:30 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-2.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.208.2]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA03604; Sat, 30 Aug 1997 19:45:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3408AF3B.449EE261@idt.net> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:39:39 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Labeo CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You know they wanted to ban the 10 point forcing club, some years ago, and found out they couldn't do it, so, using their success with allowing no conventions if your NT opening starts below 10 points, they now are barring the use of any conventions if your club opening starts at less than 15 HCP. This is the culmination of a 10 year (approximately) effort to find a way to keep people from playing one club forcing with minimal values. It shows that the people in power are (A) firmly entrenched, and (B) quite determined to mould the game in their own image. It also finds me quite resentful that we always have to watch our backs, or some new, sillly regulation will be foisted upon us. Irv Labeo wrote: > In message <3406679E.A430BA97@idt.net>, Irwin J Kostal > > writes > >Labeo wrote: > > > >> snip, snip, snip > > > Labeo, Labeo!!! don' t go giving the ACBL ideas! They're already > too > >clever at banning what they don't like, without help from you. > > > >Irv > > > Oh, my god! I couldn't bear the thought of being responsible for what > > the ACBL might do. As you will see from a despatch to Steve Willner > today, I have had second thoughts ..... I think if you are supposed to > > tell opponents something and can't find the way to do it, you should > call the director and explain to him what the dilemma is. Opponents at > > very least are likely to hear you, but however it goes you have > transferred the responsibility. > > -- Labeo > > "Salus populi suprema est lex" > - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 31 18:52:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA21672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 18:52:26 +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 SAA21667 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 18:52:19 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1107703; 31 Aug 97 9:42 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 07:38:06 +0100 To: Irwin J Kostal Cc: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <3406679E.A430BA97@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3406679E.A430BA97@idt.net>, Irwin J Kostal writes >Labeo wrote: > >> snip, snip, snip > >> Labeo, Labeo!!! don' t go giving the ACBL ideas! They're already too >clever at banning what they don't like, without help from you. > >Irv > Labeo: add to previous reply - Is it not right that (nearly) all regulating bodies have words in their instructions on alerting which tell us to alert anything opponents might not readily understand? That covers it. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 31 19:31:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:31:32 +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 TAA21763 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 19:31:26 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0520880; 31 Aug 97 10:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 10:23:00 +0100 To: Irwin J Kostal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <3408AF3B.449EE261@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3408AF3B.449EE261@idt.net>, Irwin J Kostal writes >You know they wanted to ban the 10 point forcing club, some years ago, >and found out they couldn't do it, so, using their success with allowing >no conventions if your NT opening starts below 10 points, they now are >barring the use of any conventions if your club opening starts at less >than 15 HCP. This is the culmination of a 10 year (approximately) effort >to find a way to keep people from playing one club forcing with minimal >values. It shows that the people in power are (A) firmly entrenched, and >(B) quite determined to mould the game in their own image. It also finds >me quite resentful that we always have to watch our backs, or some new, >sillly regulation will be foisted upon us. >> Labeo: I take it that means an agreement for there to be 15 points or more.... they surely would not seek to overturn bridge judgement on a hand of 13 points considered to be worth 15? The other thing interesting to me about this, technically, is that (this side of the Pond at least) we do have systems lots of people play where 1C does not guarantee a club holding but the opening is ordinary opener strength - not strong. If not absolutely forcing, there is pressure on responder to bid, and a pass often has length [5+(4)]. On your general point, 'entrenched' sounds like an extra- terrestrial government {=}, surely if the bulk of the members felt as you do there would be no survival for the regime in a democracy? ( {=} I began to write 'Third World gov..', but that would be so unfair to many current third world regimes) -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero)