From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 1 00:33:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 00:33:42 +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 AAA24705 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 00:33:36 +1000 Received: from cph59.ppp.dknet.dk (cph59.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.59]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15931 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:33:27 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Poll (was Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:33:26 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <342a7ead.7118475@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 Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:23:22 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >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? If they are playing different styles (which they certainly are allowed to), then it just might be possible that one player's psyche is the other player's best way of showing the hand - on the other hand, I don't think I can create a convincing example hand. >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. Yes. But I don't really understand the relevance of this - the two players we are talking about here are not necessarily partners. Tim asked a question about any two players with equal system and equal style. Though I usually have nothing against purely theoretical discussions, I think this one is getting too far from real bridge even for me. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 1 06:12:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:12:30 +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 GAA26213 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:12:23 +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 QAA18806; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:12:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708312012.QAA13459@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bigfoot@idt.net CC: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3408AF3B.449EE261@idt.net> (message from Irwin J Kostal on Sat, 30 Aug 1997 16:39:39 -0700) Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > 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 outlaws the Precision system according to Goren's book, which advises opening 1C (nominally 16+) on AKJ865 7 AQT43 6. I assume most big club players make similar bids with strong two-suiters. And this is the same regulation as the rule for 1NT minimum ranges, with ostensibly the same purpose. It's hard to defend allowing the above hand to open 1C while barring 9-point hands from opening 1NT. And in some places, the agreement is even written into the system notes. Schenken's books suggest never opening 1C with less than 14 HCP even on distributional hands. COBRA, a computer-designed bidding system similar to Schenken, opens 1C on all hands of sufficient playing strength (roughly 16 HCP for semi-balanced hands; AJxxx AQx KQx xx is near-minimum) which have at least 14 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. What it may well be designed to outlaw is players playing 1C which is not officially forcing but is never passed. I've played against such players, who open 1C with 4432 (or even 4441) and respond 1D to 1C on a flat 3-count; they tend to have no idea that their agreement is non-standard. (Many don't even alert 1C which can be opened on a doubleton.) This is a problem, but I don't think outlawing the system will help much. But I'm afraid the rule may be used to intimidate Precision players who promote their two-suiters too much in someone's judgment; Precision is played by a fair number of inexperienced players. -- 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 Mon Sep 1 08:44:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 08:44:02 +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 IAA26594 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 08:43:50 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-100.star.net.il [195.8.208.100]) by e4000.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA07335; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 01:41:17 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3409F364.8DA3AEC5@artaxia.com> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 01:42:45 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "G. R. Bower" CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower wrote: > 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 My opinion and action in all tournaments I manged - from regular club to international - is very clear and tough : "Any relvant information you know , must be "gifted" to opponents". Didn't do it - you are defined as an offending side for the law . I am very tough especially with high level pairs . DANY From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 1 23:26:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 23:26:58 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28684 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 23:26:51 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id JAA09228 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 09:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Sep01.211900.1189.128853; Mon, 01 Sep 1997 09:21:04 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Sep01.211900.1189.128853@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 09:21:04 -0600 Subject: FW: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuito Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Grabiner[SMTP:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 31, 1997 4:32 PM To: bigfoot Cc: Labeo; bridge-laws Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuito You write: >> 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. >What it may well be designed to outlaw is players playing 1C which is >not officially forcing but is never passed. I've played against such >players, who open 1C with 4432 (or even 4441) and respond 1D to 1C on a >flat 3-count; they tend to have no idea that their agreement is >non-standard. (Many don't even alert 1C which can be opened on a >doubleton.) This is a problem, but I don't think outlawing the system >will help much. >But I'm afraid the rule may be used to intimidate Precision players who >promote their two-suiters too much in someone's judgment; Precision is >played by a fair number of inexperienced players. My guess is that these regulations aren't designed to regulation Precision style club systems, where once club is always used as a strong forcing opening, but rather some of two-way clubs systems such as Polish, Carrot, Power, or Scanian Super Standard. In all of these structures the 1C opening includes some strong options, however the bid most often shows weak balanced hands. The way the ACBL GCC is currently designed, the responder to a nebulous strong club opener can not use conventional responses immediately following the strong club opening. As usual, anything goes starting with opener's second call. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 2 04:37:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 04:37:59 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA02435 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 04:37:52 +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 OAA13945 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 14:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970901143831.006a9e34@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 14:38:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: References: <199708291348.JAA16377@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:57 PM 8/30/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >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). If the law says this, it certainly doesn't do so *quite unambiguously*; indeed, it's not at all clear that the law does say this. What the law does quite clearly say is that: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization" [L40B]. So an SO has the power to determine which calls "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand", and may establish "regulations" for disclosure of any other calls. That seems to leave the disclosure requirement in the hands of the SO. To say that "a player *MAY NOT USE* a call... without disclosing it" is clearly within the purview of the SO, but not required by the laws, which mandate only such disclosure as is required to be "in accordance with the regulations of the SO". If anything, the law tends to contra-indicate this, by implying that there exists, or should exist, for any SO, a class of agreements explicitly not subject to disclosure, i.e. those which "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand". "Special partnership agreements... must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40)" [L75A]. Neither advance nor immediate disclosure is required to meet the test of "fully and freely available". (All of the laws of the United States, for example, are, by law, "fully and freely available" to any citizen from the government; this does not mean that they send every citizen a copy of every law.) An SO can choose to meet this requirement by providing for a question-and-answer procedure, while the parenthetical reference to Law 40 tells us that the "regulations of the SO" govern here. Indeed, the "fully and freely available" requirement may be quite satisfactorily met (if the SO do decides) by the provisions of L75C; any further means of meeting the requirement (including even the use of a convention card, as is made clear by L40E1: "The SO *may* prescribe a convention card...") is up to the SO. "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information..." [L75C]. "[During the auction] any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction" [L20F1, with similar wording about during the play in L20F2]. Putting all this together, I would read it as saying that all available information about a partnership's agreements must be made fully and freely available to the opponents, that the law provides a minimum requirement for doing so, which is set forth in L20F and L75C, and that any additional requirements for doing so may be established by the SO if it so chooses. This is a very different understanding than that which Labeo is, apparently, prepared to restate "ad nauseam". There is a not insignificant difference between "A player may not use a call based on a special understanding without conforming to the requirements anent disclosure established by the governing SO" and "...without disclosing it", unless, of course, the SO chooses to meet the former by mandating 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 Tue Sep 2 11:44:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:44:20 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00399 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:44:13 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1027296; 2 Sep 97 2:38 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 02:34:31 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970901143831.006a9e34@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970901143831.006a9e34@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 03:57 PM 8/30/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: > >>Labeo: what I do say, ad nauseam if needs be, is ...cut.... Eric Landau goes on to say: What the law does quite clearly say is that: > >"A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership >understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to >understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call >or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization" >[L40B]. ...more cut... >"Special partnership agreements... must be fully and freely available to >the opponents (see Law 40)" [L75A]. Neither advance nor immediate >disclosure is required to meet the test of "fully and freely available". Oh? What does Law 40A mean then? "A player may make any call or play...........without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." Not even a suggestion of 'special' in that. ...cut... then Eric: >(All of the laws of the United States, for example, are, by law, "fully and freely available" to any citizen from the government; this does not mean that they send every citizen a copy of every law.) Labeo: I believe not. On the other hand it would not occur to me, with my British background, to argue in my defence that I was ignorant of the law because they had not sent me a copy. ...cut... > > There is a not insignificant >difference between "A player may not use a call based on a special >understanding without conforming to the requirements anent disclosure >established by the governing SO" and "...without disclosing it", unless, of >course, the SO chooses to meet the former by mandating the latter. > Labeo: Actually Law 40B states a prohibition and it does not care a tinker's cuss about what provision the SO has or has not made. Nor does it empower the SO to nullify the requirement. The operative statement is 'may not make' and if you have not disclosed because the SO did not in its wisdom provide the means, or for any other reason, then hard cheese, you 'may not make' the call or play. The truth is that, so far as the laws are concerned, it should have been declared beforehand as a partnership understanding, but as a matter of practicality we all accept that many things can be left unsaid provided they are alerted when they happen; I am not saying this is not one of them. But it is not forgiveable to sit their impassively with opponents left in ignorance of the understanding - it is for the side with the understanding to take the initiative to disclose (catching up, in essence, with what Law40A said they should do beforehand). The parenthetical reference in Law 75A to Law 40 draws attention to the requirement in 40A for *prior* announcement. Law75C deals with situations when questions are asked and is not relevant to the demand in Law 40 that partnership understandings be announced in advance. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 2 14:20:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:20:43 +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 OAA00838 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:20:37 +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 VAA09055; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 21:22:18 -0700 Received: from erebor.ikos.com (erebor [149.172.67.5]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA28342; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 21:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 21:20:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199709020420.VAA28342@d2.ikos.com> To: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Sep 1 19:19 PDT 1997 > > [Labeo:] > "A player may make any call or play...........without prior > announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a > partnership understanding." > [...] > Actually Law 40B states a prohibition and it does not care a > tinker's cuss about what provision the SO has or has not made. Nor does > it empower the SO to nullify the requirement. The operative statement > is 'may not make' and if you have not disclosed because the SO did not I think I see the source of your problem, Labeo. I'll explain below, but IMHO one result of the problem is that here you unjustifiably twist the case of the verb "discloses" to "have disclosed". > in its wisdom provide the means, or for any other reason, then hard > cheese, you 'may not make' the call or play. The truth is that, so far Your twist then results in you labelling the following as "truth" when it seems to me to be just a wrong conclusion you arrived at by defective logic. > as the laws are concerned, it should have been declared beforehand as a > partnership understanding, but as a matter of practicality we all accept > that many things can be left unsaid provided they are alerted when they > happen; I am not saying this is not one of them. But it is not > forgiveable to sit their impassively with opponents left in ignorance > of the understanding - it is for the side with the understanding to take > the initiative to disclose (catching up, in essence, with what Law40A > said they should do beforehand). > The parenthetical reference in Law 75A to Law 40 draws attention to > the requirement in 40A for *prior* announcement. Here's the error in your logic, Labeo. You have gone astray to think that 40A includes or implies any requirement for prior announcement. Rather it exempts a class of calls from any possibility of anyone requiring prior announcement. That in itself in no way imposes such a requirement for other calls. At most, it only suggests the possibility that someone (any SO, e.g.) might require prior announcement for some agreements (such as HUMs, e.g.). In fact, 75A draws attention primarily (though not exclusively) to 40B rather than to 40A, since, as you yourself observed, the word "special" does not appear in 40A. By referring to Law 40, 75A merely emphasizes that it specifies limitations on the trouble opponents might otherwise have to go through to learn the special partnership understandings behind the calls authorized by 40B. E.g., you may not charge your opponents a teaching fee :) for explaining your special partnership understandings regarding your partner's bid to them, even if they may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning already. > Law75C deals with > situations when questions are asked and is not relevant to the > demand in Law 40 that partnership understandings be announced in > advance. To reiterate, there is no such demand in Law 40. Law 75C tells what kind of information (general knowledge and experience) does not need to be freely available. Regards, Everett Boyer (amateur bridge lawyer) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 2 22:37:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:37:06 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02187 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:37:00 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA01822 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970902083746.006a9ad0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 08:37:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970901143831.006a9e34@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The essence of Labeo's position on disclosure, in one sentence, seems to be: At 02:34 AM 9/2/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >But it is not >forgiveable to sit their impassively with opponents left in ignorance >of the understanding - it is for the side with the understanding to take >the initiative to disclose... In the ACBL, we have a (relatively new) principle that goes by the name of "active ethics". Those who subscribe to this principle -- among whom I count myself -- fully agree with Labeo's position. Indeed, the quote above very nicely captures the "essence" of the active ethics movement. But as the ACBL's exhortations to practice active ethics make clear, whilst it may be "not forgiveable" to sit impassively with opponents left in ignorance, it is legal. The whole point of active ethics is that, to be fair and sportsmanlike, one ought to go beyond what the law requires and take the steps that are necessary to insure that one's opponents are not "left in ignorance". In other words, here in ACBL land, active ethics means practicing full disclosure to the extent that Labeo reads into the Laws. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 2 22:48:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:48:10 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02249 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 22:48:04 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA09446 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:47:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <3408AF3B.449EE261@idt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Irwin J Kostal wrote: > 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. While I have been known to rant and rave about ACBL regulations before now, the above statement is just plain wrong. The appropriate parts of the General Convention Chart read as follows: ALLOWED: OPENING BIDS 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 HCP. [snip] RESPONSES AND REBIDS 1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one club. [snip] 3. Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing or better values. May NOT be part of a relay system. [snip] 5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS (including into notrump) to indicate a raise or to force to game. 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards.) 7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder's second call. 8. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, voids, trump quality and responses thereto. 9. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP). No conventional responses or rebids are allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP. Further, a conventional defense to a conventional defense is not permitted. That extract includes both places where conventional bids are restricted based on the nature of the opening bid (wrong range notrumps and wide range weak 2-bids). The restrictions on responses and rebids after an all-purpose 1C of 10+ points are exactly the same as those over a natural 1C. If you play 1C as 15+ and forcing, then you are allowed even more freedom in system design. -- 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 Wed Sep 3 03:16:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 03:16:06 +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 DAA05776 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 03:15:52 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA27872; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:14:49 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:14:48 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: Irwin J Kostal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <3408AF3B.449EE261@idt.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Irwin J Kostal wrote: > 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 The GCC does not specifically ban conventions after a forcing-but-not- strong 1C opener. What it does do is grant a blanket licence to play whatever silly system you want if you use an always-strong 1C opener. If I play an ambiguous 1C (which I do, sometimes) I am still allowed the use of a 1D artificial response, game-forcing conventional jump shifts, conventional raises, and the usual bag of tricks such as negative doubles and Blackwood. And since we are obligated to have a lot of natural bids in our ambiguous-1C systems, we actually play a system that the average open - minded club player might be willing to learn... an advantage which I daresay most of the Super-Precision family and its relatives will not enjoy, at least in the USA, for many years to come... I wonder sometimes if this is why 'primitive' Precision was popular in the US, but faded among non-experts when the fancy responses to 1C came into common usage. Apologies for wandering off the topic of the laws. I'll try not to prolong the system discussions any longer in this forum. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 07:46:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:46:33 +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 HAA06747 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:46:26 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1503023; 2 Sep 97 21:14 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:29:48 +0100 To: Everett Boyer Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <199709020420.VAA28342@d2.ikos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199709020420.VAA28342@d2.ikos.com>, Everett Boyer writes > >> From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Sep 1 19:19 PDT 1997 >> >> [Labeo:] >> "A player may make any call or play...........without prior >> announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a >> partnership understanding." >> [...] >> Actually Law 40B states a prohibition and it does not care a >> tinker's cuss about what provision the SO has or has not made. Nor does >> it empower the SO to nullify the requirement. The operative statement >> is 'may not make' and if you have not disclosed because the SO did not > >I think I see the source of your problem, Labeo. Labeo: I have cut most of what you wrote, not for lack of interest, though. It was fascinating, but wrong. I shall not write at length on this exhausted subject, but: 1. 'partnership understanding' in 40A is any partnership understanding, including any partnership understanding that is 'special'. 2. the English usage in 40A is well established. To give conditional permission, as 40A does, for 'x' if 'y', signifies that the permission is withheld if condition 'y' is not present. 3. 40A is the law establishing that prior announcement of one's understandings is required. It does just that and is basic to the game. The reference to 'Law 40' in 75A is a reference to the whole of Law 40 without emphasis on any particular section. It refers to 40A equally with the rest. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 07:48:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:48:16 +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 HAA06758 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:48:10 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-54.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.208.54]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA04131; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:47:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <340C8837.40356E8A@idt.net> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:42:15 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Lighton CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List 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 Sorry, Richard, but YOU are "just plain wrong!" The operative section of the the laws is # 6, which I'll reprint here at the top of the letter. 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards.) Note that artificial bids are allowed over STRONG (15+ HCP) forcing 1C openings. This has been interpreted to mean that they are NOT allowed if the forcing 1C is less than 15 HCP. I know, because this is the ruling that was made at a recent sectional tournament here in Los Angeles. Furthermore, the wording is sufficiently clear that it is difficult to disagree with the ruling. Irv Richard Lighton wrote: > On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > 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. > > While I have been known to rant and rave about ACBL regulations > before now, the above statement is just plain wrong. The appropriate > parts of the General Convention Chart read as follows: > ALLOWED: > > OPENING BIDS > > 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose > opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum > of 10 HCP. > > [snip] > > RESPONSES AND REBIDS > > 1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one > club. > > [snip] > > 3. Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing > or better values. May NOT be part of a relay system. > > [snip] > > 5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS (including into notrump) > to indicate a raise or to force to game. > > 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > contain at least five cards.) > > 7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening > bidder's second call. > > 8. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, > voids, trump quality and responses thereto. > > 9. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP (including those that > have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which > exceeds 3 HCP). No conventional responses or rebids are > allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls > with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range > of greater than 5 HCP. Further, a conventional defense > to a conventional defense is not permitted. > > That extract includes both places where conventional bids are > restricted based on the nature of the opening bid (wrong range > notrumps and wide range weak 2-bids). The restrictions on responses > and rebids after an all-purpose 1C of 10+ points are exactly the > same as those over a natural 1C. If you play 1C as 15+ and forcing, > then you are allowed even more freedom in system design. > > -- > 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 Wed Sep 3 07:52:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:52:38 +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 HAA06803 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:52:32 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1227310; 2 Sep 97 21:14 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:46:55 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970902083746.006a9ad0@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19970902083746.006a9ad0@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >The essence of Labeo's position on disclosure, in one sentence, seems to be: > >At 02:34 AM 9/2/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: > >>But it is not >>forgiveable to sit their impassively with opponents left in ignorance >>of the understanding - it is for the side with the understanding to take >>the initiative to disclose... > Eric Landau says: >In the ACBL, we have a (relatively new) principle that goes by the name of >"active ethics". Those who subscribe to this principle -- among whom I >count myself -- fully agree with Labeo's position. Indeed, the quote above >very nicely captures the "essence" of the active ethics movement. > >But as the ACBL's exhortations to practice active ethics make clear, whilst >it may be "not forgiveable" to sit impassively with opponents left in >ignorance, it is legal. Labeo: This 'active ethics' business mystifies me in situations like this. It just repeats what we have all known to be the ethics of the game for years. And in this instance, if its effect is what Eric describes, it is simply reiterating what English readers will observe written in the laws of the game. I would want to see where any established bridge authority will say that it is lawful to withhold volunteered disclosure of one's partnership understandings since to say that is to negate the English meaning of the laws. On this subject I have done. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 08:03:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:03:28 +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 IAA06850 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:03:22 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-54.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.208.54]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA09620; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 18:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <340C8BC7.D78C8737@idt.net> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:57:27 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "G. R. Bower" 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 G. R. Bower wrote: > On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > > 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 > > The GCC does not specifically ban conventions after a forcing-but-not- > > strong 1C opener. What it does do is grant a blanket licence to play > whatever silly system you want if you use an always-strong 1C opener. > > If I play an ambiguous 1C (which I do, sometimes) I am still allowed > the > use of a 1D artificial response, game-forcing conventional jump > shifts, > conventional raises, and the usual bag of tricks such as negative > doubles > and Blackwood. This is not entirely clear. The laws, as stated appear to specifically allow an artificial 1D response, and to bar artificial responses if the forcing opening (of 1C, for instance) is of less than 15 HCP. I'll bet a rigorous interpretation of the regs would actually bar Blackwood, for instance. Here's the exact regulation: 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards.) In Los Angeles, the current interpretation by the directors means that artificial bids are NOT allowed if the 1C opening conventionally may show less than 15 HCP. Surely this would include Blackwood, and I'm not sure it wouldn't preclude negative doubles as well, since any takeout oriented double is by definition artificial. I'm afraid your "bag of tricks" contains a number of things that are now illegal. Sorry to be the first to tell you :) > And since we are obligated to have a lot of natural bids in our > ambiguous-1C systems, we actually play a system that the average open > - > minded club player might be willing to learn... an advantage which I > daresay most of the Super-Precision family and its relatives will not > enjoy, at least in the USA, for many years to come... I wonder > sometimes > if this is why 'primitive' Precision was popular in the US, but faded > among non-experts when the fancy responses to 1C came into common > usage. > > Apologies for wandering off the topic of the laws. I'll try not to > prolong > the system discussions any longer in this forum. > > Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 08:26:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:26:29 +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 IAA06911 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:26:21 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00266; 2 Sep 97 15:25 PDT To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:42:15 PDT." <340C8837.40356E8A@idt.net> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 15:25:46 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9709021525.aa00266@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irv wrote: > Sorry, Richard, but YOU are "just plain wrong!" The operative section > of the the laws is # 6, which I'll reprint here at the top of the > letter. > > 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > contain at least five cards.) > > Note that artificial bids are allowed over STRONG (15+ HCP) forcing 1C > openings. This has been interpreted to mean that they are NOT allowed > if the forcing 1C is less than 15 HCP. I know, because this is the > ruling that was made at a recent sectional tournament here in Los > Angeles. Furthermore, the wording is sufficiently clear that it is > difficult to disagree with the ruling. IMHO, the wording is sufficiently clear that it's easy to disagree. This paragraph says that all conventions are allowed over openings that are both strong and forcing. However, it doesn't say *anything* about conventions over 1-level openings that are not both strong and forcing. So, it can't be taken to supersede other sections that say what is allowed over 1C openings or other opening bids. The ruling just doesn't make sense. Somebody thought that, since this paragraph says anything is allowed over strong, forcing 1C, that therefore nothing is allowed over non-strong, forcing 1C. But if this logic makes sense, the same logic would have to be used to say that nothing is allowed over non-strong, NON-FORCING 1C openers (including natural 1C openers like everybody and his brother plays)! After all, they aren't treated any differently by #6 than non-strong forcing 1C openers are treated, are they? So how can this rule be taken to mean that some conventions are allowed over so-called natural 1C openers (including those that could be a doubleton) but not over forcing 1C openers? No, I think the person who made this interpretation is "just plain wrong." Of course, we should probably contact Gary Blaiss or maybe Chris Patrias to get the official word on this; but if, as I suspect, Richard and I are right and that conventions allowed over natural 1C openers are also allowed over forcing 1C openers, the person who made the ruling needs to be educated. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 08:47:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:47:33 +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 IAA07033 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:47:26 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa01344; 2 Sep 97 15:46 PDT To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:42:15 PDT." <340C8837.40356E8A@idt.net> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 15:46:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9709021546.aa01344@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Sorry, Richard, but YOU are "just plain wrong!" The operative section > of the the laws is # 6, which I'll reprint here at the top of the > letter. > > 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > contain at least five cards.) > > Note that artificial bids are allowed over STRONG (15+ HCP) forcing 1C > openings. This has been interpreted to mean that they are NOT allowed > if the forcing 1C is less than 15 HCP. I know, because this is the > ruling that was made at a recent sectional tournament here in Los > Angeles. Furthermore, the wording is sufficiently clear that it is > difficult to disagree with the ruling. > > Irv I didn't think of this analogy soon enough to put into my first response, but: This rule says that all artificial bids are allowed over opening bids of 2C or higher; does this therefore imply that *no* artificial bids are allowed over opening bids of 1NT or lower? If you say "of course not", then how can anyone say that allowing all artificial bids over strong, forcing openings, implies that no artificial bids are to be allowed over openings that aren't strong and forcing? (Regardless of whether they're strong and nonforcing, nonstrong and forcing, or nonstrong and nonforcing.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 08:50:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:50:37 +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 IAA07060 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:50:29 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA14474; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:50:15 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:50:14 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" Reply-To: "G. R. Bower" To: Irwin J Kostal Cc: Richard Lighton , Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <340C8837.40356E8A@idt.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Irwin J Kostal wrote: > Sorry, Richard, but YOU are "just plain wrong!" The operative section > of the the laws is # 6, which I'll reprint here at the top of the > letter. > > 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > contain at least five cards.) Indeed so. Hence bizarre Precision variants are allowed. > > Note that artificial bids are allowed over STRONG (15+ HCP) forcing 1C > openings. This has been interpreted to mean that they are NOT allowed > if the forcing 1C is less than 15 HCP. This means that any artificial bid over a non-strong 1C simply must be authorized elsewhere on the chart to be legal. If you agree that Section 1 gives me the right to use 1D even after a non-strong 1C, why do you disagree that sections 3 and 5 give me the right to use artificial game-forcing responses to my 1C opening? > I know, because this is the > ruling that was made at a recent sectional tournament here in Los > Angeles. Surely a director is equally capable of reading sections 3 and 5 as he is of misreading 6. I am not impressed by this particular ruling, but will not presume to insult the director since I don't have all the facts. Furthermore, the wording is sufficiently clear that it is > difficult to disagree with the ruling. I thought the wording was sufficiently clear, too, but apparently it is not, as a seemingly ridiculous ruling has arisen from it. I have not played in California. I have played at tournaments in Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming and encountered no trouble from directors (though a few players have been skeptical and asked to look at the GCC and my system notes in more detail.) Generally players are interested in the idea, not hostile toward it. (The exception is in Anchorage, AK, where the club manager is very restrictive of conventions, reportedly not even allowing Mini-Roman 2D in her club games... her customers found it difficult to believe anyone would want to play such a system and harder to believe the director would allow it.) Gordon Bower > > Richard Lighton wrote: [snip]> > > > [snip] > > > > RESPONSES AND REBIDS > > > > 1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one > > club. > > > > [snip] > > > > 3. Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing > > or better values. May NOT be part of a relay system. > > > > [snip] > > > > 5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS (including into notrump) > > to indicate a raise or to force to game. > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 09:06:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:06:17 +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 JAA07131 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:06:11 +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 QAA11697; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:08:07 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA26596; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:06:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199709022306.QAA26596@d2.ikos.com> To: bigfoot@idt.net Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Irv! Take a breath, Irv! I'm supporting Adam, whose latest came in as I was composing this. Artificial bids are allowed over a 10+ 1C if they are authorized by sections 1, 3, 5, 7 or 8. "ALLOWED" section 6 explicitly avoids disallowing anything since it's ONLY addressing what's allowed -- "DISALLOWED" is an entirely separate major section. Anyone using a maybe-less-than-15 1C, who lets anyone rule that section 6 bars anything, needs a better bridge lawyer, retained to appeal the ruling to ACBL HQ. Rulings at a tournament can be wrong, and misinformed directors should be corrected through HQ ASAP to minimize the misinformation they might spread. > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue Sep 2 15:18 PDT 1997 > > Sorry, Richard, but YOU are "just plain wrong!" The operative section > of the the laws is # 6, which I'll reprint here at the top of the > letter. > > 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > contain at least five cards.) Read section 6 carefully. It doesn't say anything about what's allowed or disallowed over less-than-strong opening 1 bids. It only says that anything goes after strong forcing 1 bids, most 2 bids, and all 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 bids. (... subject, of course, to other Laws regarding insufficient bids, bids of 8 or more, etc.) It is explicitly NOT operative for a 10+ 1C opener, just as it is NOT operative for any standardish 1C opener. > Note that artificial bids are allowed over STRONG (15+ HCP) forcing 1C > openings. This has been interpreted to mean that they are NOT allowed > if the forcing 1C is less than 15 HCP. I know, because this is the > ruling that was made at a recent sectional tournament here in Los > Angeles. Furthermore, the wording is sufficiently clear that it is > difficult to disagree with the ruling. Not difficult for me, and I don't even have to act insane to do so. :) Can you please provide the specifics of the ruling? >From what you describe, it sounds like they have goofed, and should be set straight, because you have been led by them to a belief which I'm quite confident is totally bogus. > > ALLOWED: > > > > RESPONSES AND REBIDS > > > > 1. ONE DIAMOND as a forcing, artificial response to one > > club. > > > > 3. Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing > > or better values. May NOT be part of a relay system. > > > > 5. SINGLE OR HIGHER JUMP SHIFTS (including into notrump) > > to indicate a raise or to force to game. > > > > 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > > contain at least five cards.) > > > > 7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening > > bidder's second call. > > > > 8. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, > > voids, trump quality and responses thereto. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 09:55:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:55:55 +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 JAA07257 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 09:55:46 +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 QAA11806; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:57:42 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA28188; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 16:55:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199709022355.QAA28188@d2.ikos.com> To: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 2 14:46 PDT 1997 > > In message <199709020420.VAA28342@d2.ikos.com>, Everett Boyer > writes > > > >> From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Sep 1 19:19 PDT 1997 > >> > >> [Labeo:] > >> "A player may make any call or play...........without prior > >> announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a > >> partnership understanding." > >> [...] > > I have cut most of what you wrote, not for lack of interest, > though. It was fascinating, Thanks... > but wrong. Absent any qualification such as "IMHO", I infer that you are not willing to be convinced. Then I'd agree to disagree, and suggest that our disagreement shows that the Law is in real need of clarification from the WBF. But first, one last try to convince you... > I shall not write at length on this exhausted subject, but: > 1. 'partnership understanding' in 40A is any partnership > understanding, including any partnership understanding that is > 'special'. Agreed. How to explain 'special' seems open to debate ;) but that's not at issue between us. > 2. the English usage in 40A is well established. To give > conditional permission, as 40A does, for 'x' if 'y', signifies that > the permission is withheld if condition 'y' is not present. True but insufficient! You are taking an illogical (though common) leap from "permission is withheld" (that is, not granted) to "'x' is prohibited". This is instead a matter along the lines of "Daddy's not saying yes, but he's not saying no either, so go ask Mommy." That is, 40A says neither yes nor no regarding calls when 'y' is not present, so players must look elsewhere for permission for their calls. 40A makes no claim to be the sole source of permission to make a call; that missing ingredient could make your leap valid, except that it's missing. [Curiously, this seems to be the same problem, the same kind of defective logic, behind the L.A. sectional tourney ruling referred to in another subthread of this same thread. I was taught long ago that taking the converse is a common error in logic, and it's still wrong. Many people just don't understand the converse relationship.] Now as it happens, English is commonly used imprecisely, so you might continue to claim that the author(s) intended to prohibit agreed calls absent prior announcement, but IMHO in this case the author(s) intended to be logically precise with my interpretation. We apparently disagree regarding the intent of the author(s), and seem not to be able to resolve our difference between us, so I recommend that we (you) seek clarification from higher authorities. IMHO I have the logical "high ground", so without bated breath ;) I await further concrete evidence from you if you intend to press your case. > 3. 40A is the law establishing that prior announcement of one's > understandings is required. It does just that and is basic to the game. IMHO obviously not. A convention card provides a good clue to one's agreements, as a starting point for further inquiries as need arises, without any claim to be comprehensive prior announcement. No one is required to present their agreements in comprehensive form prior to play. You, Labeo, are seeing a mirage in 40A; it establishes no such requirement. > The reference to 'Law 40' in 75A is a reference to the whole of Law 40 > without emphasis on any particular section. It refers to 40A equally > with the rest. Yes, thus without the particular reference to the alleged requirement for prior announcement which you claimed for it. [Cut previously but restored here for reference:] > The parenthetical reference in Law 75A to Law 40 draws attention to > the requirement in 40A for *prior* announcement No, as you say, it is a reference to the whole of Law 40 without emphasis on any particular section, and in particular without emphasis on the alleged prior announcement requirement you see in 40A. That is, the reference in 75A does not support your claim. This is not the central issue between us, just a side issue regarding a statement you apparently intended as supporting, which IMHO is not. Regards, Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 10:09:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:09:40 +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 KAA07322 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:09:35 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-76.ime.net [209.90.193.106]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA12598; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 20:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970902201131.2b37cb74@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Everett Boyer , bigfoot@idt.net From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:06 PM 9/2/97 -0700, Everett Boyer wrote: >Artificial bids are allowed over a 10+ 1C >if they are authorized by sections 1, 3, 5, 7 or 8. >"ALLOWED" section 6 explicitly avoids disallowing anything >since it's ONLY addressing what's allowed -- "DISALLOWED" >is an entirely separate major section. > >Anyone using a maybe-less-than-15 1C, who lets anyone rule >that section 6 bars anything, needs a better bridge lawyer, >retained to appeal the ruling to ACBL HQ. >Rulings at a tournament can be wrong, and >misinformed directors should be corrected through HQ ASAP >to minimize the misinformation they might spread. Anything not specifically allowed is disallowed. After a natural 1C opening bid I can't use 1H to show spades even though this is not specifically disallowed. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 10:51:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:51:02 +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 KAA07484 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:50:56 +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 RAA11922; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:52:52 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA29335; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 17:50:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199709030050.RAA29335@d2.ikos.com> To: timg@ime.net Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Tim, > From timg@ime.net Tue Sep 2 17:09 PDT 1997 > > >Artificial bids are allowed over a 10+ 1C > >if they are authorized by sections 1, 3, 5, 7 or 8. > >"ALLOWED" section 6 explicitly avoids disallowing anything > >since it's ONLY addressing what's allowed -- "DISALLOWED" > >is an entirely separate major section. > > > >Anyone using a maybe-less-than-15 1C, who lets anyone rule > >that section 6 bars anything, needs a better bridge lawyer, > >retained to appeal the ruling to ACBL HQ. > >Rulings at a tournament can be wrong, and > >misinformed directors should be corrected through HQ ASAP > >to minimize the misinformation they might spread. > > Anything not specifically allowed is disallowed. After a natural 1C opening > bid I can't use 1H to show spades even though this is not specifically > disallowed. Huh? I never said unconditionally that they could, Tim. Section 6 _by_itself_ bars nothing. It's true that the converse of the entirety of the list of allowed calls, such as it is, is disallowed. That's off-topic. But to address your example, it's only true that you may not respond to 1C with 1H to show spades when you aren't promising game. Section 3 authorizes game-forcing responses which guarantee game forcing values, so when you are responder you can use 1H to show spades if you promise to go to game (and not by relays). Furthermore, if you open 1C, section 7 authorizes you to rebid 1H to show spades whenever you want (unless it's otherwise prohibited, e.g. insufficient, or suggested by UI). Section 6 cannot truly be held to interfere with either of those transfers. (That is, a ruling against you would be an erroneous ruling.) Partner may object :) to using 1H to show spades, but the use is "ALLOWED". My point was that it's folly to look to section 6 alone regarding whether some call is allowed, rather than to whichever section might affirmatively authorize the call. The call is only disallowed if it doesn't qualify under any of the various sections. Many artificial bids are allowed after a 10+ 1C, but don't ask section 6. Oh dear, I hope someone isn't going to argue next that the converse of the list of allowed calls is disjunctive. :P Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 12:27:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:27:48 +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 MAA07683 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:27:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1228210; 3 Sep 97 3:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 02:14:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <340C8BC7.D78C8737@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote >This is not entirely clear. The laws, as stated appear to specifically >allow an artificial 1D response, and to bar artificial responses if the >forcing opening (of 1C, for instance) is of less than 15 HCP. I'll bet >a rigorous interpretation of the regs would actually bar Blackwood, for >instance. Here's the exact regulation: > >6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > contain at least five cards.) I think you will find that Blackwood is clearly covered by this: 8. CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, voids, trump quality and responses thereto. Other game-forcing responses are covered by: 3. Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing or better values. May NOT be part of a relay system. >In Los Angeles, the current interpretation by the directors means that >artificial bids are NOT allowed if the 1C opening conventionally may >show less than 15 HCP. Surely this would include Blackwood, and I'm not >sure it wouldn't preclude negative doubles as well, since any takeout >oriented double is by definition artificial. I'm afraid your "bag of >tricks" contains a number of things that are now illegal. Sorry to be >the first to tell you :) There is no problem over Blackwood, but the negative doubles point is interesting. The only possibility is: COMPETITIVE 2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including free bids) thereto. which is a bit ambiguous. However, the whole of the section headed COMPETITIVE apart from this only refers to the side that did not open the bidding, so it would appear that this does not apply to opener's side. Given that, it seems to me that the ACBL has outlawed negative doubles at GCC, except in response to Strong [15+] Club. The war against conventions is going well, isn't it? :))) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 12:29:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:29:27 +1000 Received: from mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA07703 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:29:19 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME ([207.116.48.159]) by mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA5488 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 02:28:43 +0000 Message-ID: <340CF285.68D@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 22:15:49 -0700 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) References: <9709021525.aa00266@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Irv wrote: > > > Sorry, Richard, but YOU are "just plain wrong!" The operative section > > of the the laws is # 6, which I'll reprint here at the top of the > > letter. > > > > 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > > contain at least five cards.) > > > > Note that artificial bids are allowed over STRONG (15+ HCP) forcing 1C > > openings. This has been interpreted to mean that they are NOT allowed > > if the forcing 1C is less than 15 HCP. I know, because this is the > > ruling that was made at a recent sectional tournament here in Los > > Angeles. Furthermore, the wording is sufficiently clear that it is > > difficult to disagree with the ruling. > > IMHO, the wording is sufficiently clear that it's easy to disagree. > This paragraph says that all conventions are allowed over openings > that are both strong and forcing. However, it doesn't say *anything* > about conventions over 1-level openings that are not both strong and > forcing. So, it can't be taken to supersede other sections that say > what is allowed over 1C openings or other opening bids. > > The ruling just doesn't make sense. Somebody thought that, since this > paragraph says anything is allowed over strong, forcing 1C, that > therefore nothing is allowed over non-strong, forcing 1C. But if this > logic makes sense, the same logic would have to be used to say that > nothing is allowed over non-strong, NON-FORCING 1C openers (including > natural 1C openers like everybody and his brother plays)! After all, > they aren't treated any differently by #6 than non-strong forcing 1C > openers are treated, are they? So how can this rule be taken to mean > that some conventions are allowed over so-called natural 1C openers > (including those that could be a doubleton) but not over forcing 1C > openers? > > No, I think the person who made this interpretation is "just plain > wrong." Of course, we should probably contact Gary Blaiss or maybe > Chris Patrias to get the official word on this; but if, as I suspect, > Richard and I are right and that conventions allowed over natural 1C > openers are also allowed over forcing 1C openers, the person who made > the ruling needs to be educated. > > -- Adam I sent the following to the ACBL a while ago asking for clarification of what was allowed over the Swedish Club I play: "Thanks for your response. However, I have a further question based on your last paragraph. You state that only an artificial 1D response is permitted under the General Chart. I would have thought that single or higher jump shifts would be legal if game forcing. Am I misinterpreting section 5 of Responses and Rebids (Single or higher jump shifts (including into notrump) to indicate a raise or to force to game)?" The reply I received was: "You are correct. Responses permitted under section 5 , section 3 and any other applicable section are still ok. I should have said that other than 1 diamond no other artificial or conventional responses less than game forcing are permitted under the Genaral Chart (as the authorizing item 6 requires that the 1 club be strong). gary blaiss" (I trust it is ok to post the reponse I received, if not I apologize in advance) -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 13:32:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:32:11 +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 NAA07842 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:31:40 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-76.ime.net [209.90.193.106]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA16964; Tue, 2 Sep 1997 23:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 23:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970902233313.0befa966@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:14 AM 9/3/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Irwin J Kostal wrote > >>This is not entirely clear. The laws, as stated appear to specifically >>allow an artificial 1D response, and to bar artificial responses if the >>forcing opening (of 1C, for instance) is of less than 15 HCP. I'll bet >>a rigorous interpretation of the regs would actually bar Blackwood, for >>instance. Here's the exact regulation: >> >>6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening >> bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For >> this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 >> bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must >> contain at least five cards.) > > I think you will find that Blackwood is clearly covered by this: I have played a wide-range NT which also carries with it the no conventions requirement in GCC events. I have been told by a director that this includes Blackwood. For what that's worth. (Of course, with the wide-range no trump partner I don't play Blackwood, but...) Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 17:27:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA08522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:27:09 +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 RAA08517 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:27:03 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-21.ts-5.lax.idt.net [169.132.209.93]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA05926; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 03:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <340D0FE9.D002B02A@idt.net> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 00:21:14 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Kopera CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9709021525.aa00266@flash.irvine.com> <340CF285.68D@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is VERY interesting, and brings into the discussion just what constitutes an artificial bid. As I read what Mr. Blaiss has to say, this means that Negative Doubles are not allowed, either. Can we attach a meaning to a Cue bid, other than a game force? It would seem not. I take the view that these regulations will have a stultifying effect on systems development, which of course has to be the object of the whole exercise anyway. I'm sure these regulations were designed to try to get people to play only what certain people are accustomed to playing. Note that the 15+ number corresponds exactly with the minimum range of the Meckwell system, who are quite prominent on the committee. You can call it coincidence, if you like, but I.... Irv Michael Kopera wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Irv wrote: > > > > > Sorry, Richard, but YOU are "just plain wrong!" The operative > section > > > of the the laws is # 6, which I'll reprint here at the top of the > > > letter. > > > > > > 6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening > > > bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For > > > this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 > > > bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must > > > contain at least five cards.) > > > > > > Note that artificial bids are allowed over STRONG (15+ HCP) > forcing 1C > > > openings. This has been interpreted to mean that they are NOT > allowed > > > if the forcing 1C is less than 15 HCP. I know, because this is the > > > > ruling that was made at a recent sectional tournament here in Los > > > Angeles. Furthermore, the wording is sufficiently clear that it is > > > > difficult to disagree with the ruling. > > > > IMHO, the wording is sufficiently clear that it's easy to disagree. > > This paragraph says that all conventions are allowed over openings > > that are both strong and forcing. However, it doesn't say > *anything* > > about conventions over 1-level openings that are not both strong and > > > forcing. So, it can't be taken to supersede other sections that say > > > what is allowed over 1C openings or other opening bids. > > > > The ruling just doesn't make sense. Somebody thought that, since > this > > paragraph says anything is allowed over strong, forcing 1C, that > > therefore nothing is allowed over non-strong, forcing 1C. But if > this > > logic makes sense, the same logic would have to be used to say that > > nothing is allowed over non-strong, NON-FORCING 1C openers > (including > > natural 1C openers like everybody and his brother plays)! After > all, > > they aren't treated any differently by #6 than non-strong forcing 1C > > > openers are treated, are they? So how can this rule be taken to > mean > > that some conventions are allowed over so-called natural 1C openers > > (including those that could be a doubleton) but not over forcing 1C > > openers? > > > > No, I think the person who made this interpretation is "just plain > > wrong." Of course, we should probably contact Gary Blaiss or maybe > > Chris Patrias to get the official word on this; but if, as I > suspect, > > Richard and I are right and that conventions allowed over natural 1C > > > openers are also allowed over forcing 1C openers, the person who > made > > the ruling needs to be educated. > > > > -- Adam > > I sent the following to the ACBL a while ago asking for clarification > of > what was allowed over the Swedish Club I play: > > "Thanks for your response. However, I have a further question based on > > your last paragraph. You state that only an artificial 1D response is > permitted under the General Chart. I would have thought that single or > > higher jump shifts would be legal if game forcing. Am I > misinterpreting > section 5 of Responses and Rebids (Single or higher jump shifts > (including into notrump) to indicate a raise or to force to game)?" > > The reply I received was: > > "You are correct. Responses permitted under section 5 , section 3 and > > any > other applicable section are still ok. I should have said that other > than > 1 diamond no other artificial or conventional responses less than game > > forcing are permitted under the Genaral Chart (as the authorizing item > 6 > requires that the 1 club be strong). > > gary blaiss" > > (I trust it is ok to post the reponse I received, if not I apologize > in > advance) > > -- > > Mike Kopera > > Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet > totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 3 23:35:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:35:03 +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 XAA09361 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:34:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1127906; 3 Sep 97 14:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:13:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970902233313.0befa966@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote >At 02:14 AM 9/3/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Irwin J Kostal wrote >> >>>This is not entirely clear. The laws, as stated appear to specifically >>>allow an artificial 1D response, and to bar artificial responses if the >>>forcing opening (of 1C, for instance) is of less than 15 HCP. I'll bet >>>a rigorous interpretation of the regs would actually bar Blackwood, for >>>instance. Here's the exact regulation: >>> >>>6. ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening >>> bids and after opening bids of 2 clubs or higher. (For >>> this classification, by partnership agreement, weak 2 >>> bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must >>> contain at least five cards.) >> >> I think you will find that Blackwood is clearly covered by this: > >I have played a wide-range NT which also carries with it the no conventions >requirement in GCC events. I have been told by a director that this >includes Blackwood. For what that's worth. (Of course, with the wide-range >no trump partner I don't play Blackwood, but...) But that is a completely different kettle of fish covered by a completely different regulation. 9. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP). No conventional responses or rebids are allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP. Further, a conventional defense to a conventional defense is not permitted. There is no comparison. For a comparison to exist, #6 above would need to include some sentence such as 'No conventional responses or rebids are allowed over forcing 1-level opening bids which may include 14 HCP or less.' But it doesn't. The GCC rules are really fairly simple. Just read them: if you do not have a copy I will email you one, or you can see them on the ACBL's web page. -- 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 Sep 4 00:07:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 00:07:09 +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 AAA09468 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 00:07:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1029293; 3 Sep 97 14:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:17:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <340D0FE9.D002B02A@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote >This is VERY interesting, and brings into the discussion just what >constitutes an artificial bid. As I read what Mr. Blaiss has to say, >this means that Negative Doubles are not allowed, either. Can we attach >a meaning to a Cue bid, other than a game force? It would seem not. > >I take the view that these regulations will have a stultifying effect on >systems development, which of course has to be the object of the whole >exercise anyway. I'm sure these regulations were designed to try to get >people to play only what certain people are accustomed to playing. Note >that the 15+ number corresponds exactly with the minimum range of the >Meckwell system, who are quite prominent on the committee. You can call >it coincidence, if you like, but I.... Oh, god, another conspiracy theory. The object of the exercise, as you put it, might be to provide the ambience for players that suits the majority. Lots of people don't like playing against 'weird' [*] conventions, so the ACBL is catering for them. [*] Weird = conventions that I do not play. -- 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 Sep 4 00:45:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 00:45:41 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA11853 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 00:45:35 +1000 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.6) id AA27599; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:45:29 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA190267928; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 10:45:28 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 97 10:45:14 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Who plays the hand? Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="openmail-part-0501b989-00000001" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --openmail-part-0501b989-00000001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable After these sophisticated discussions on UI and artificial weak openings= I am shy to ask a so simple question=85.. Recently at a local club the bidding went : N E S 1D 2C 1NT At this time the director was called and explained correctly Law 27 to W= who accepted the insufficient bid. The auction proceeded like this : N E S W 1D 2C 1NT 2C 2NT P P P The director was called again and ruled S has to play the hand because he was first to bid NT. After the game, an other director said N had to play, because the first NT bid was insufficient. As I read the definition of Declarer in chapter I of laws, he is the first who named the denomination of the final contract (NT here). According to Law 27A, an insufficient bid becomes legal if the left opponnent accepts it. So the first legal NT bid was made by S and he had to play the hand.= Please confirm=85..I hate making mistakes=85.. Laval Du Breuil Quebec city --openmail-part-0501b989-00000001 --openmail-part-0501b989-00000001-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 4 01:14:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 01:14:07 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12030 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 01:13:59 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id LAA21927 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:13:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Sep03.230600.1189.129432; Wed, 03 Sep 1997 11:07:20 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Sep03.230600.1189.129432@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 11:07:20 -0600 Subject: FW: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuito Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Irwin J Kostal[SMTP:bigfoot@idt.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 1997 3:48 AM To: Michael Kopera Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuito >This is VERY interesting, and brings into the discussion just what >constitutes an artificial bid. As I read what Mr. Blaiss has to say, >this means that Negative Doubles are not allowed, either. Can we attach >a meaning to a Cue bid, other than a game force? It would seem not. Negative Doubles are clearly allowed Under Section 2 of the competitive Section 2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including free bids) thereto. As far as I can determine, there are some regulations regarding what conventions can be used over a forcing, but not necessarily strong 1C opening system. Specifically, the responder to a nebulous club opening may not make an immediate convention response to that opening which does not promise game forcing values. As an example, playing Carrot Club, a 4C response to a 1C opening is a NAMYATS style bid showing a strong heart suit. This convention response is legal since it promises game forcing values. However, suppose I wished to play 1C - (Pass) - 3C as showing a transfer to hearts, but promising only game invitational values opposite a weak club opening. Under the GCC, I am unable to use this type of treatment since it is not explicitly allowed. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 4 02:22:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 02:22:37 +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 CAA12703 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 02:22:30 +1000 Received: from JESPER (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA06912 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:21:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who plays the hand? Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 18:21:04 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <340e8ba1.5230651@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 Wed, 3 Sep 97 10:45:14 -0400, Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >The auction proceeded like this : > > N E S W >1D 2C 1NT 2C >2NT P P P ... >According to Law 27A, an insufficient bid becomes legal if the left >opponnent accepts >it. So the first legal NT bid was made by S and he had to play the hand. Agreed. It seems perfectly clear to me. (If N were to be declarer here, it would seem to imply that there would be no declarer at all if 1NT had been passed out...) By the way, the text of your message was presented as a text file attachment to an otherwise empty e-mail message - if you could persuade your mail program to place the text in-line in the normal way, users of certain e-mail programs would find it easier to read. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 4 05:38:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 05:38:22 +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 FAA13610 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 05:38:16 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-22.ts-5.lax.idt.net [169.132.209.94]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA01182; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <340DBB51.45175FF5@idt.net> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 12:32:33 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson 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 David: I don't know that I'd characterize it as a 'conspiracy theory', as much as an all too human reluctance to deal with any change. When I first started to play bridge, about 1961, Blue Team, et al, was barred, and when Schenken came up with his system, it too was barred for a while. There's nothing new, or even consiratorial, about resistance to change. I guess you could say there are two constants in life; change, and the inevitable wish that it wouldn't occur. I personally vote for change. It may not always be growth, but without change, how can growth occur? That's why I'll always resist efforts like the ACBL's. I do NOT believe that the "proliferation of conventions" is hurting the game; take a look at the convention card of any young player and you're likely to see everything but the kitchen sink. I think we should give people in general more credit. They CAN adjust to unusual methods, probably even HUM's, and while they'll complain sometimes, most of them would not be too comfortable with trying to dictate how others should play. There are (IMHO) a certain number of people that think they know how the world should run, and never seem to experience doubt. These people don't exactly conspire to achieve their goals, but they are vocal and active, so their point of view gets more attention than it deserves. What the ACBL seems to be catering to are a bunch of people who won't be around in about 10 or 20 years. That may achieve some short run goals, but in the long run I suspect they are missing the boat. I also probably won't be around in 10 or 20 years, and I'd like the ACBL to cater to ME! Why should the 'stick-in-the-muds' get all the attention? Irv David Stevenson wrote: > Irwin J Kostal wrote > >This is VERY interesting, and brings into the discussion just what > >constitutes an artificial bid. As I read what Mr. Blaiss has to say, > > >this means that Negative Doubles are not allowed, either. Can we > attach > >a meaning to a Cue bid, other than a game force? It would seem not. > > > >I take the view that these regulations will have a stultifying effect > on > >systems development, which of course has to be the object of the > whole > >exercise anyway. I'm sure these regulations were designed to try to > get > >people to play only what certain people are accustomed to playing. > Note > >that the 15+ number corresponds exactly with the minimum range of the > > >Meckwell system, who are quite prominent on the committee. You can > call > >it coincidence, if you like, but I.... > > Oh, god, another conspiracy theory. The object of the exercise, as > you put it, might be to provide the ambience for players that suits > the > majority. Lots of people don't like playing against 'weird' [*] > conventions, so the ACBL is catering for them. > > [*] Weird = conventions that I do not play. > > -- > 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 Sep 4 10:51:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:51:06 +1000 Received: from smtp.redshift.net (root@smtp.redshift.net [207.204.9.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA14689 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:51:00 +1000 Received: from mail.redshift.com (mail.redshift.com [165.227.94.16]) by smtp.redshift.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA07995 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:55:26 -0700 Received: from pm1-sal-103.redshift.com (pm1-sal-103.redshift.com [205.179.250.103]) by mail.redshift.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04580 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:50:52 -0700 Received: by pm1-sal-103.redshift.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCB892.E3928E60@pm1-sal-103.redshift.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:57:48 -0700 Message-ID: <01BCB892.E3928E60@pm1-sal-103.redshift.com> From: Pat Golden To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Mailing List Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 17:54:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What is the procedure for removing myself from the mailing list? I seem to have misplaced the instructions. Thanks for your help. Pat Golden. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 4 23:00:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:00:34 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA16369 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:00:28 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn62.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:00:19 +0200 Message-ID: <340EB21A.5AF8@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 15:05:30 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: David Stevenson Subject: Additional order for the german bridge federation References: <1cxeTiAZ5A0zEwyQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everybody. As a member of the council to innovate the german order for the rules and regulation (some sort of addition to the Laws of Dupl. Bridge) I want to know if anyone can tell me where I can get the appendices about the use of screens and bidding boxes (David mentioned something like this on his homepage). Thank for ur answer in advance -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 4 23:56:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:56:36 +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 XAA16567 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:56:26 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-75.star.net.il [195.8.208.75]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA28918; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:55:46 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <340EBE26.AC6FD3A@artaxia.com> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:56:55 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who plays the hand? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > Name: BDY.RTF > BDY.RTF Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Laval The second person who told you N should play the hand isn't a Director !! ( maybe this is his nickname!!!??) Any insuficient bid accepted rubs off any history. Friendly DANY From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 5 02:06:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 02:06:47 +1000 Received: from mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com [149.174.64.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19843 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 02:06:39 +1000 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aagw2.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.199]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA03213.; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:16:59 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA5018; Thu, 04 Sep 97 12:06:03 -0400 Message-Id: <9709041606.AA5018@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC12565080052806F; Thu, 4 Sep 97 12:06:03 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 4 Sep 97 17:19:32 Subject: new member Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everybody, as a new member of the blml, I want to introduce myself to this community. My name is Christian Farwig, born '65. I have a master in economics and am working for an American consulting company. My father teached me Bridge when I was sweet sixteen and since then I am addicted to the game. When I began to study, I used to teach and direct a lot to earn my living. As a consequence, I am a national director since 12 years and have the European TD-certificate since 10 years. Very often I am teaming up with Richard Bley. After a period of strong involvement in the development of the German TD-organisation, I recently had to slow down on this for private reasons, but am still directing some weekend-tournaments - mainly because I like this job (and you even get paid for it). I am very happy to have entered this forum and hope to improve my views on the rules and regulations. Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 5 04:35:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:35:07 +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 EAA20295 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:34:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0527137; 4 Sep 97 17:55 BST Message-ID: <1kze9aAM3oD0EwVe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 11:30:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mailing List In-Reply-To: <01BCB892.E3928E60@pm1-sal-103.redshift.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Posted + emailed Pat Golden wrote >What is the procedure for removing myself from the mailing list? I seem to have >misplaced the instructions. > >Thanks for your help. Pat Golden. Send an email with no subject to: majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au In the body of the email include: unsubscribe bridge-laws I am sorry you did not find it interesting. -- 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 Sep 5 09:55:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:55:05 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA00920 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:54:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1103543; 5 Sep 97 0:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:37:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: new member In-Reply-To: <9709041606.AA5018@notes2.compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "christian.farwig" wrote >Hi everybody, > >as a new member of the blml, I want to introduce myself to this community. Happy to meet you, Christian. -- 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 Sep 5 23:07:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 23:07:28 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02161 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 23:07:22 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA03888 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 09:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970905090747.006bd648@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:07:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Who plays the hand? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:45 AM 9/3/97 -0400, Laval_Dubreil wrote: >Attachment Converted: "D:\COMM\Attchmts\Mail\BDY.RTF" South. The 1NT bid was not "corrected" under L27 and stands, making South the player who... first bid the denomination named in the final bid" [definitio of "Declarer"]. 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 Sep 6 00:51:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:51:53 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04775 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:51:48 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn45.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 5 Sep 1997 16:48:53 +0200 Message-ID: <34101DD3.52DF@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 16:57:23 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: additional order for the german bridge fed. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, here is another problem from our factory... LAW 93 C states, that: "After the precending remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority." What happens to this rule, if there is a knockout match (e. g. semifinal) and a decision of the AC says one team has won (to go to the final) and the other not (they have to find a ruling anyway). Is it now still possible for this team to make a further appeal to the national authority? And if yes, what happens to the final which two other teams already played??? Thanks for ur help in advance -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 6 02:09:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 02:09:53 +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 CAA05524 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 02:09:34 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id SAA15265; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:09:18 +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 sma014917; Fri Sep 5 18:08:40 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 SAA04076; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:08:39 +0200 Received: from perth (perth [130.144.63.217]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id SAA15722; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:08:39 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by perth (1.37.109.15/) id AA262715708; Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:08:28 +0200 Message-Id: <199709051608.AA262715708@perth> Subject: Re: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 18:08:28 METDST Cc: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > here is another problem from our factory... > LAW 93 C states, that: "After the precending remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may > be taken to the national authority." > What happens to this rule, if there is a knockout match (e. g. > semifinal) and a decision of the AC says one team has won (to go to the > final) and the other not (they have to find a ruling anyway). Is it now still possible for this team to make a further appeal to the national > authority? And if yes, what happens to the final which two other teams > already played??? > > Thanks for ur help in advance For that reason we have in Holland the national appeals committee (or at least sufficiently many members of it) standing by in those events where a final decision must be obtained on short notice. It seems to me that that is the only possible solution to your problem. -- 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 Sat Sep 6 05:46:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 05:46:46 +1000 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06340 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 05:46:39 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA11026 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:46:01 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 21:46:00 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Richard Bley Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: additional order for the german bridge fed. In-Reply-To: <34101DD3.52DF@uni-duesseldorf.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Richard Bley wrote: > Hi, > here is another problem from our factory... > LAW 93 C states, that: > "After the precending remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may > be taken to the national authority." > What happens to this rule, if there is a knockout match (e. g. > semifinal) and a decision of the AC says one team has won (to go to the > final) and the other not (they have to find a ruling anyway). Is it now > still possible for this team to make a further appeal to the national > authority? Yes. > And if yes, what happens to the final which two other teams > already played??? The appeal means that the result of one of the two semi-finals is still unknown. Since it isn't clear who should be playing the final, the final cannot start. It also implies that in some cases, enough members of AC should be present at the tournament site in order to deal with appeals. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 6 07:45:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:45:50 +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 HAA06665 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:45:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1221008; 5 Sep 97 21:32 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:10:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: additional order for the german bridge fed. In-Reply-To: <34101DD3.52DF@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote >Hi, >here is another problem from our factory... >LAW 93 C states, that: >"After the precending remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may >be taken to the national authority." >What happens to this rule, if there is a knockout match (e. g. >semifinal) and a decision of the AC says one team has won (to go to the >final) and the other not (they have to find a ruling anyway). Is it now >still possible for this team to make a further appeal to the national >authority? Certainly, they have the right in the laws. > And if yes, what happens to the final which two other teams >already played??? This is not specified in the laws, thus becomes a matter for the SO under L80F. The EBU regulation is: 9.2.4 The outcome of an appeal to the National Authority, or some other intervention by the Laws & Ethics Committee, will only affect the result of a match in a knock-out competition if the decision is made before the publication of the draw for the next round. I believe this to be the only sensible approach. Once a final is played, the only situation I can think of where it might reasonably be replayed is where one team is disqualified for some major infraction. If this were not the case the whole organisation would become unwieldy. We do need to have a practical organisation. -- 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 Sep 6 12:08:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:08:09 +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 MAA07307 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:08:01 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0613665; 6 Sep 97 1:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 23:20:06 +0100 To: Irwin J Kostal Cc: "G. R. Bower" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <340C8BC7.D78C8737@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <340C8BC7.D78C8737@idt.net>, Irwin J Kostal writes >G. R. Bower wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Irwin J Kostal wrote: >> >> > You know they wanted to ban the 10 point forcing club, some years >> ago, >> >> The GCC does not specifically ban conventions after a forcing-but-not- >> (Something cut away) > >This is not entirely clear. The laws, as stated appear to specifically >allow an artificial 1D response, and to bar artificial responses if the >forcing opening (of 1C, for instance) is of less than 15 HCP. I'll bet >a rigorous interpretation of the regs would actually bar Blackwood, for >instance. Here's the exact regulation: > > (more cut)..... Labeo: I have been reading this thread with mystification. We are talking about regulations, I assume, not laws. But that much said it seems all very confused and it is difficult from here to be clear what the regulation is, especially as there is so much doubt amongst those who are posting. There is evidence that the language of the Laws is not being understood, but there is at least some excuse in the diversity of peoples who are trying to understand them. In the case of these regulations one might suppose they would be written so that there was no scope for misinterpretation amongst the posters here. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 6 12:27:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:27:48 +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 MAA07333 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:27:43 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1521390; 6 Sep 97 1:12 BST Message-ID: <4EJrmCAzvJE0Ew$N@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:55:31 +0100 To: Irwin J Kostal Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) In-Reply-To: <340DBB51.45175FF5@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <340DBB51.45175FF5@idt.net>, Irwin J Kostal writes >David: >I don't know that I'd characterize it as a 'conspiracy theory', as much >as an all too human reluctance to deal with any change. > (cut) >Irv > >Labeo: Irv seems reluctant to allow that it may just be a case of the democratic will prevailing. If the majority of ACBL players, unlike the special minority that Irv represents, wants a plain game on traditional lines, what possible grounds can there be, in a society that pays homage (or lip service?) to concepts of democracy, for denying them? It is understood that the young (and the young-at-heart, Irv) want to be free to practice their new enthusiasms, but the conservative heartlands are not the place for it. The lesson for the experts and the sophisticates of bridge may be a dour one, but they are not the footsoldiers of the game and not the prime concern in setting its structure. The answer is a tiered game, and the beneficiaries of tiered arrangements will be principally those who feel as Irv does. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 6 14:05:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:05:14 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA07456 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:05:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1512612; 6 Sep 97 4:21 BST Message-ID: <$bXsyDBBrHE0Eweo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 22:33:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: additional order for the german bridge fed. In-Reply-To: <199709051608.AA262715708@perth> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote >Richard Bley wrote: > >> here is another problem from our factory... >> LAW 93 C states, that: >"After the precending remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may >> be taken to the national authority." >> What happens to this rule, if there is a knockout match (e. g. >> semifinal) and a decision of the AC says one team has won (to go to the >> final) and the other not (they have to find a ruling anyway). Is it now >still possible for this team to make a further appeal to the national >> authority? And if yes, what happens to the final which two other teams >> already played??? >> >> Thanks for ur help in advance > > For that reason we have in Holland the national appeals committee >(or at least sufficiently many members of it) standing by in those >events where a final decision must be obtained on short notice. >It seems to me that that is the only possible solution to your >problem. Hold everything, they are always standing by? Even in a club knockout for wives on Wednesday afternoons while their husbands play football? The Laws of Bridge apply to Duplicate Bridge games, not just to top level Bridge games. You should not make rules for top levels only. I am not saying that the rules should always be the same, but *if* the *only* solution is to make the National authority available *then* you must make them available for *every* knockout tournament ever held in Holland. I don't believe that this is practical, necessary, or actually happens. Therefore we need another solution to the problem. -- 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 Sep 6 20:26:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 20:26:20 +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 UAA07988 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 20:26:11 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA17389 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:25:35 +0200 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:25:35 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: additional order for the german bridge fed. In-Reply-To: <$bXsyDBBrHE0Eweo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Con Holzscherer wrote >Richard Bley wrote: > > For that reason we have in Holland the national appeals committee > >(or at least sufficiently many members of it) standing by in those > >events where a final decision must be obtained on short notice. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >It seems to me that that is the only possible solution to your > >problem. > Hold everything, they are always standing by? Even in a club knockout > for wives on Wednesday afternoons while their husbands play football? No, read the original message. It clearly said that a decision was needed immediately. For example, a National event where the semi-finals are played on Saturday and the finals on Sunday. In this case, the committee is there or, at least, reachable by conference call on the phone. The way most club KO's and the like are run here, is that there are weeks between the matches. In those cases, there is no need for a decision immediately and the whole thing can be dealt with during the next meeting of the national AC or Laws committee (who have regular meetings every couple of weeks and can have additional meetings if the need arises). > The Laws of Bridge apply to Duplicate Bridge games, not just to top > level Bridge games. You should not make rules for top levels only. I > am not saying that the rules should always be the same, Exactly, so find a solution that works for the two or three events that need a decision right away, find a second one for all other events. > but *if* the > *only* solution is to make the National authority available *then* you > must make them available for *every* knockout tournament ever held in > Holland. No, why. If I play a KO this week, and the next round is scheduled for the first weekend of October, then one doesn't have to have a decision today. If it is more practical for the committee to meet next week, then they should do that. > I don't believe that this is practical, necessary, or actually > happens. Therefore we need another solution to the problem. Let's see: the solution is 1. Necessary: there are events where a decision is needed immediately. 2. Practical: there are only a few such events in a year, the country is small enough so that the committee members can drive over in less than an hour (if they aren't at the playing site already). 3. Actually happens: there has been a case where one of the participants for a final depended on an appeal. Problem was that the qualifying rounds ended at 3 and the final was due to start at 4.30 or so. If you don't have the committee at the playing site, how do know who should play the final? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 6 22:55:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 22:55:57 +1000 Received: from tycho.global.net.uk (tycho.global.net.uk [194.126.82.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08274 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 22:55:49 +1000 Received: from default (client8506.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.6]) by tycho.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA27539; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 13:54:32 +0100 Message-Id: <199709061254.NAA27539@tycho.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 13:55:31 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ Silky petal Hidden spine Pluck'd the flower: Blood is mine. > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) > Date: 03 September 1997 13:17 > > Irwin J Kostal wrote > >This is VERY interesting, and brings into the discussion just what > >constitutes an artificial bid. As I read what Mr. Blaiss has to say, > >this means that Negative Doubles are not allowed, either. Without seeing the reg and taking your words as they are: a Double is not a bid; it is a call, as are bids. As to the meaning of 'artificial', the question is first whether it is synonymous with 'conventional'. If so, see definition in laws (which may still leave you with some problems). If it is not to be taken like that then the user has a duty to define the intention. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 6 23:19:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 23:19:22 +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 XAA08347 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 23:19:14 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1307753; 6 Sep 97 13:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 04:41:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: CPUs (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 Labeo wrote >In the case of these >regulations one might suppose they would be written so that there >was no scope for misinterpretation amongst the posters here. Oh dear! Every set of regulations ever written since God gave Adam a set of regulations [Don't wear leaves, don't eat apples, don't talk to snakes and don't revoke] has had problems because there are ambiguities. -- 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 Sep 6 23:49:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 23:49:01 +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 XAA08443 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 23:48:54 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1128305; 6 Sep 97 14:39 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:38:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dummy has a go! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brd 6 KT9 Vul E/W AJ9 Dlr E Q543 W N E S A52 A73 863 1NT P 852 KQ64 2Ca P 2H P J2 AKT6 2NT P 3NT AP KQT52 QJ74 J9 T73 987 Lead: S4 864 The play: N/S E/W W N E S S4 S2 SK* S3 1 0 S2 SK* S3 S4 ST* S6 S7 S5 2 0 S5 ST* S6 S7 S9 S8 SJ SA* 2 1 SA* S9 S8 SJ DJ DQ DA* D9 2 2 DJ DQ DA* D9 CJ* C4 C2 C3 2 3 C2 C3 CJ* C4 C9 C6 CT CA* 3 3 CT CA* C9 C6 D3 DK* D7 D2 3 4 D2 D3 DK* D7 to reach: -- AJ9 54 -- 7 -- 852 KQ64 -- T6 KQ5 Q -- T73 8 8 now: DT* C8 C5 D5 3 5 C5 D5 DT* C8 At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8 with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. No TD was called. *Dummy* now told declarer that he could change the card played from dummy, so declarer did, and the revised trick eight became: DT* D8 H2 D5 3 5 H2 D5 DT* D8 HK* H3 H5 H9 3 6 H5 H9 HK* H3 H6 H7 H8 HJ* 4 7 H8 HJ* H6 H7 to reach: -- A 4 -- 7 -- -- Q4 -- 6 KQ5 Q -- T -- 8[PC] North attempted to cash the HA as the setting trick, but *Dummy* objected, saying that declarer could enforce lead penalties. The TD was called. What should he and/or the AC have ruled? Background: Very large Swiss Teams, 20 VP scale. E/W are good players, though West believes himself to be better, being c20 years younger. Both the TD and the AC Chairman read BLML, so feel free to be tactless . Incidentally, when describing tricks played, which format do you prefer? Always the next leader first, or always West first, or some other way? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 04:38:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 04:38:43 +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 EAA11828 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 04:38:36 +1000 Received: from default (cph32.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.32]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA20323 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 20:38:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199709061838.UAA20323@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 20:39:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:38:22 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > > Brd 6 KT9 > Vul E/W AJ9 > Dlr E Q543 W N E S > A52 A73 863 1NT P > 852 KQ64 2Ca P 2H P > J2 AKT6 2NT P 3NT AP > KQT52 QJ74 J9 > T73 > 987 Lead: S4 > 864 > > The play: N/S E/W W N E S (snip) > to reach: -- > AJ9 > 54 > -- 7 -- > 852 KQ64 > -- T6 > KQ5 Q -- > T73 > 8 > 8 > > now: DT* C8 C5 D5 3 5 C5 D5 DT* C8 > > At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8 > with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. No TD > was called. *Dummy* now told declarer that he could change the card > played from dummy, so declarer did, and the revised trick eight became: > > DT* D8 H2 D5 3 5 H2 D5 DT* D8 > HK* H3 H5 H9 3 6 H5 H9 HK* H3 > H6 H7 H8 HJ* 4 7 H8 HJ* H6 H7 > > to reach: -- > A > 4 > -- 7 -- > -- Q4 > -- 6 > KQ5 Q -- > T > -- > 8[PC] > > North attempted to cash the HA as the setting trick, but *Dummy* > objected, saying that declarer could enforce lead penalties. The TD was > called. What should he and/or the AC have ruled? At trick 8, I find that it is possible that dummy is suggesting that the play of the C5 be changed, and I will adjust the score according to L45F. At trick 11, I find that it is possible that dummy is suggesting to declarer that he choose a specific penalty, which is a violation of L10C2; I would now rule that the right to penalize is forfeited. I will adjust the score, considering both sides as offending sides: NS because of the revoke, and EW because of dummy's actions. If I am convinced that E played the C5 because he was confused by the revoke and thought that clubs were led, I will not consider it at all probable that he throws away good tricks, but if I am not convinced, I will let him throw away the C5 when adjusting. Dummy gets a PP (L90) in the form of a formal warning. The other players get told (not as a PP) that they are paying 44 pounds to play in this tournament in part to provide fees for directors, and that it was the obligation of all three to do so. Dummy (especially) is told about his right to appeal the ruling including the PP > > Background: Very large Swiss Teams, 20 VP scale. E/W are good > players, though West believes himself to be better, being c20 years > younger. Both the TD and the AC Chairman read BLML, so feel free to be > tactless . Oh, and I know about the 44 pounds because I played in the same tournament (with Bodil, Jesper, and another Jens), but happily we were not involved in this. > Incidentally, when describing tricks played, which format do you > prefer? Always the next leader first, or always West first, or some > other way? Next leader first. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 05:14:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 05:14:00 +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 FAA11937 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 05:13:40 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-100.star.net.il [195.8.208.100]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA15688; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 22:11:34 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3411AB38.FB00C8CF@artaxia.com> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 22:12:56 +0300 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Brd 6 KT9 > Vul E/W AJ9 > Dlr E Q543 W N E S > A52 A73 863 1NT P > 852 KQ64 2Ca P 2H P > J2 AKT6 2NT P 3NT AP > KQT52 QJ74 J9 > T73 > 987 Lead: S4 > 864 > > The play: N/S E/W W N E S > S4 S2 SK* S3 1 0 S2 SK* S3 S4 > ST* S6 S7 S5 2 0 S5 ST* S6 S7 > S9 S8 SJ SA* 2 1 SA* S9 S8 SJ > DJ DQ DA* D9 2 2 DJ DQ DA* D9 > CJ* C4 C2 C3 2 3 C2 C3 CJ* C4 > C9 C6 CT CA* 3 3 CT CA* C9 C6 > D3 DK* D7 D2 3 4 D2 D3 DK* D7 > > to reach: -- > AJ9 > 54 > -- 7 -- > 852 KQ64 > -- T6 > KQ5 Q -- > T73 > 8 > 8 > > now: DT* C8 C5 D5 3 5 C5 D5 DT* C8 > > At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8 > with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. No TD > was called. *Dummy* now told declarer that he could change the card > played from dummy, so declarer did, and the revised trick eight became: > > DT* D8 H2 D5 3 5 H2 D5 DT* D8 > HK* H3 H5 H9 3 6 H5 H9 HK* H3 > H6 H7 H8 HJ* 4 7 H8 HJ* H6 H7 > > to reach: -- > A > 4 > -- 7 -- > -- Q4 > -- 6 > KQ5 Q -- > T > -- > ` 8[PC] > > North attempted to cash the HA as the setting trick, but *Dummy* > objected, saying that declarer could enforce lead penalties. The TD was > called. What should he and/or the AC have ruled? > > Background: Very large Swiss Teams, 20 VP scale. E/W are good > players, though West believes himself to be better, being c20 years > younger. Both the TD and the AC Chairman read BLML, so feel free to be > tactless . > > Incidentally, when describing tricks played, which format do you > prefer? Always the next leader first, or always West first, or some > other way? > > -- > 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 ~ Hi David Are you serious ? Did anyone think that partner of the penalty card 's owner should do anything , but his natural play ?? At most , E-W may be told that if the play and/or the result should be influenced by the 8Cl reveal , they can appeal . But a fair TD should tell them too that the AC would make money vanish......for 98%. Myself , as a chief TD and as a member of AC should do both !! DANY From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 06:32:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 06:32:30 +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 GAA12041 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 06:32:25 +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 QAA19088 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 16:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02389; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 16:32:26 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 16:32:26 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709062032.QAA02389@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > 2. the English usage in 40A is well established. To give > conditional permission, as 40A does, for 'x' if 'y', signifies that > the permission is withheld if condition 'y' is not present. BLML had quite a discussion on "assuming the converse" in the context of asking questions during the auction and L20F1. It turns out that this is a major area of disagreement, and even the two Bridge World editors disagree with each other. An analogy: "No parking, 9 AM to 5 PM." Does this mean that parking is permitted at other times, or does it mean that parking may or may not be permitted, depending on other applicable rules? With respect to bridge laws, I personally advocate the "mathematical" reading: one ought not assume the converse. I consider that there are good reasons for this approach, and I'm not aware of any logical contradictions in it (though there are results that not everyone likes). There do seem to be some difficulties with the opposite approach. As noted, there are respected authorities on both sides. Under my reading, L40A says nothing whatever about calls based on a partnership agreement. There are plenty of other Laws that do regulate partnership agreements, notably other parts of L40 and all of L75. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 07:49:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:49:46 +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 HAA12205 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:49:40 +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 QAA28995 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 16:49:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0NLR401P Sat, 06 Sep 97 16:48:08 Message-ID: <9709061648.0NLR401@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 97 16:48:08 Subject: DUMMY HAS A GO! To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>From: David Stevenson B>Reply-To: David Stevenson B>Subject: Dummy has a go! B>Brd 6 KT9 B>Vul E/W AJ9 B>Dlr E Q543 W N E S B> A52 A73 863 1NT P B> 852 KQ64 2Ca P 2H P B> J2 AKT6 2NT P 3NT AP B> KQT52 QJ74 J9 B> T73 B> 987 Lead: S4 B> 864 B> B>The play: N/S E/W W N E S B> S4 S2 SK* S3 1 0 S2 SK* S3 S4 B> ST* S6 S7 S5 2 0 S5 ST* S6 S7 B> S9 S8 SJ SA* 2 1 SA* S9 S8 SJ B> DJ DQ DA* D9 2 2 DJ DQ DA* D9 B> CJ* C4 C2 C3 2 3 C2 C3 CJ* C4 B> C9 C6 CT CA* 3 3 CT CA* C9 C6 B> D3 DK* D7 D2 3 4 D2 D3 DK* D7 B> B>to reach: -- B> AJ9 B> 54 B> -- 7 -- B> 852 KQ64 B> -- T6 B> KQ5 Q -- B> T73 B> 8 B> 8 B> B>now: DT* C8 C5 D5 3 5 C5 D5 DT* C8 B> B>At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8 B>with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. No TD B>was called. *Dummy* now told declarer that he could change the card B>played from dummy, so declarer did, and the revised trick eight became: B> B> DT* D8 H2 D5 3 5 H2 D5 DT* D8 B> HK* H3 H5 H9 3 6 H5 H9 HK* H3 B> H6 H7 H8 HJ* 4 7 H8 HJ* H6 H7 B> B>to reach: -- B> A B> 4 B> -- 7 -- B> -- Q4 B> -- 6 B> KQ5 Q -- B> T B> -- B> 8[PC] B> B>North attempted to cash the HA as the setting trick, but *Dummy* B>objected, saying that declarer could enforce lead penalties. The TD was B>called. What should he and/or the AC have ruled? B> B>Background: Very large Swiss Teams, 20 VP scale. E/W are good B>players, though West believes himself to be better, being c20 years B>younger. Both the TD and the AC Chairman read BLML, so feel free to be B>tactless . B>David Stevenson Victor Mollo Lives! What fun, Bridge in the Menagerie. And I smell a ruling that is not going to be liked, especially by the director. In the Menagerie the Hog sitting as dummy would make the contract just as was done in this hand but is he entitled to it? There are factors at play here that are not present in the Menagerie, namely, a TD was available to handle the situation. At first, I have sympathy for declarer, an unmakeable contract that is handed to him and then is at risk of losing it. But recapping and analyzing the relevent events is needed separate the wheat from the chaffe. First, note I that several irregularities have occurred. 1. a revoke 2. not summoning the director when revoke is discovered 3. someone [not the TD] made south’s club a penalty card 4. dummy making a ruling that dummy’s card can be changed since it played subsequent a revoke 5. dummy bringing to the attention of the table that with a major penalty card, there are lead penalties- AFTER North leads the heart ace 1. True, a revoke corrected prior to a side playing to the next trick averts establishing it- L62A. A penalty card- L62B1 is thus created. But, TD has the sole power L10A to assess penalties. According to the law, without the TD, the restrictions of a penalty card are not enforceable until the TD is summoned. [However, to be practical, it is usually reasonable to permit leniency on this matter.] 2. Once an irregularity has been identified, all players have the responsibility to summon the TD. 3. L10A was ignored. 4. Dummy brought it to the attention of the table that declarer had the right to change the card L62C1 dummy played to the revoke trick. This was in violation of L10C2 consulting with partner, L10A assessing penalties, L43A1c making comment on play. Dummy’s actions are literally changing declarer’s line of play in violation of the laws and ethics. 5. I stated earlier that some leniency was practical in dealing with penalty cards not so designated by the TD. Had declarer exercised his rights to claim that the heart ace be retracted, I can see my way to rule that it must be retracted [becoming a penalty card]. However, it was dummy who claimed the right in violation of L10A, 10C, L43A1bc calling attention to an íirregularity of not exercising declarer’s rights to lead penalties’ and commenting on the play. I RULE that the lead of the heart ace and all previous play stands because only the TD can assess lead penalties and at the time the heart ace was lead, the TD had not assessed any lead penalty, nor had declarer exercised an implied right to a lead penalty. 6. It is time to impress on EW that it is very important that TD’s make rulings so that the impropriety of conveying UI such as was done on this hand can be avoided. This hand is the story about the one that got away and I believe that this impression is enough that a PP need not be assessed- as I do not believe that there was intent to break the proprieties. However, I would assess PP if there had been similar problems previously. I'm sorry. On second thought, EW are experienced and E demonstrated that he did not have the proclivity to make the contract once it was handed to him [twice] and W went about getting what he thought they deserved by crook. I still feel there was no intent to break the laws, but the attitude of W indicates that a PP of 2 IMPs should be assessed. B>Incidentally, when describing tricks played, which format do you B>prefer? Always the next leader first, or always West first, or some B>other way? In recapping the play of the hand, stationary compass position is easier to follow. Thanx for asking. R Pewick Houston, Tx r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ __ ___ * UniQWK v4.2 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 08:07:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 08:07:34 +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 IAA12249 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 08:07:28 +1000 From: lobo@ac.net Received: from ptp127.ac.net (ptp127.ac.net [205.138.55.36]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA05302 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 18:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3411D378.C6F@ac.net> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 18:04:40 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8 > with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. No TD > was called. *Dummy* now told declarer that he could change the card > played from dummy, so declarer did, and the revised trick eight became: > > North attempted to cash the HA as the setting trick, but *Dummy* > objected, saying that declarer could enforce lead penalties. The TD was > called. What should he and/or the AC have ruled? I want to do something really nasty to everyone under Laws 43, 10 and 11. Not sure exactly what.. I just hate it when people who know better don't call the Director! > > Incidentally, when describing tricks played, which format do you > prefer? Always the next leader first, or always West first, or some > other way? > Next leader first... with a designation who the leader is... i.e. N: Hk h3 h3 hA W: sA s2 s4 s5 etc... then you are covered if you make a typing error... From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 08:54:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 08:54:27 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12405 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 08:54:20 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id XAA10441 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 23:54:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 97 23:53 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: additional order for the german bridge fed. 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: I would suggest that a small addition to the conditions of contest could deal practically with the matter of who proceeds, eg: In the event of an outstanding appeal to the National Authority which would affect progression to a subsequent round, and where the authority cannot reasonably be convened within the necessary timescale: a) Progression is determined by the results of the event AC. b) In the event of the NA overturning the AC result all match results achieved by the progressing side (together with any awards) will be deemed as the results of the non-progressing side. c) Prize money and awards will be withheld until the final appeal is resolved. Seems to cover all eventualities, without being any more unfair than anything else. Tim WM From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 09:07:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:07:53 +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 JAA12434 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:07:42 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-98.star.net.il [195.8.208.98]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA22708; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 02:06:23 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3411E249.A19C335A@artaxia.com> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 02:07:54 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Brd 6 KT9 > Vul E/W AJ9 > Dlr E Q543 W N E S > A52 A73 863 1NT P > 852 KQ64 2Ca P 2H P > J2 AKT6 2NT P 3NT AP > KQT52 QJ74 J9 > T73 > 987 Lead: S4 > 864 > > The play: N/S E/W W N E S > S4 S2 SK* S3 1 0 S2 SK* S3 S4 > ST* S6 S7 S5 2 0 S5 ST* S6 S7 > S9 S8 SJ SA* 2 1 SA* S9 S8 SJ > DJ DQ DA* D9 2 2 DJ DQ DA* D9 > CJ* C4 C2 C3 2 3 C2 C3 CJ* C4 > C9 C6 CT CA* 3 3 CT CA* C9 C6 > D3 DK* D7 D2 3 4 D2 D3 DK* D7 > > to reach: -- > AJ9 > 54 > -- 7 -- > 852 KQ64 > -- T6 > KQ5 Q -- > T73 > 8 > 8 > > now: DT* C8 C5 D5 3 5 C5 D5 DT* C8 > > At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8 > with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. No TD > was called. *Dummy* now told declarer that he could change the card > played from dummy, so declarer did, and the revised trick eight became: > > DT* D8 H2 D5 3 5 H2 D5 DT* D8 > HK* H3 H5 H9 3 6 H5 H9 HK* H3 > H6 H7 H8 HJ* 4 7 H8 HJ* H6 H7 > > to reach: -- > A > 4 > -- 7 -- > -- Q4 > -- 6 > KQ5 Q -- > T > -- > 8[PC] > > North attempted to cash the HA as the setting trick, but *Dummy* > objected, saying that declarer could enforce lead penalties. The TD was > called. What should he and/or the AC have ruled? > > Background: Very large Swiss Teams, 20 VP scale. E/W are good > players, though West believes himself to be better, being c20 years > younger. Both the TD and the AC Chairman read BLML, so feel free to be > tactless . > > Incidentally, when describing tricks played, which format do you > prefer? Always the next leader first, or always West first, or some > other way? > > -- > 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 ~ Hi David I tried to make my answer as short as possible and I cut too much. My fulll opinion is as follows : Are you serious ? Dummy made twice the same infraction (I consider it very "ugly") : a) telling declerer what to do (or suggesting him what can do !) b) trying to suggest declarer what ask defender doing , after he lost his rights doing a) Did anyone think that in this situation partner of the penalty card 's owner should do anything , but his natural play ?? I should never aply law 50E2 in this case , just to keep equity ! At most , E-W may be told that if the play and/or the result should be influenced by the 8Cl reveal , they can appeal . But a fair TD should tell them too that the AC would make money vanish......for 98%. Myself , as a chief TD and as a member of AC should do both !! DANY From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 09:29:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:29:25 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12495 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:29:18 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id AAA11980 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 00:29:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 97 00:27 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: > Brd 6 KT9 > Vul E/W AJ9 > Dlr E Q543 W N E S > A52 A73 863 1NT P > 852 KQ64 2Ca P 2H P > J2 AKT6 2NT P 3NT AP > KQT52 QJ74 J9 > T73 > 987 Lead: S4 > 864 > > The play: N/S E/W W N E S > S4 S2 SK* S3 1 0 S2 SK* S3 S4 > ST* S6 S7 S5 2 0 S5 ST* S6 S7 > S9 S8 SJ SA* 2 1 SA* S9 S8 SJ > DJ DQ DA* D9 2 2 DJ DQ DA* D9 > CJ* C4 C2 C3 2 3 C2 C3 CJ* C4 > C9 C6 CT CA* 3 3 CT CA* C9 C6 > D3 DK* D7 D2 3 4 D2 D3 DK* D7 > > to reach: -- > AJ9 > 54 > -- 7 -- > 852 KQ64 > -- T6 > KQ5 Q -- > T73 > 8 > 8 > > now: DT* C8 C5 D5 3 5 C5 D5 DT* C8 > > At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8 > with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. No > TD was called. *Dummy* now told declarer that he could change the card > played from dummy, so declarer did, and the revised trick eight became: > > DT* D8 H2 D5 3 5 H2 D5 DT* D8 > HK* H3 H5 H9 3 6 H5 H9 HK* H3 > H6 H7 H8 HJ* 4 7 H8 HJ* H6 H7 > > to reach: -- > A > 4 > -- 7 -- > -- Q4 > -- 6 > KQ5 Q -- > T > -- > 8[PC] > > North attempted to cash the HA as the setting trick, but *Dummy* > objected, saying that declarer could enforce lead penalties. The TD > was called. What should he and/or the AC have ruled? Personally I don't think it is any worse for dummy to make rulings at the table than it is for any other player - once attention has been drawn to an irregularity. At least in this case the rulings appear to be correct! Had a TD been summoned (by dummy) at the first irregularity then the result would (probably) have been 3nt making, so that is the result that I think should stand. And then fine West half a board or so for not calling the TD when he should have (despite the flames I received last time I suggested that). Tim WM From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 10:37:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 10:37:37 +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 KAA12708 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 10:37:30 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x7VTS-000493-00; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 00:45:10 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.53.124] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x7VMW-0001WK-00; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:38:01 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "DANY HAIMOVICI" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:37:01 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Hi. I was the AC Chairman who had to rule on this incident in conjunction with my two colleagues. I'll tell you part of what we did, in reply to your message. I won't tell you the whole of what we did until I've heard more from the group about the problem. I must say that I found this the most difficult case that I have ever had to make a decision about - and I've come across some stinkers in my time. [snip of original problem] > Hi David > > Are you serious ? Did anyone think that partner of the > penalty card 's owner should do anything , but his natural play ?? > Well, I think he should. His partner has a major penalty card. He should therefore play nothing at all until declarer has exercised his option (L50E2) to require or forbid the suit of the major penalty card. Any card that he does play in the meantime may itself become a MPC (new one for the list, David? mPC=minor Penalty Card, perhaps?) > At most , E-W may be told that if the play and/or the result should > be influenced by the 8Cl reveal , they can appeal . But a fair TD > should tell them too that the AC would make money vanish......for 98%. > Myself , as a chief TD and as a member of AC should do both !! I have long known how to make money vanish. All you have to do is get married. But in this case... Best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 10:54:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 10:54:12 +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 KAA12787 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 10:54:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0708274; 7 Sep 97 1:27 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:05:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: additional order for the german bridge fed. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote >In-Reply-To: >I would suggest that a small addition to the conditions of contest could >deal practically with the matter of who proceeds, eg: > >In the event of an outstanding appeal to the National Authority which >would affect progression to a subsequent round, and where the authority >cannot reasonably be convened within the necessary timescale: > >a) Progression is determined by the results of the event AC. > >b) In the event of the NA overturning the AC result all match results >achieved by the progressing side (together with any awards) will be >deemed as the results of the non-progressing side. > >c) Prize money and awards will be withheld until the final appeal is >resolved. > >Seems to cover all eventualities, without being any more unfair than >anything else. I cannot believe that this is a serious suggestion. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 11:01:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:01:06 +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 LAA12822 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:01:00 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x7VqJ-0004Vo-00; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:08:47 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.53.124] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x7VjN-0003ej-00; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 02:01:38 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Jens & Bodil" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 02:00:36 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Hi. As the Chairman of the AC in Brighton, I was most interested in your reply to our little problem. I must tell you that I found this the hardest case on which I have ever been asked to rule, and I'm grateful for your opinion. I won't tell you what we actually did until I've heard some more views from the group, but I will reply to your specific points. [snip of original problem] > > At trick 8, I find that it is possible that dummy is suggesting that > the play of the C5 be changed, and I will adjust the score according > to L45F. That was one of the first things we considered. Dummy could certainly have been viewed as making a suggestion to declarer at that point. Should that suggestion have been cancelled, so that declarer's heart discard had to stand? We wondered about this. > At trick 11, I find that it is possible that dummy is > suggesting to declarer that he choose a specific penalty, which is a > violation of L10C2; We did not consider this as such, and were possibly wrong to fail to do so. > I would now rule that the right to penalize is > forfeited. > On what grounds? Not that I think you would be wrong so to rule, but I'm not sure which Law gives you the authority. > I will adjust the score, considering both sides as offending sides: > NS because of the revoke, and EW because of dummy's actions. If I am > convinced that E played the C5 because he was confused by the revoke > and thought that clubs were led, I will not consider it at all > probable that he throws away good tricks, Unlikely that declarer would duck in dummy if he thought clubs were led! > but if I am not convinced, > I will let him throw away the C5 when adjusting. Possibly, declarer ought to be forced to do this because dummy has suggested that he should not do it. See above. > > Dummy gets a PP (L90) in the form of a formal warning. Dummy got a PP from the TD in the form of a 1 VP penalty. We did not consider this harsh. Dummy was an expert, declarer was not, and it certainly appeared to us that dummy was orchestrating matters to his side's best advantage. > The other > players get told (not as a PP) that they are paying 44 pounds to play > in this tournament in part to provide fees for directors, Do you think that's wise? If everyone who entered a tournament were told that part of their entry fee went towards the Directors' salaries, I could see an awful lot of people demanding their money back :) > and that it > was the obligation of all three to do so [call the TD]. One of the factors that we considered was: the TD should have been called when the corrected revoke appeared. He was not. What would have happened if he had been? > > Dummy (especially) is told about his right to appeal the ruling including the > PP The TD correctly informed the whole table about their right of appeal. Dummy, to his credit, acknowledged that he might have overstepped the bounds of Laws 42 and 43, and threw himself on the Committee's mercy - a misguided action in almost all cases, this one not excepted. [snip] > > Oh, and I know about the 44 pounds because I played in the same > tournament (with Bodil, Jesper, and another Jens), but happily we > were not involved in this. I only found out from the list of results that you had actually been in Brighton. Sorry to have missed the chance to say hello. Next time you come to England... Best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 15:25:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 15:25:06 +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 PAA13327 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 15:24:59 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0917604; 7 Sep 97 6:04 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 05:25:29 +0100 To: David Stevenson 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 , David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote > >>In the case of these >>regulations one might suppose they would be written so that there >>was no scope for misinterpretation amongst the posters here. > > Oh dear! > > Every set of regulations ever written since God gave Adam a set of >regulations [Don't wear leaves, don't eat apples, don't talk to snakes >and don't revoke] has had problems because there are ambiguities. > Yes, but God did not know that Adam, made in his fashion, would turn out to be so stupid. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 16:42:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:42:03 +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 QAA13415 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:41:54 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS3-177.star.net.il [195.8.208.177]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA00246; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:41:26 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <34125AEA.A887FB4D@artaxia.com> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 09:42:34 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Dany > > Hi. I was the AC Chairman who had to rule on this incident in conjunction > with my two colleagues. I'll tell you part of what we did, in reply to your > message. I won't tell you the whole of what we did until I've heard more > from the group about the problem. I must say that I found this the most > difficult case that I have ever had to make a decision about - and I've > come across some stinkers in my time. > > [snip of original problem] > > > Hi David > > > > Are you serious ? Did anyone think that partner of the > > penalty card 's owner should do anything , but his natural play ?? > > > Well, I think he should. His partner has a major penalty card. He should > therefore play nothing at all until declarer has exercised his option > (L50E2) to require or forbid the suit of the major penalty card. Any card > that he does play in the meantime may itself become a MPC (new one for the > list, David? mPC=minor Penalty Card, perhaps?) > > > At most , E-W may be told that if the play and/or the result should > > be influenced by the 8Cl reveal , they can appeal . But a fair TD > > should tell them too that the AC would make money vanish......for 98%. > > Myself , as a chief TD and as a member of AC should do both !! > > I have long known how to make money vanish. All you have to do is get > married. But in this case... > > Best wishes > > David Dear David (this time BURN) First I apologize that my former message was "invalide" because I tried to put things short . Hope you got my "revised edition" . It is very embarrasing for me to write a part of the following but ...... A short backgroud : I am considered one of the national level player here ( never been in national team , because bridge is still a hobby and not a profession for me ) and one of very few national TD here , directing international events too . It happens to me , when playing , that all players ( from profesionals up to very novice ) ask me to give rulling when something "ill" at my table and many times asked me to come to a nearby table , because the TD didn't arrive quick enough (...as the offended player should like TD arrive , holding a guilottine or a big gun in his hand !!!!) . I explain them that as "a LAWS' angel " I must respect one of the most important ethical item and call the TD in charge everytime an irregularity occurs (and I do it even when playing in some clubs where I know that the TD doesn't decide the right thing or use the right law .....) Another important idea , wich guides my conduct, is that "Bridge is a sport and results must be decided ^at the table^...." ; never ^punish^ an offending side , just trying help the offended side not to be damaged. I believe that this is the Scope of the Laws , as appear on the first page of the laws' booklet. Now to "our case" with the background above : I agree that it was a "very unpleasant " case and all people involved should be ..."@#$&%" , as one of our panel member wrote , but the dummy should be first "decapitated , shot, hung in city's square, etc....." . But considering all my principles I should decide without any hesitation exactly what I wrote in my message , respecting all the TD's duties ... I should like to know what actually happened - at table and AC - as my friend Eitan Levy told me what happened at Montecatini with the appeal of the famous 7Cl (after doubling 4Sp contract ) presented in a former message here - it was interesting and more astonishing than presented in our group , because you see that even National and international top level players got some kind of unintelligile "black-outs" , wich just justify my opinion to repair damage and not punish !!!! Cordially DANY From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 7 16:45:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:45:40 +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 QAA13433 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:45:31 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS3-177.star.net.il [195.8.208.177]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA00321; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:44:51 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <34125BB8.37FDFCE3@artaxia.com> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 09:46:00 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Labeo CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs (Re: Offshape NT (Re: Gratuitous UI)) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: > In message , David Stevenson > writes > >Labeo wrote > > > >>In the case of these > >>regulations one might suppose they would be written so that there > >>was no scope for misinterpretation amongst the posters here. > > > > Oh dear! > > > > Every set of regulations ever written since God gave Adam a set of > >regulations [Don't wear leaves, don't eat apples, don't talk to snakes > >and don't revoke] has had problems because there are ambiguities. > > > Yes, but God did not know that Adam, made in his fashion, would turn out > to be so stupid. > > -- Labeo > > "Salus populi suprema est lex" > - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) I agree with your statement - GOD didn't know ... but the question is "Whom responsability it was ??" Friendly Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 8 00:53:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 00:53:57 +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 AAA16599 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 00:53:50 +1000 Received: from cph59.ppp.dknet.dk (cph59.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.59]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10570 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 16:53:41 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 16:53:40 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3413a131.1263166@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, 7 Sep 1997 02:00:36 +0100, "David Burn" wrote (">>" is Jens): >> I would now rule that the right to penalize is=20 >> forfeited. >>=20 >On what grounds? Not that I think you would be wrong so to rule, but I'm >not sure which Law gives you the authority. L11A: "The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." The "subsequent action" here is North's lead of the HA, which makes it very clear for declarer that his contract will not win if he allows North to choose his own lead. The question is then whether declarer "may have gained" by seeing the HA - i.e., would he clearly have choosen to require a club lead even without seeing the HA? If this is not the case, the right to penalize is forfeited. >> Dummy gets a PP (L90) in the form of a formal warning. =20 > >Dummy got a PP from the TD in the form of a 1 VP penalty. We did not >consider this harsh. Dummy was an expert, declarer was not, and it >certainly appeared to us that dummy was orchestrating matters to his = side's >best advantage. I agree that 1VP is not harsh. In trick 8, dummy (who seems to know the relevant laws) has learned that the other three players at the table do not know the laws. He not only decides to play TD himself, but doing so neglects to tell the other players the full rules at that point. Of course, the 1987 laws do not allow dummy to call the TD (which might not stop this particular dummy from doing so, however). But they do allow him to warn declarer against "any irregularity" - such as playing on after a revoke without calling the TD. The VP scale in use has the property that the difference between 9 and 10 VPs is only 1-2 IMPs and that the difference between 9 and 11 VPs is only 2-4 IMPs. I would choose a penalty of 2 VPs. >One of the factors that we considered was: the TD should have been = called >when the corrected revoke appeared. He was not. What would have happened= if >he had been? The contract would probably, but not quite certainly, have won. >I only found out from the list of results that you had actually been in >Brighton. Sorry to have missed the chance to say hello. Next time you = come >to England... Yes, indeed. We enjoyed the tournament very much. We also learned about a minor cultural difference: you leave the bidding cards on the table until the opening lead has been shown, where we remove them immediately after the final pass. Your way of doing this is clearly the most sensible one (but it does take quite a few boards to change such a habit). David S wrote: > Incidentally, when describing tricks played, which format do you=20 >prefer? Always the next leader first, or always West first, or some=20 >other way? I tried to follow the play in both formats, and when the asterisks (for "trick won") are placed correctly as they were here, both formats are easy to follow. Nevertheless, I prefer the next leader first - it seems most natural. And if you also add a designation of who the leader is, as suggested by lobo@ac.net, it will be even easier to follow. The presentation of the hand was in general extremely clear, with all the important information packed into so few lines that for once it was quite easy to follow a hand on the screen. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 8 04:30:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 04:30:14 +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 EAA17845 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 04:30:07 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x7mDX-00072m-00; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:37:51 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.53.219] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x7m6W-0003Tp-00; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:30:36 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:29:33 +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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sun, 7 Sep 1997 02:00:36 +0100, "David Burn" > wrote: [JD] >>> I would now rule that the right to penalize is >>> forfeited. >>> [DALB] >>On what grounds? Not that I think you would be wrong so to rule, but I'm >>not sure which Law gives you the authority. [JD] >L11A: >"The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either >member of the non-offending side takes any action before >summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the >non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action >taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." >The "subsequent action" here is North's lead of the HA, which >makes it very clear for declarer that his contract will not win >if he allows North to choose his own lead. The question is then >whether declarer "may have gained" by seeing the HA - i.e., would >he clearly have choosen to require a club lead even without >seeing the HA? If this is not the case, the right to penalize is >forfeited. I'm relieved. Had we considered this aspect of the case at all, I think we would have found it easy enough to conclude that declarer would have required a club lead to dummy's winners, rather than a lead of the setting trick :) [snip] [JD] >Of course, the 1987 laws do not allow dummy to call the TD (which >might not stop this particular dummy from doing so, however). >But they do allow him to warn declarer against "any irregularity" >- such as playing on after a revoke without calling the TD. Interesting. Our view was that because L42B2 (which gives dummy the right to prevent an irregularity by declarer) is subordinate to L43A1(a), (which prohibits dummy from initiating a call to the Director), dummy was *not* allowed to say: "Partner, I think you should call the TD before playing on". Otherwise, there appears to be a contradiction between the two Laws. [JD] >The VP scale in use has the property that the difference between >9 and 10 VPs is only 1-2 IMPs and that the difference between 9 >and 11 VPs is only 2-4 IMPs. I would choose a penalty of 2 VPs. Fierce! Most people with whom I have discussed the matter felt that 1 VP was already pretty severe, and that we should have penalised only 0.5 VP or not at all. [DALB] >>One of the factors that we considered was: the TD should have been called >>when the corrected revoke appeared. He was not. What would have happened if >>he had been? [JD] >The contract would probably, but not quite certainly, have won. That's pretty much what we thought. So we ruled that declarer would make it 70% of the time, and go down the other 30%, and split the score accordingly. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 8 05:57:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 05:57:01 +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 FAA18023 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 05:56:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac0620855; 7 Sep 97 20:27 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 20:19:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >Any card >that he does play in the meantime may itself become a MPC (new one for the >list, David? mPC=minor Penalty Card, perhaps?) I like it! >I have long known how to make money vanish. All you have to do is get >married. Liz says she agrees with you! -- 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 Sep 8 06:32:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:32:11 +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 GAA18108 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:32:03 +1000 Received: from default (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA16089 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 22:31:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199709072031.WAA16089@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 22:33:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site. Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by isa.dknet.dk id WAA16089 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 02:00:36 +0100 (snipping, to get to the questions raised) > >=20 > > At trick 8, I find that it is possible that dummy is suggesting that=20 > > the play of the C5 be changed, and I will adjust the score according=20 > > to L45F. =20 >=20 > That was one of the first things we considered. Dummy could certainly h= ave > been viewed as making a suggestion to declarer at that point. Should th= at > suggestion have been cancelled, so that declarer's heart discard had to > stand? We wondered about this. Well, if we are applying L45F for this action (and not, say, L10C2),=20 the letter of the law does not allow the TD that option. He must let=20 play continue and assign an adjusted score if the opponents turn out=20 to be damaged. No need to deviate from the prescribed procedure, I=20 suppose. (Do I hear David Stevenson applauding this?). Of course,=20 once we are into adjusting the score, we should probably find that=20 not changing the play of the C5 leads to the least favorable score=20 for declarer that is at all probable. The net result is the same. >=20 > > At trick 11, I find that it is possible that dummy is=20 > > suggesting to declarer that he choose a specific penalty, which is a=20 > > violation of L10C2;=20 >=20 > We did not consider this as such, and were possibly wrong to fail to do= so. >=20 > > I would now rule that the right to penalize is=20 > > forfeited. > >=20 > On what grounds? Not that I think you would be wrong so to rule, but I'= m > not sure which Law gives you the authority. What I meant is: I rule that declarer's right to penalize North's premature play, when he should have waited for declarer to exercise his option, is forfeited. I invoke L10B, but that is formal, and I really rule in this way because it is suggested by note 10.4 in the EBU Guide (Endicott and Hansen); whether the Laws support this note could become a subject for a new thread. In an earlier posting, Jesper addressed forfeiting the right for the defenders to penalize the revoke; this is a different matter, which I agree would be a ruling according to L11A. =20 (snip) =20 > Dummy got a PP from the TD in the form of a 1 VP penalty. We did not > consider this harsh. Dummy was an expert, declarer was not, and it > certainly appeared to us that dummy was orchestrating matters to his si= de's > best advantage. I am not worried about the size of the PP -- that is largely a matter of local style, and given the friendly atmosphere in Brighton, I was guessing that a 0 VP fine would be fitting. Not for me to say. Let me instead say that I find that this misdemeanor is a graver offense than "convention disruption" for which (IMO ridiculous) PPs of =BD or 1 VP are dealt out at major international championships. --=20 Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 8 06:54:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:54:41 +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 GAA18166 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:54:34 +1000 Received: from cph2.ppp.dknet.dk (cph2.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.2]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA16458 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 22:54:26 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 22:54:25 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34151431.1958185@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, 7 Sep 1997 19:29:33 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>On Sun, 7 Sep 1997 02:00:36 +0100, "David Burn" >> wrote: > >I'm relieved. Had we considered this aspect of the case at all, I think = we >would have found it easy enough to conclude that declarer would have >required a club lead to dummy's winners, rather than a lead of the = setting >trick :) I too suspect that declarer would have got it right... >>Of course, the 1987 laws do not allow dummy to call the TD (which >>might not stop this particular dummy from doing so, however). >>But they do allow him to warn declarer against "any irregularity" >>- such as playing on after a revoke without calling the TD. > >Interesting. Our view was that because L42B2 (which gives dummy the = right >to prevent an irregularity by declarer) is subordinate to L43A1(a), = (which >prohibits dummy from initiating a call to the Director), dummy was *not* >allowed to say: "Partner, I think you should call the TD before playing >on". Otherwise, there appears to be a contradiction between the two = Laws. You may be right. On the other hand, the laws do not say that one is subordinate to the other. Fortunately, this specific point will not be a problem in the 1997 laws. >>The VP scale in use has the property that the difference between >>9 and 10 VPs is only 1-2 IMPs and that the difference between 9 >>and 11 VPs is only 2-4 IMPs. I would choose a penalty of 2 VPs. > >Fierce! Most people with whom I have discussed the matter felt that 1 VP >was already pretty severe, and that we should have penalised only 0.5 VP= or >not at all. I would usually find 2 VP fierce, too. But a PP of less than 3 IMPs seems meaningless to me (like a 5% PP in a pairs event), and if the match is fairly even, 1 VP is less than 3 IMPs with this scale. So I'd choose between a warning and 2 VPs; or perhaps with such a scale it would be better to give the PP in IMPs instead (I do admit that it would be hard if they lost the match 20 to -2). I generally have the attitude that we should give PPs (other than warnings) in such situations only when the player has done something that he really must have known was illegal and stupid and which ruined or could have ruined the result of the board. But when we (rarely) do give such PPs, I think they should have a size that makes them more than a symbolic gesture. >[DALB] > >>>One of the factors that we considered was: the TD should have been = called >>>when the corrected revoke appeared. He was not. What would have = happened >if >>>he had been? > >[JD] > >>The contract would probably, but not quite certainly, have won. > >That's pretty much what we thought. So we ruled that declarer would make= it >70% of the time, and go down the other 30%, and split the score >accordingly. That sounds very reasonable. Too bad the TD is not allowed to do that. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 8 07:35:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 07:35:31 +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 HAA18244 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 07:35:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0620855; 7 Sep 97 20:27 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 18:22:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >Do you think that's wise? If everyone who entered a tournament were told >that part of their entry fee went towards the Directors' salaries, I could >see an awful lot of people demanding their money back :) I think it is an excellent idea. At the moment, half the players think that all we do is stand around in purple jackets chatting about the good looking women players [ok, Rachel, I know you read this: not you!]. I think we should reduce their entry fees by the amount of the TD's fees and let them play in Brighton without TDs. I think they might have a bit of a shock trying to play bridge with no tables, chairs not distributed, and no stationery or 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 Mon Sep 8 23:14:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:14:23 +1000 Received: from woozle.isode.com (woozle.isode.com [193.133.227.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA20584 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:14:16 +1000 Message-Id: <199709081314.XAA20584@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from isode.com (actually brian.isode.com) by woozle.isode.com with SMTP (local); Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:11:35 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96 To: Bridge Laws , I.Reissmann@isode.com Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 14:13:30 +0100 From: Ian Reissmann Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Declaration of interest : dummy is a good personal friend and regular partner. I also know both defenders - one quite well, as he plays at my local club] While this incident is interesting, it's also a mess. Leaving aside the ruling, how should dummy behave in order to exercise his rights and duties to prevent irregularities, while avoiding falling foul of the various rules limiting dummy's possible legal actions ? Firstly, the actions by this dummy clearly breached several rules and were therefore not correct. Other possible courses of action were : - at the revoke say "an irregularity has occured. It is our duty to call the TD." - call the TD - say nothing until the end of the hand The first option could be argued as similar to the action taken by dummy - there being an implication that options to be made available by the TD are favourable to declarer. The second option breaches the rule the dummy may not initiate a call to the TD. The last option results in a situation about as complicated as actually arose, except that dummy/declarer would clearly be the non-offending side. IMO it breaches dummy's responsibilty to prevent irregularites by declarer. Obviously the last option is not ideal, but appears to be forced by the rules. Either of the other 2 options seems better to me, and would be permitted if the rules on dummy not calling the TD were subordinate to dummy's responsibility to prevent an irregularity by declarer. Secondly, a precedural penalty against dummy seems right. This should not be in imps, as a large win or loss would make the penalty disappear (or at least reduce it). That is silly. It should be in VPs. Thirdly, why do the defence suffer no PP. The pair concerned know a lot better than to attempt to apply an (incorrect) penalty. It is this action which has been instrumental in making this such a difficult ruling. Such action should be discouraged. Ian -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Ian Reissmann Tel (H) +44-1491-578249, (W) +44-181-332-9091 + + I.Reissmann@isode.com http://www.isode.com/ + + X.400 c=FI;a=MAILNET;p=ISODE;s=Reissmann;i=I + + 80 Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, England, RG9 2BN + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 00:20:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:20:00 +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 AAA23064 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:19:54 +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 KAA08852 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:19:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970908102015.006ba784@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 10:20:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Dummy's right to call TD (WAS: Dummy has a go!) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:29 PM 9/7/97 +0100, David wrote: >Interesting. Our view was that because L42B2 (which gives dummy the right >to prevent an irregularity by declarer) is subordinate to L43A1(a), (which >prohibits dummy from initiating a call to the Director), dummy was *not* >allowed to say: "Partner, I think you should call the TD before playing >on". Otherwise, there appears to be a contradiction between the two Laws. But L43A1(a) doesn't prohibit dummy from calling the TD, provided that "attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player". Indeed, L43A1(a) seems to operate essentially as an adjunct to L43A1(b); the latter prohibits dummy from directly calling an attention to an otherwise unnoticed irregularity, while the former provents him from indirectly doing so by calling the TD. Once any of the other three players has brought the attention of the table to the fact that an irregularity has occurred, the prohibitions of L43A1(a) and (b) are no longer in effect. L42B2 now gives dummy the right to try to prevent any subsequent irregularity, such as failing to call the TD AFTER attention has been drawn to the irregularity; indeed, he may now do so himself without violating L43A1(a). The bottom line is that only declarer or a defender may point out to the table that an irregularity has occurred; until this happens, dummy, if he is the only one to notice the irregularity, must remain silent. Once it has been pointed out, though, anyone at the table, including the dummy, may demand that the TD be called. L9B1 not only grants dummy this right explicitly, but even suggests that he is under an obligation to exercise it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 01:22:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:22:18 +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 BAA23467 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:22:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0901998; 8 Sep 97 13:18 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 03:40:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Edgar Kaplan dies MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [copied from RGB] Edgar Kaplan passed away last night after fighting cancer for many years. His accomplishments are too numerous to mention. Few can truly be said to be irreplaceable - he was one such. He will be missed by all who knew him and by many who did not. No funeral will be held. Information regarding a memorial service will be posted when available. A full obituary will be published in Monday or Tuesday's NY Times. --------- [DWS] His accomplishments in the field in which this mailing list is interested were very great indeed. -- David Stevenson bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please Web page: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 01:41:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:41:46 +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 BAA23582 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:41:34 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS1-38.star.net.il [195.8.208.38]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12251; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 18:40:29 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <34142AC3.36824277@artaxia.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 18:41:40 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Reissmann CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! References: <199709081314.XAA20584@octavia.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian Reissmann wrote: > [Declaration of interest : dummy is a good personal friend and regular > partner. I also know both defenders - one quite well, as he plays at my local > club] > > While this incident is interesting, it's also a mess. Leaving aside the > ruling, how should dummy behave in order to exercise his rights and duties to > prevent irregularities, while avoiding falling foul of the various rules > limiting dummy's possible legal actions ? > > Firstly, the actions by this dummy clearly breached several rules and were > therefore not correct. Other possible courses of action were : > > - at the revoke say "an irregularity has occured. It is our duty > to call the TD." > - call the TD > - say nothing until the end of the hand > > The first option could be argued as similar to the action taken by dummy - > there being an implication that options to be made available by the TD are > favourable to declarer. > > The second option breaches the rule the dummy may not initiate a call to the > TD. > > The last option results in a situation about as complicated as actually arose, > except that dummy/declarer would clearly be the non-offending side. IMO it > breaches dummy's responsibilty to prevent irregularites by declarer. > > Obviously the last option is not ideal, but appears to be forced by the rules. > Either of the other 2 options seems better to me, and would be permitted if > the rules on dummy not calling the TD were subordinate to dummy's > responsibility to prevent an irregularity by declarer. > > Secondly, a precedural penalty against dummy seems right. This should not be > in imps, as a large win or loss would make the penalty disappear (or at least > reduce it). That is silly. It should be in VPs. > > Thirdly, why do the defence suffer no PP. The pair concerned know a lot better > than to attempt to apply an (incorrect) penalty. It is this action which has > been instrumental in making this such a difficult ruling. Such action should > be discouraged. > > Ian > > -- > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > + Ian Reissmann Tel (H) +44-1491-578249, (W) +44-181-332-9091 + > + I.Reissmann@isode.com http://www.isode.com/ + > + X.400 c=FI;a=MAILNET;p=ISODE;s=Reissmann;i=I + > + 80 Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, England, RG9 2BN + > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear IAN , I hope you read my answer to D. Burn . There is a scope of Laws . Many experienced people over the world (Tournament Directors and top "celebrities" players ) discussed and decided wich is "the Bible" . They even agreed that it is not a Bible , but a "living book" that should be updated from time to time. I don't like to copy the ideas included in my reply to D. B. but as a player you agreed the current rulling , the second you sat at the table. My opinion is that you shouldn't even think what dummy has to do - he must respect his rights and limitations . I expect that an experienced player should do it more than any one else ......and my "a-priori approach" coming to the table is to be more exigeant with the "big guys". DANY From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 01:53:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:53:48 +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 BAA23730 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:53:41 +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 LAA20140; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709081553.LAA24267@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: elandau@cais.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19970908102015.006ba784@cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Mon, 08 Sep 1997 10:20:15 -0400) Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call TD (WAS: Dummy has a go!) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > The bottom line is that only declarer or a defender may point out to the > table that an irregularity has occurred; until this happens, dummy, if he > is the only one to notice the irregularity, must remain silent. Once it > has been pointed out, though, anyone at the table, including the dummy, may > demand that the TD be called. L9B1 not only grants dummy this right > explicitly, but even suggests that he is under an obligation to exercise it. Also, Law 43B2 gives the dummy the right to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer; failure to call the director is an irregularity. For example, if a claim has been contested and declarer tries to play on (which many players believe is proper procedure), dummy is preventing the irregularity by calling the director. This would seem to be particularly important in individual events. -- 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 Tue Sep 9 02:45:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 02:45:49 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA24174 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 02:45:43 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id KAA00706; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma000583; Mon, 8 Sep 97 10:12:45 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id KAA15788 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709081703.KAA15788@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 8 Sep 97 15:38:20 GMT Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hope you will forgive me for not repeating the hand. In fact David Burn had asked my opinion on this hand a couple of weeks ago. In case anyone is interested, they are repeated below. In response to DWS's question about presentation of the play, I greatly prefer the WNES form. ===================================================================== *My comments to David Burn's original questions (before he told me the AC's decisions).* IMO W (dummy) had the right to call the TD (Law42B2 (attempt to prevent irregularity)). I think all that happened after this was what would have happened had the TD been called at the correct time. It is true that NS would have had a clear explanation of their rights and obligations (i.e. lead penalty). But I do not think the play or defence would have proceeded differently in that case. Thus I would leave the score at EW+600 for both sides. I would not like to comment on the specifics of the fine without having seen and heard W, and his explanation, e.g., for why he did not call the TD. If I formed the impression he was trying to speed the game up by failing to call the TD, and that he was not trying to disadvantage NS, then I would not fine him at all. After all NS also should know the TD should be called. If I thought he was trying a fast one, then I would fine W 0.5 VP. I cannot imagine circumstances in which I would fine as much as 1 VP in this case, but the TD and AC heard him and the other players, and may well have had good reasons for their decision. Also, if I thought W's actions had been so prejuducial to NS, then I (as AC) would have awarded a split score. *His response, and my final comments* >Decision we reached in the Brighton case was: dummy's earlier indication >that declarer could change his discard from dummy was viewed by NS as an >attempt to direct play (i.e. make a suggestion to the declarer), and >this was their basis for appeal. We were not certain about this, but we >felt that if the TD had been called when he should have been, then he >would have told declarer his rights. Declarer might then have seen the >wisdom of changing his discard, but (since he could never reach dummy in >the normal course of events) he might not. Of course the TD should have pointed out in equally clear terms the option to change, but perhaps you viewed that the very fact of dummy pointing it out carried some sort of recommendation. Reasonable enough: after all you heard them, not me. Don't forget that if *NS* thought they were damaged by this recommendation they could (should) have called the TD. >We decided, though, that >exiting with the HK before cashing the last diamond indicated a fair >degree of native shrewdness, so we determined that if the Law had >arrived at the right moment, declarer would have made 3N three quarters >of the time. So, we adjusted on that basis (and stuck with the fine >imposed by the TD, since we felt we had no basis to question it). Not >sure if this is actually a valid position in which to split a score. But >it felt about right. I am quite happy with splitting the score in this circumstance. As you will have gathered, I am not so happy with the 1 VP fine. Firstly it seems (subject to the earlier provisos) on the high side: secondly it seems there is an element of double counting, in that the TD's idea was probably partly to compensate for the fact that he did not think it right to rule as though there were no penalty for the exposed card (I agree), and of course he could not award the split score which the AC did. Compared to the nearly invariable lack of fine for failure to stop after a "skip bid" warning, this seems well over the top. Still perhaps this is a matter best left to the TD and AC: nevertheless I think you should have considered reducing the fine. ============================================================================================= Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 03:00:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 03:00:56 +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 DAA24268 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 03:00:13 +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 MAA21802 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970908105109.006b8b2c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 10:51:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Dummy's right to call TD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My earlier message on this subject may have been inappropriate; subsequent messages, which I read only after replying to David B., suggest that the ruling David S. presented was made under the 1987 laws (here (ACBL) we've been using the 1997 laws for several months already, and tend to forget that that's not the case everywhere). But it may not have been. As others' replies have suggested, here in ACBL territory we tend to view the change to L43A1(a) as a purely procedural change with no substantive effect. The prevailing interpretation under the 1987 laws would have been much the same: Once an irregularity has been pointed out by declarer or a defender, L42B2 permits dummy to try to prevent the subsequent irregularity of failing to summon the director as required by L9B1(a), which places declarer under an obligation to do so. The revision of L43A1(a) merely says that dummy is no longer required to, in effect, summon the director via this somewhat roundabout procedure, but may simply do so directly. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 03:27:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 03:27:42 +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 DAA24368 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 03:27:26 +1000 Received: from cph6.ppp.dknet.dk (cph6.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.6]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA23045 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:26:54 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call TD (WAS: Dummy has a go!) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 19:26:54 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3414342a.674379@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19970908102015.006ba784@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970908102015.006ba784@cais.com> 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, 08 Sep 1997 10:20:15 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >But L43A1(a) doesn't prohibit dummy from calling the TD, provided that >"attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player". Eric, you are in ACBL-land and Brighton is not. We are talking about the 1987 laws, and you are talking about the 1997 laws. And L43A1a has been improved in 1997. Perhaps we should try to remember always to write which laws we are discussing. (In Denmark, we have decided to postpone use of the new laws until January 1, 1998. This is primarily because the Danish law book is not ready yet; one reason for that is that (unless something has happened very recently that I haven't heard about) we haven't yet received a final and complete version of the laws from the EBL or the WBF.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 04:27:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 04:27:39 +1000 Received: from mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com [149.174.64.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24670 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 04:27:32 +1000 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aagw2.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.199]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA27406.; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:38:40 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA2097; Mon, 08 Sep 97 14:26:57 -0400 Message-Id: <9709081826.AA2097@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id FA74E6FC9DB543088625650C006032BD; Mon, 8 Sep 97 14:26:56 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 8 Sep 97 18:55:27 Subject: Edgar Kaplan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edgar Kaplans death is a great loss. I admired his style of writing and the sharpness of his comments. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 04:36:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 04:36:21 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24727 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 04:36:15 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id MAA14449; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:03:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma014263; Mon, 8 Sep 97 12:03:12 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id LAA20597 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709081854.LAA20597@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 8 Sep 97 17:06:42 GMT Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call TD (WAS: Dummy has a go!) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 07:29 PM 9/7/97 +0100, David wrote: >>Interesting. Our view was that because L42B2 (which gives dummy the right >>to prevent an irregularity by declarer) is subordinate to L43A1(a), (which >>prohibits dummy from initiating a call to the Director), dummy was *not* >>allowed to say: "Partner, I think you should call the TD before playing >>on". Otherwise, there appears to be a contradiction between the two Laws. > >But L43A1(a) doesn't prohibit dummy from calling the TD, provided that >"attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player". Indeed, >L43A1(a) seems to operate essentially as an adjunct to L43A1(b); the latter >prohibits dummy from directly calling an attention to an otherwise >unnoticed irregularity, while the former provents him from indirectly doing >so by calling the TD. Once any of the other three players has brought the >attention of the table to the fact that an irregularity has occurred, the >prohibitions of L43A1(a) and (b) are no longer in effect. L42B2 now gives >dummy the right to try to prevent any subsequent irregularity, such as >failing to call the TD AFTER attention has been drawn to the irregularity; >indeed, he may now do so himself without violating L43A1(a). In England we're still under the 1987 Laws (until 1 October 1997), so the position is not so clear. >The bottom line is that only declarer or a defender may point out to the >table that an irregularity has occurred; until this happens, dummy, if he >is the only one to notice the irregularity, must remain silent. Once it >has been pointed out, though, anyone at the table, including the dummy, may >demand that the TD be called. L9B1 not only grants dummy this right >explicitly, but even suggests that he is under an obligation to exercise it. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 06:13:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 06:13:46 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA25139 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 06:13:40 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA15513 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 21:13:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 97 21:12 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call TD (WAS: Dummy has a go!) 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: <3414342a.674379@pipmail.dknet.dk> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > wrote: > >But L43A1(a) doesn't prohibit dummy from calling the TD, provided that > >"attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player". > > Eric, you are in ACBL-land and Brighton is not. > > We are talking about the 1987 laws, and you are talking about the > 1997 laws. And L43A1a has been improved in 1997. While I agree with your temporal-geographical analysis I am not sure that it matters in this instance. IMO 1997 does no more than clarify the 1987 meaning of L9/L43. Ie a director call is initiated by someone other than dummy drawing attention to an irregularity. Thereafter all 4 players are at liberty (indeed obliged) to call the TD. Although I would view with sympathy any dummy who remained silent believing they were not entitled to do otherwise. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 07:30:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:30:15 +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 HAA25595 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:30:04 +1000 Received: from default (cph2.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.2]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29407 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:29:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199709082129.XAA29407@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:30:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call TD (WAS: Dummy has a go!) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:53:26 -0400 (EDT) > From: David Grabiner > Also, Law 43B2 gives the dummy the right to attempt to prevent an > irregularity by declarer; failure to call the director is an > irregularity. I agree with this. In the case of an exposed card, when one of the players draws attention to it, I feel that Dummy has the right to say to declarer (under the 1987 laws) that he really ought to call the director, under the heading of preventing an irregularity. Now, if declarer chooses not to do so, Dummy must shut up until the end of play. > For example, if a claim has been contested and declarer > tries to play on (which many players believe is proper procedure), dummy > is preventing the irregularity by calling the director. Unfortunate example, since play ceases when the claim is made, and dummy therefore regains his right to call the director at that point. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 10:06:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:06:27 +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 KAA26203 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:06:17 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x8DwJ-0000dk-00; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:13:55 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.45.123] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x8DpP-00012H-00; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:06:48 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call the TD Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:05:46 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have chosen not to reply to any specific message, but I thank all and sundry for their contributions. The difference between the 1997 version of 43A1(a) and the 1987 version is one that I believe to be substantial, certainly more than "procedural" (pace Eric Landau). However, as has been pointed out, the Brighton Congress was certainly being played under the 1987 Code, and we knew this, so we looked at the 1987 version of 43A1(a) very hard. We concluded that, in the case in question, dummy did not have any right to make any suggestion along the lines of: "Partner, I think we should call the TD." This certainly seemed to us to be "initiating" a call for the TD, and in the 1987 code, L43 is *clearly* subordinate to L42B because L42B says that it is! I personally view the 1997 change as confusing and unfortunate. In my view, dummy should do what he is told, and should not do anything else. (This is perhaps easier for me to apply than others, because my customary instruction to dummy is to go and buy the drinks while I get on with playing the hand. In almost all cases where I am dummy, I do not bother to wait for partner's instruction.) I am concerned that in this case, where South had produced a club on a diamond lead and had then produced a diamond, dummy now *appears* to have the right to summon the TD, because South has drawn attention to his own irregularity by committing it! I don't believe that dummy has any business in looking after declarer's legal position. But, had we been ruling under the 1997 Code, I believe that our ruling would have been different. Oh, well. It was a tricky ruling - for which no one was really to blame more than anyone else - and this group has expressed no vast disapproval of what we actually did. Steve Barnfield's view: "you heard the players; I did not; so presumably whatever you did appeared reasonable" is one that I have constantly heard him express, and one that ought in my opinion to carry considerably more weight than it does when decisions are being criticised. The debate about the size of the fine is interesting: in a Swiss Teams, where 1 VP will often make the substantial difference between the prize money (and the master points) for 6th and the prize money for 11th equal, 1 VP could be viewed as a pretty serious fine (and so we viewed it). But, as has been pointed out, if 1 VP equates only to a couple of IMPs, perhaps it is not such a major penalty after all. (Of course, fines should be expressed in terms of the final unit of scoring - the VP - not in terms of IMPs, which would be arbitrary to the point of being ridiculous.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 10:13:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:13:53 +1000 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.72.6.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA26255 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:13:47 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x8E3j-00018W-00; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:21:35 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.45.123] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x8Dwq-000285-00; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:14:28 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Edgar Kaplan dies Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 01:13:26 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was shocked (though not surprised, given Edgar's failing health over the past months and years) to learn this news. Having shared a commentator's microphone with Edgar in many major events, and sat with him on many Committees, I considered him one of the wittiest, most tolerant, and most dedicated professional men I have ever met. For me, and doubtless for many others, he *was* the Laws of Bridge. His loss is incalculable. May he rest in peace. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 20:58:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:58:35 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27815 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:58:29 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-29.innet.be [194.7.10.29]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA10736 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:33:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <34152232.1453EFD2@innet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:17:22 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: I'm back X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk after two weeks without Internet access, I am slowly catching up with you guys. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http:\\www.club.innet.be\~pub02163\index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 21:43:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 21:43:08 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27959 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 21:43:01 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-238.innet.be [194.7.10.238]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA22824 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:42:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <34152D01.A2992567@innet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 13:03:29 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! 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: > > [JD] > > >The VP scale in use has the property that the difference between > >9 and 10 VPs is only 1-2 IMPs and that the difference between 9 > >and 11 VPs is only 2-4 IMPs. I would choose a penalty of 2 VPs. > > Fierce! Most people with whom I have discussed the matter felt that 1 VP > was already pretty severe, and that we should have penalised only 0.5 VP or > not at all. > Which is exacty why I always try to give PP's in IMPs, not in VP. 3 IMPs is always the same thing, but VP's differ from one tournament to another. I do realize that sometimes it is better to give penalties in VP, but I would then give a VP penalty equivalent to a 3 IMP one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http:\\www.club.innet.be\~pub02163\index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 22:56:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:56:30 +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 WAA28260 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 22:56:23 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA07157 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:55:26 +0200 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 14:55:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: <34152D01.A2992567@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > Which is exacty why I always try to give PP's in IMPs, not in VP. > > 3 IMPs is always the same thing, but VP's differ from one tournament to > another. A 3 imp penalty can make no difference on the final result (if a team is winning or losing with a large margin) or (with the ACBL 30 VP scale) turn a 19-11 win into a 12-18 loss, a difference of 7 VP's. A VP OTOH is a VP and the effect on the overall results is the same for every contestant in this event. Giving 3 imp penalties is, IMHO, a bit like giving a 10 matchpoint penalty. With a 12 top, it's a lot, with a 250 top, it's nothing. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 9 23:32:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:32:17 +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 XAA28481 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:32:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0521816; 9 Sep 97 9:24 BST Message-ID: <1WMmhIAC2KF0EwnQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 02:59:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call TD In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970908105109.006b8b2c@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote >My earlier message on this subject may have been inappropriate; subsequent >messages, which I read only after replying to David B., suggest that the >ruling David S. presented was made under the 1987 laws (here (ACBL) we've >been using the 1997 laws for several months already, and tend to forget >that that's not the case everywhere). > >But it may not have been. As others' replies have suggested, here in ACBL >territory we tend to view the change to L43A1(a) as a purely procedural >change with no substantive effect. The prevailing interpretation under the >1987 laws would have been much the same: Once an irregularity has been >pointed out by declarer or a defender, L42B2 permits dummy to try to >prevent the subsequent irregularity of failing to summon the director as >required by L9B1(a), which places declarer under an obligation to do so. >The revision of L43A1(a) merely says that dummy is no longer required to, >in effect, summon the director via this somewhat roundabout procedure, but >may simply do so directly. In my view the changes to L9B1B and L43A1A are purely an attempt to clarify, and are not real changes at all. 1987 L9B1B says "Any player" and it really does not need a note that any player includes dummy, though it can do no harm. In the same way, 1987 L43A1A says Dummy should not "initiate" a call, and does not need a note that this does not include cases where dummy is not initiating the call. Again, the change does no harm, but there is no change in the meaning. -- 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 Sep 10 13:10:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:10:27 +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 NAA00242 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:10:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1405436; 10 Sep 97 0:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:26:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: <199709082129.XAA29407@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forwarded from Max Bavin, Chief TD, EBU, Joint [?] Chief TD, EBL The TDs first job will be to decide upon the status of the HA and south's "penalty card". This bit is fairly easy: the club IS a penalty card, so north may not cash the HA. Hence, for the time being, the contract makes. As an aside (and not relevant to this case), the TD can and should use his Law 50 discretion, in conjunction with 11A, to decree that the HA is NOT a penalty card even though it has been exposed prematurely. This is a classic case of the non-offenders playing on after an irregularity and leading the offenders into an even worse mess than before. By contrast, south's club IS a penalty card - the offenders provided this all by themselves without any unwanted assistance from the non-offenders (I use the term non-offender in a very loose sense in this particualr case!). The TD's and ACs next job is to consider whether any of Laws 12A1, 12A3 or 45F apply. It would be entirely legal to decide that one or more of them do apply, and so award an adjusted score. Equally, it would be legal (but not my personal preference) to decide that the club is not a penalty card and that the HA may therefore be cashed (again, not my personal preference). To this extent, the case is not all that interesting as virtually any conclusion is legal - we are left merely to discuss our personal preferences. I don't like using 12A1 here - I think that the Laws DO cover this situation (e.g. the other Laws quoted above). Likewise, I don't think 12A3 is appropriate because the correct penalty WAS paid (except for the defenders not being warned about the consequences of their penalty card). So, we are left with 45F as our only real possibility. So, we are going to have to judge whether declarer was going to get this right had the TD explained things rather than dummy. The end-game part of insisting upon a club lead wouldn't have been too hard for any declarer: it's the bit about changing his discard to a non-club in preparation for the end game which is interesting. Since this is a real case (I assume), this last bit is very hard to judge without speaking to the declarer. I am inclined to believe that he WOULD have got it right, and that dummy was "merely" informing everyone what the Law was rather than suggesting a play. I am aware that I might be being very naive here, but without speaking to the pair it really is impossible to tell. So: 3NT makes! Dummy has played it very well, and I shall congratulate him on his excellent play and near-excellent knowledge of the Laws. This will make him feel a whole lot better about the massive procedural penalty which I will then apply under Law 43A1 and Law 90 (and probably some other Laws as well). The effect will be that everyone gets a rotten score, which will please Burn enormously (and if he's Chairman of Appeals he will have great glee in upholding this particular decision). Actually, I'm not terribly keen on these "give 'em all a rotten score" type decisions - but in this particular case, it seems entirely appropriate. September 1997: Max Bavin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 10 13:13:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:13:41 +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 NAA00299 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:13:35 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x8bjv-0002Wf-00; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:38:43 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.45.200] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x8bcy-0000cI-00; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 02:31:32 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "rts48u" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Drinking all night (was: Dummy's right to call the TD) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 02:29:58 +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 [DALB] >>(snip) my customary >>instruction to dummy is to go and buy the drinks while I get on with >>playing the hand. In almost all cases where I am dummy, I do not bother to >>wait for partner's instruction. [rts48u] >Isn't it just such unnecessary leaving the table that opens the possibilty of a >Meckwell-like violation? Rodwell doesn't drink. Neither does Meckstroth - at least, not until the session's over. What's necessary for them isn't necessary for the rest of us mortals. [rts48u] >What if partner should have an immediate pressing need to answer a call of nature >and the drink line were near the facilities? What immediate pressing call of nature? If I am already buying the drinks, he does not need to join the line. If you are trying to suggest that partner might need to go to the toilet in the middle of playing a hand, then you seriously under-estimate the bladder control of our partnership, honed as it has been in the heat of battle over many years. [rts48u] >Surely you can't be thirsty to such an enormous extent that one of you must rush to >buy drinks on average every other hand. No. Sometimes, we are thirstier. >I know you probably meant the comment in jest, and would never have any ill intent >even if you really took such action I never joke about beer. It is just about the only subject I take seriously. >...but it is courteous to your opponents and the others in the field not to be >needlessly flitting about the room during play. Oh, I buy them a beer as well. For this reason, they do not regard my flitting about the room as needless. >In a duplicate, there have been players of quality often suspected and sometimes >convicted of glancing at other hands along the way My opponents, like my partner, are entirely prepared to believe that I play at my worst when I know all four hands. If I've got some vague idea of what partner may hold, we have half a chance - provided that I am drunk enough not to have too much clue what I myself hold. There may be flaws in our approach, but I have had no complaints so far, and barmen the world over are pleased to see me. What other bridge player could say the same? >...and what if the drinks table were in close proximity to the other half of your >teamns match This does not happen as often as I would wish. But when it does, my team mates know perfectly well that it's up to them to buy the drinks. >...would you really want to give the appearance of passing near that table for >reasons other than thirst? No. But what other reason could there be? >Dummy has a function, as well as rights and limitations, Dummy has a function, which is to buy beer. His right is to insist that I pay for it when it is my round. His limitation, fortunately, is that he often cannot remember whether it is my round or his. If you are trying to suggest that dummy should remain at the table in order to admire the perfection of my declarer play, or to prevent me from failing to call the TD when my opponents revoke, then you have a limited grasp of (a) my ineptitude as declarer and (b) my knowledge of the Laws. >and there is surely no compelling reason most hands to be leaving the table. Empty glasses are forcing in our partnership. It's on our convention card. Cheers! David From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 10 13:13:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:13:56 +1000 Received: from emout29.mail.aol.com (emout29.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.134]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA00316 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:13:51 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout29.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id PAA06059 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970909153351_1489782072@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Forcing and "To Play" Passes Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An argument has sprung up among some top players in San Diego, some of whom play that a pass over the redouble of partner's takeout or negative double is "to play." Others have the more usual understanding that such a pass is not "to play," making it a convention per '97 Laws (indicating "other than willingness to play in the last denomination named"). The argument concerns which usage must be Alerted. A TD at the Queen Mary regional ruled that an opponent's "to play" pass over my redouble of a takeout double is Alertable, which seemed pretty obvious to me. Several top players here disagree, saying that the "to play" meaning of the pass is the "natural" meaning and should not have to be Alerted. Looking for guidance on this matter in the ACBL Alert Procedure in order to show them that they are wrong, I see nothing that covers this pass. In fact, it could be said that the conventional pass is illegal, since it is not one of the conventions listed as permissible on the ACBL Convention Chart. However, it might be argued that this pass is a defense against a convention (the takeout double) and is therefore permissible. That aside, I would say that the authority for Alerting the "to play" pass comes from the general statement in the ACBL Alert Procedure that a special partnership understanding about a call must be disclosed (in this case, by an Alert) "unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning." I propose these general rules for what is "standard": If a double is for takeout, a pass over a redouble is not "to play." If a double is not for takeout, either for penalty or "optional," a pass is "to play" (although perhaps not enthusiastically so). Those who play these situations differently must Alert a pass that differs from the standard meaning. Any comments? Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 10 13:21:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:21:10 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA00521 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:21:01 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA27382; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:04:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.74) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027358; Tue Sep 9 09:04:40 1997 Received: by har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCBCFE.EDF67B80@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:01:15 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCBCFE.EDF67B80@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com> From: rts48u To: Bridge Laws , "'David Burn'" Subject: RE: Dummy's right to call the TD Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:01:13 -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 Burn[SMTP:Dburn@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 1997 8:05 PM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call the TD (snip) my customary instruction to dummy is to go and buy the drinks while I get on with playing the hand. In almost all cases where I am dummy, I do not bother = to wait for partner's instruction. Isn't it just such unnecessary leaving the table that opens the = possibilty of a Meckwell-like violation? What if partner should have an = immediate pressing need to answer a call of nature and the drink line = were near the facilities? Surely you can't be thirsty to such an = enormous extent that one of you must rush to buy drinks on acerage every = other hand. I know you probably meant the comment in jest, and would = never have any ill intent even if you really toojk such action...but it = is courteous to your opponents and the others in the field not to be = needlessly flitting about the room during play. In a duplicate, there = have been players of quality often suspected and sometimes convicted of = glancing at other hands along the way...and what if the drinks table = were in close proximity to the other half of your teamns match...would = you really want to give the appearance of passing near that table for = reasons other than thirst? Dummy has a function, as well as rights and limitations, and there is = surely no compelling reason most hands to be leaving the table. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 10 13:56:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:56:05 +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 NAA00838 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:55:58 +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 JAA25935; Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709091358.JAA00526@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: hermandw@innet.be CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <34152D01.A2992567@innet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Tue, 09 Sep 1997 13:03:29 +0200) Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > David Burn wrote: >> >> [JD] >> >> >The VP scale in use has the property that the difference between >> >9 and 10 VPs is only 1-2 IMPs and that the difference between 9 >> >and 11 VPs is only 2-4 IMPs. I would choose a penalty of 2 VPs. >> >> Fierce! Most people with whom I have discussed the matter felt that 1 VP >> was already pretty severe, and that we should have penalised only 0.5 VP or >> not at all. >> > Which is exacty why I always try to give PP's in IMPs, not in VP. > 3 IMPs is always the same thing, but VP's differ from one tournament to > another. > I do realize that sometimes it is better to give penalties in VP, but I > would then give a VP penalty equivalent to a 3 IMP one. That would normally be 1 VP on the usual 20-VP scale for 8-board matches). A swing of 3 IMPS is usually one VP; it can be two in a close match, or none in a blitz or certain near-bliztes with 4-IMP ranges. It seems fairer to give the penalty in VP (except when awarding average-minus on an unplayable board, when the penalty is specific to the board), because the value of a VP penalty is the same at any time in a tournament, while the value of an IMP penalty is dependent on the match score. -- 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 Sep 10 14:28:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:28:31 +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 OAA00966 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:28:05 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:25:44 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 08:25:20 +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 Stephen Barnfield wrote: >IMO W (dummy) had the right to call the TD (Law42B2 (attempt to prevent >irregularity)). I think all that happened after this was what would have >happened had the TD been called at the correct time. It is true that NS would >have had a clear explanation of their rights and obligations (i.e. lead >penalty). But I do not think the play or defence would have proceeded >differently in that case. Thus I would leave the score at EW+600 for both sides. Sorry, I'm not understanding this conception. I agree that dummy had the right to call TD or could say to declarer "You must call TD" (this is more correct, IMO), of course, but he didn't it! He was not prevented the irregularity but he wanted to correct the irregularity. Laws doesn't allows him to do this and I think that I can bravely apply Law11A (forfeiture of the right to penalise) and to stand all play including Ah from 11th trick. More that, this law is my absolute right at similar cases. I agree that if TD was called after revoke immediately the result -600 would have big probability and you can say me that my decision isn't fair but when we are leaving -600 we are encouraging Law's application by players, IMO. I don't like it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 10 18:03:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA01644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:03:38 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA01639 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:03:30 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA25520; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma025367; Wed, 10 Sep 97 01:31:15 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA04371 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709100822.BAA04371@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 10 Sep 97 08:57:22 GMT Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gerasimov @ sapr.gaz.ru wrote: >Stephen Barnfield wrote: >>IMO W (dummy) had the right to call the TD (Law42B2 (attempt to prevent >>irregularity)). I think all that happened after this was what would have >>happened had the TD been called at the correct time. It is true that NS >would >>have had a clear explanation of their rights and obligations (i.e. lead >>penalty). But I do not think the play or defence would have proceeded >>differently in that case. Thus I would leave the score at EW+600 for both >>sides. >Sorry, I'm not understanding this conception. I agree that dummy had the >right to call TD or could say to declarer "You must call TD" (this is more >correct, IMO), of course, but he didn't it! He was not prevented the >irregularity but he wanted to correct the irregularity. Laws doesn't allows >him to do this and I think that I can bravely apply Law11A (forfeiture of the >right to penalise) and to stand all play including Ah from 11th trick. More >that, this law is my absolute right at similar cases. I agree that if TD was >called after revoke immediately the result -600 would have big probability >and you can say me that my decision isn't fair but when we are leaving -600 >we are encouraging Law's application by players, IMO. I don't like it. The point I was seeking to make was that if the TD had been called (as he should have been) then he would have ruled very similarly to W. Certainly the TD could have applied Law 11A as you suggest. But the word is "may", not "must". I think that in England we tend to apply Law11A only in the circumstances specified in the second sentence "The [TD] so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty". That sentence does not seem to apply here, so I would support a TD/AC who ruled that Law11A did not apply. Of course different SOs have different preferences as to the style of ruling given by TDs, and rightly so, since SOs are best able to judge the needs and wishes of their members. On this occasion the English Bridge Union (EBU) was the SO, and it would, I suspect, support the approach of the TD/AC in not applying Law11A. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 10 22:19:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:19:51 +1000 Received: from gatekeeper.agro.nl (gatekeeper.agro.nl [145.12.10.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02240 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:19:44 +1000 Received: by gatekeeper.agro.nl id AA26260; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:19:38 +0200 Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.0-7 #12026) id <01INHB8IUVR4002I47@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:19:32 +0000 (MED) Received: with PMDF-MR; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:19:25 +0000 (MED) Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:19:25 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: Edgar's death To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-Id: <8225191410091997/A27258/EXPERT/11B953931500*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential Ua-Content-Id: 11B953931500 X400-Mts-Identifier: [;8225191410091997/A27258/EXPERT] Hop-Count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edgar died, and yes that is a shock. Though I knew his condition was worsening he also 'promised' me to be in Hammamet, Tunisia in October. Which underlines some of his many qualities: optimisme and his eagerness to live. He was a remarkable man and I feel grateful I knew him and he knew me. The first time I saw him was in Valkenburg, Olympiad 1980 where among many other things he did the vugraph and showed how to entertain the audience (Jean Besse being a great help). There was daily a full page of his previous day statements in the daily bulletin. I am going to read those again tonight. Last year, the last time I met Edgar, we discussed laws many times and very intensively in Rhodes, where he invited me in his room to discuss our last proposals for the new laws. With classical piano music he had brought from New York in the background and with beer and salami he specially had bought for me, but in the first place with his presence, we had some marvellous hours in which we decided how to present the final proposals for the new laws in the WBF Laws Committee meetings to be held. He also told me then that it was a miracle he could be in Rhodes and I desperately hoped for many more miracles to come. That was asking too much, but Edgar Kaplan as a miracle himself will live on. I admired him and feel miserable having lost him. Ton Kooijman From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 00:22:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:22:07 +1000 Received: from tycho.global.net.uk (tycho.global.net.uk [194.126.82.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04893 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:22:00 +1000 Received: from default (client8504.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.4]) by tycho.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA03441; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:20:38 +0100 Message-Id: <199709101420.PAA03441@tycho.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: additional order for the german bridge fed. Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 15:30:22 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : > From: Tim West-meads > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > Subject: Re: additional order for the german bridge fed. > Date: 07 September 1997 00:00 > > In-Reply-To: > I would suggest that a small addition to the conditions of contest could > deal practically with the matter of who proceeds, \\\\snipped//// > Seems to cover all eventualities, without being any more unfair than anything else \/ \/ \/ Essential to the vision of fairness is pre-announcement of how such circumstances will be handled. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 02:00:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 02:00:59 +1000 Received: from pimaia2w.prodigy.com (pimaia2w.prodigy.com [198.83.19.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05797 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 02:00:33 +1000 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia2w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA154220; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:00:17 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id MAA31978; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:00:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199709101600.MAA31978@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 12:00:16, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Mlfrench@aol.com Subject: Forcing and "To Play" Passes Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The argument concerns which usage must be Alerted. A TD at the Queen Mary regional ruled that an opponent's "to play" pass over my redouble of a takeout double is Alertable, which seemed pretty obvious to me. Several top players here disagree, saying that the "to play" meaning of the pass is the "natural" meaning and should not have to be Alerted. =========== I have sent this question in to ACBL HQ with the further clarification of asking what is the default meaning of XX with no alert. Meaning, is XX an SOS XX or a I want to play this XX. I looked at the newest alert chart and alert procedure and it does not address XX's at all. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 03:00:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 03:00:34 +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 DAA05971 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 03:00:24 +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 NAA14336; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709101700.NAA07472@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: Mlfrench@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <970909153351_1489782072@emout12.mail.aol.com> (Mlfrench@aol.com) Subject: Re: Forcing and "To Play" Passes Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > An argument has sprung up among some top players in San Diego, some of whom > play that a pass over the redouble of partner's takeout or negative double is > "to play." Others have the more usual understanding that such a pass is not > "to play," making it a convention per '97 Laws (indicating "other than > willingness to play in the last denomination named"). This is one of those fuzzy areas. The standard meaning of 1x-X-XX-P (according to books, for example) is that partner should pick to a place to run; however, 1x-P-P-X-XX-P and 3x-X-XX-P are usually still for penalty. (The recommendation I have seen is that a pass over a redouble is to play except at the one-level under the bidder.) > Looking for guidance on this matter in the ACBL Alert Procedure in order to > show them that they are wrong, I see nothing that covers this pass. In fact, > it could be said that the conventional pass is illegal, since it is not one > of the conventions listed as permissible on the ACBL Convention Chart. > However, it might be argued that this pass is a defense against a convention > (the takeout double) and is therefore permissible. Since the pass is made by the side which used the covention, it isn't a defense. It is apparently allowed by the following line in the GCC: 2. CONVENTIONAL DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES and responses (including free bids) thereto. > That aside, I would say > that the authority for Alerting the "to play" pass comes from the general > statement in the ACBL Alert Procedure that a special partnership > understanding about a call must be disclosed (in this case, by an Alert) > "unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its > meaning." This is the correct basis. Players who have read introductory bridge books may not know that it is a common expert practive to play pass here as "to play", and fewer still will know that some experts play pass as "to play" only over minor-suit openings. > I propose these general rules for what is "standard": If a double is for > takeout, a pass over a redouble is not "to play." If a double is not for > takeout, either for penalty or "optional," a pass is "to play" (although > perhaps not enthusiastically so). Those who play these situations differently > must Alert a pass that differs from the standard meaning. The problem with this occurs in non-standard sequences. Following the book rule would minimize Alerts but would lead to confusion; following the strict rule above would require routine Alerts, but only on very rare auctions. I think the book rule is best because many players haven't discussed this situation (how often does a preempt get redoubled?) and the lack of an Alert will give the information most likely to be guessed. So I would write the rule as: "Pass over a redouble, expressing desire to play in the redoubled contract, is alertable if the contract is at the one-level and was followed immediately by a non-penalty double and a natural redouble with no intervening passes. Any other pass of a redoubled contract is alertable if it does not express a desire to play in the contract." The "natural" is included to cover cases such as 1C(Precision)-X(whatever)-XX(both majors)-P; "non-penalty" is needed in case the double was a penalty double of an overcall. -- 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 Sep 11 04:52:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:52:01 +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 EAA06450 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:51:55 +1000 From: lobo@ac.net Received: from ptp152.ac.net (ptp152.ac.net [205.138.55.61]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA04658 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3416D503.65A5@ac.net> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:12:35 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: NABC Case Books are back Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am happy to inform everyone that Rich Colker will be again producing the ACBL NABC Appeals Case Books We are hoping to have the San Francisco book completed for distribution at the St. Louis Nationals and the Dallas and Albuquerque books ready for the Spring Nationals in Reno. We then hope to be back on schedule and produce a book just before each NABC, but this time they will be on a one Nationals delay (ie - St. Louis will come out before the summer NABC in Chicago)... it ends up that we can literally pick up six additional months of working time by producing them on this delayed schedule. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 05:15:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 05:15:56 +1000 Received: from fallback.mail.pipex.net (duct.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06504 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 05:15:50 +1000 Received: (qmail 23021 invoked from network); 10 Sep 1997 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from q.icl.co.uk (145.227.248.23) by relay1.pipex.net with SMTP; 10 Sep 1997 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk (mailhost.et.icl.co.uk) by Q.icl.co.uk (4.1/icl-2.12-server) id AA01225; Wed, 10 Sep 97 20:11:36 BST Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id UAA15673; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:08:54 +0100 X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Wed, 10 Sep 97 20:01:35 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=iclexpo/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Wed, 10 Sep 97 19:59:32 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Wed, 10 Sep 97 19:59:06 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Wed, 10 Sep 97 21:00:00 +0200 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 97 21:00:00 +0200 X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G30021D5490D00000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <14883.1492486681@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Importance: normal Subject: Something wrong - but what ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm presenting the following hand on demand of NS pair. Brd 10 KQ1042 W N E S Vul All J106 --- --- --- --- Dlr E 82 1C x Patton Teams 985 xx 1S p p 7 985 x p 2C all pass A742 N Q5 Q643 W E KW105 8 tricks, 90 EW QJ62 S AK73 AJ63 K983 A97 104 TD (me) was called by SOUTH after completion of the hand. NS - good, expert pair - claimed, that auction was strange. There was no hesitations. WEST's redouble and double as well was not alerted, preventing NS from further bidding. NS could win even 4S: two rounds of clubs and then switch to diamonds was not so obvious! EW - week pair from small town, but playing bridge for many years and never suspicious - said that there were nothing to alert: redouble meant 9+HCP and double was at least proposition of penalty, normal agreements in Poland. Theese was in accordance with EW's convention card. Further explanations: WEST: Redouble - I have 9 points. Double - I don't want to let them play 1S but I don't know what to do. EAST: 2C as I'm very weak. TD: the result stand. Jury: agreed with TD. Your opinion, please ! Jan Romanski Warszawa, Poland j.romanski@x400.icl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 06:30:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 06:30:43 +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 GAA06680 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 06:30:35 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-29.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.208.29]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA08063; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3417011D.8E864C62@idt.net> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:20:45 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Romanski CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <14883.1492486681@x400.icl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm not knowledgeable about what the laws in this situation, but one thing that is 'wrong' is north's reticence. Having bid only 1s, which is reasonable, he has quite a lot in reserve and probably should have redoubled to get partner tuned in. Barring that, he certainly should have competed to 2S. If this pair plays the sort of takeout doubles that might not include spade support, then they have fallen victim to their own conventions. Having said that, I have a real problem with a redoubler who makes an obvious (to me anyway) takeout double without an accompanying alert. I surely would play west for any spade length, were I to play a hand after this sort of auction. I say, a pox on both their houses. Irv Jan Romanski wrote: > I'm presenting the following hand on demand of NS pair. > > Brd 10 KQ1042 W N E S > Vul All J106 --- --- --- --- > Dlr E 82 1C x > Patton Teams 985 xx 1S p p > 7 985 x p 2C all pass > A742 N Q5 > Q643 W E KW105 8 tricks, 90 EW > QJ62 S AK73 > > AJ63 > K983 > A97 > 104 > > TD (me) was called by SOUTH after completion of the hand. > NS - good, expert pair - claimed, that auction was strange. > There was no hesitations. WEST's redouble and double as well was not > alerted, > preventing NS from further bidding. NS could win even 4S: two rounds > of clubs and > then switch to diamonds was not so obvious! > EW - week pair from small town, but playing bridge for many years and > never > suspicious - said that there were nothing to alert: redouble meant > 9+HCP and > double was at least proposition of penalty, normal agreements in > Poland. Theese > was in accordance with EW's convention card. Further explanations: > WEST: Redouble - I have 9 points. Double - I don't want to let them > play 1S but I > don't know what to do. > EAST: 2C as I'm very weak. > > TD: the result stand. > Jury: agreed with TD. > > Your opinion, please ! > > Jan Romanski > Warszawa, Poland > j.romanski@x400.icl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 07:07:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:07:40 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06800 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:07:33 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA28861 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04380; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:07:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:07:32 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709102107.RAA04380@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call the TD X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > so we looked at the 1987 version of 43A1(a) > very hard. We concluded that, in the case in question, dummy did not have > any right to make any suggestion along the lines of: "Partner, I think we > should call the TD." This certainly seemed to us to be "initiating" a call > for the TD, and in the 1987 code, L43 is *clearly* subordinate to L42B > because L42B says that it is! While this reading seems consistent with the literal wording, I don't believe it is what is meant. Once an irregularity has indubitably been noticed, how wrong can it be for dummy to say "The proper procedure after an irregularity is to summon the TD?" At least this has to be better than trying to make a ruling! Would dummy's having said the above ever make a difference to your ruling as TD? I'm pleased we won't have this problem once the 1997 Laws are in effect. (The message about dummy's going for drinks was hilarious. Thanks.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 13:56:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:56:40 +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 NAA07816 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:56:31 +1000 Received: from goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.62]) by null.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA04712; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:55:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709110355.XAA13585@goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bigfoot@idt.net CC: jan_f_romanski@x400.icl.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3417011D.8E864C62@idt.net> (message from Irwin J Kostal on Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:20:45 -0700) Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > I'm not knowledgeable about what the laws in this situation, but one > thing that is 'wrong' is north's reticence. Having bid only 1s, which > is reasonable, he has quite a lot in reserve and probably should have > redoubled to get partner tuned in. I'm not sure whether he could do this; it's possible to agree that all redoubles are SOS after the opponents have redoubled. > Barring that, he certainly should > have competed to 2S. I agree with this; at this level of play, he should know that can compete safely. There was a failure to alert (West's double is penalty if not alerted, and North has no reason to believe otherwise), but it doesn't seem to have caused the damage. > > Brd 10 KQ1042 W N E S > Vul All J106 --- --- --- --- > Dlr E 82 1C x > Patton Teams 985 xx 1S p p > 7 985 x p 2C all pass > A742 N Q5 > Q643 W E KW105 8 tricks, 90 EW > QJ62 S AK73 > > AJ63 > K983 > A97 > 104 -- 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 Sep 11 14:07:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:07:31 +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 OAA07846 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:06:05 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:03:31 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:05:34 +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 ---- From: Jan Romanski To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Something wrong - but what ? >I'm presenting the following hand on demand of NS pair. > >Brd 10 KQ1042 W N E S >Vul All J106 --- --- --- --- >Dlr E 82 1C x >Patton Teams 985 xx 1S p p > 7 985 x p 2C all pass > A742 N Q5 > Q643 W E KW105 8 tricks, 90 EW > QJ62 S AK73 > > AJ63 > K983 > A97 > 104 > >TD (me) was called by SOUTH after completion of the hand. >NS - good, expert pair - claimed, that auction was strange. >There was no hesitations. WEST's redouble and double as well was not alerted, >preventing NS from further bidding. NS could win even 4S: two rounds of clubs and >then switch to diamonds was not so obvious! >EW - week pair from small town, but playing bridge for many years and never >suspicious - said that there were nothing to alert: redouble meant 9+HCP and >double was at least proposition of penalty, normal agreements in Poland. Theese _________________________________ ____^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_______ There is NO IRREGULARITY in this board if this is a correct fact confirmed by the TD and AC (patton played in Poland, I wright?). No irregularity - no penalty, of course, and AC cann't return money to NS, IMO. But I have some doubts about correct explains of Poland normal agreements (pairs in Russia playing penalty double at any rate). No alert after double is irregularity in this case and this irregularity caused the hurt to NS (S didn't sayed 2s). But S pass after 1s maked 4s not possible and I would adjust +170 (2s +2). >was in accordance with EW's convention card. Further explanations: >WEST: Redouble - I have 9 points. Double - I don't want to let them play 1S but I >don't know what to do. >EAST: 2C as I'm very weak. > >TD: the result stand. >Jury: agreed with TD. > >Your opinion, please ! > >Jan Romanski >Warszawa, Poland >j.romanski@x400.icl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 14:39:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:39:24 +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 OAA07913 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:39:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0613994; 11 Sep 97 3:48 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 03:36:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call the TD In-Reply-To: <01BCBCFE.EDF67B80@har-pa2-10.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk rts48u wrote >instruction to dummy is to go and buy the drinks while I get on with >playing the hand. In almost all cases where I am dummy, I do not bother to >wait for partner's instruction. >Isn't it just such unnecessary leaving the table that opens the possibilty of a >Meckwell-like violation? What if partner should have an immediate pressing need >to answer a call of nature and the drink line were near the facilities? Surely >you can't be thirsty to such an enormous extent that one of you must rush to buy >drinks on acerage every other hand. I know you probably meant the comment in >jest, and would never have any ill intent even if you really toojk such >action...but it is courteous to your opponents and the others in the field not >to be needlessly flitting about the room during play. In a duplicate, there have >been players of quality often suspected and sometimes convicted of glancing at >other hands along the way...and what if the drinks table were in close proximity >to the other half of your teamns match...would you really want to give the >appearance of passing near that table for reasons other than thirst? >Dummy has a function, as well as rights and limitations, and there is surely no >compelling reason most hands to be leaving the table. I find this post nauseating. Fortunately bridge has not come to this position in Britain, and I pray it never will. -- 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 Sep 11 18:15:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:15:27 +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 SAA08382 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:15:20 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA06577 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:14:12 +0200 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:14:12 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: lobo@ac.net Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: NABC Case Books are back In-Reply-To: <3416D503.65A5@ac.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 lobo@ac.net wrote: > I am happy to inform everyone that Rich Colker will be again producing > the ACBL NABC Appeals Case Books Great! > We then hope to be back on schedule and produce a book just before each > NABC, but this time they will be on a one Nationals delay (ie - St. > Louis will come out before the summer NABC in Chicago)... it ends up > that we can literally pick up six additional months of working time by > producing them on this delayed schedule. I've made this suggestion to John when he was still editing them: I guess that lots of directors and committee members want to have every book in the series. Would it be possible to organize some sort of subscription service to the series where people on the list get sent every book when it appears? Either with a bill for book plus shipping, or having paided for N books in advance. This way, you get them all without having to check lists and announcements. Something else: if there are appeals involving screens, can you put a line across the diagram to indicate the screen? This makes a sentence like "north told his screenmate" immediately obvious. Right now, one has to think if N-E or N-W are on 1 side of the screen. 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 Sep 11 20:02:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:02:53 +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 UAA08668 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:02:36 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-45.innet.be [194.7.10.45]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04154 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:02:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3416BABB.5EE6F4C8@innet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:20:27 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have recently psyched in the following manner : holding xxx 87 KJxx xxxx, in third seat, non vul vs vul, I open 1 heart. Fourth seat doubles (what a surprise), partner raises to three hearts and opponents bid on to four spades. The psych worked, because opponents have nine tricks both at spades or no trump. I do not think anyone will object to this psych. Certainly opponents didn't. When telling the story later on, I told the audience that I had never had a really bad score with a psyche of this kind. In fact, I realized that it is a psych that I often do. I now realize that I have a habit : when holding 0-3(4) points in third position, I will often open my shorter major. If I have experienced this as a habit, then so could my partner, and this has to be communicated to the opponents. So when compiling my convention card for next season, I decided to add in the space 'psychic openings' (international model) the following phrase : 'When holding 0-3 HCP in third pos, non-vul vs vul, HDW may well open his shorter major'. This morning, we checked the convention cards for all national teams and the colleague who had mine stumbled on this mention and put it to the others. They were unanimous in deciding that this was not allowed. According to them, putting it on the convention card was synonimous with making it part of the system, which would then become a HUM (not allowed at my level). What do you think ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http:\\www.club.innet.be\~pub02163\index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 20:02:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:02:54 +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 UAA08669 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:02:40 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-45.innet.be [194.7.10.45]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04143 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:02:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3416B700.FB449763@innet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:04:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Standard penalties (war: Dummy has a go!) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Which is exacty why I always try to give PP's in IMPs, not in VP. > > > > 3 IMPs is always the same thing, but VP's differ from one tournament to > > another. > > A 3 imp penalty can make no difference on the final result (if a team > is winning or losing with a large margin) or (with the ACBL 30 VP scale) > turn a 19-11 win into a 12-18 loss, a difference of 7 VP's. A VP > OTOH is a VP and the effect on the overall results is the same for > every contestant in this event. > > Giving 3 imp penalties is, IMHO, a bit like giving a 10 matchpoint > penalty. With a 12 top, it's a lot, with a 250 top, it's nothing. > > Henk > > No it's not - exactly the opposite in fact. In a team competition over 10 matches of 32 boards, a 1VP fine can often decide a place. In a swiss teams of 320 boards (hardly ever heard of), this is probably a minor occurence. That is why in the second case one has to give stronger VP penalties than in the first one, for similar offences. The only way this can be done is to express the standard fine in IMPs, and then to translate this to VP. I do not object to then giving the actual penalty in VP, but one should always have the VP table in mind when deciding on the height of the penalty. The opposite is true in pairs play. Here the standard fine is expressed in percentages, because these do not vary from tournament to tournament. So the standard fines are expressed in percentage (10%) whereas the actual fine might well be expressed in matchpoints (even if that is hardly ever done). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http:\\www.club.innet.be\~pub02163\index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 21:51:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:51:25 +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 VAA08866 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:51:17 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA16855 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:50:26 +0200 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:50:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Standard penalties (war: Dummy has a go!) In-Reply-To: <3416B700.FB449763@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Which is exacty why I always try to give PP's in IMPs, not in VP. > > > 3 IMPs is always the same thing, but VP's differ from one tournament to > > > another. > > A 3 imp penalty can make no difference on the final result (if a team > > is winning or losing with a large margin) or (with the ACBL 30 VP scale) > > turn a 19-11 win into a 12-18 loss, a difference of 7 VP's. A VP > > OTOH is a VP and the effect on the overall results is the same for > > every contestant in this event. > > Giving 3 imp penalties is, IMHO, a bit like giving a 10 matchpoint > > penalty. With a 12 top, it's a lot, with a 250 top, it's nothing. > > No it's not - exactly the opposite in fact. > > In a team competition over 10 matches of 32 boards, a 1VP fine can often > decide a place. > In a swiss teams of 320 boards (hardly ever heard of), this is probably > a minor occurence. > That is why in the second case one has to give stronger VP penalties > than in the first one, for similar offences. > The only way this can be done is to express the standard fine in IMPs, > and then to translate this to VP. No, what matters are the number of VP's that you score IN THIS EVENT with respect to the other contestants. It doesn't matter how many VP's you score with respect to the teams in another event somewhere else on this planet. If you now give IMP penalties, then this will translate in different amounts of VP's. A team that is blizting (or being blitzed), doesn't really care but for a team in a close match it makes a significant difference. In other words, for the same offense, a team is penalized a different number of VP's. VP penalties don't have this problem: a 1 VP penalty is a 1 VP penalty. You are right that 1 VP is worth more in a 8 round Swiss (8x25=200 VP maximum, so 0.5%) than in the hypothetical 80 round Swiss (0.05%). If you worry about this, then you should put in the conditions of contest that the standard procedural penalty is 1 VP in the first case and 10 VP's in the second. (Just as you'd probably reconsider the 1 vp if the event was played using chess scoring: 1 VP for a win, 0.5 for a tie). > The opposite is true in pairs play. Here the standard fine is expressed > in percentages, because these do not vary from tournament to tournament. > So the standard fines are expressed in percentage (10%) whereas the > actual fine might well be expressed in matchpoints (even if that is > hardly ever done). Actually, they do. If I play a 25 board club game, a penalty of 1 top on a board means that I can only score 24 tops and thus only 96% on the evening, compared to the 100% for the other pairs. If I get the same penalty in a 6 session event, I can score 596% compared to the 600% of the other contestants, or 99.3 vs 100%. The impact of the penalty in the first case on my ultimate goal (score more than the other pairs) is then much larger than the second case. 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 Sep 11 22:06:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:06:39 +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 WAA08966 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:06:29 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA17507 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:05:22 +0200 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:05:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <3416BABB.5EE6F4C8@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > If I have experienced this as a habit, then so could my partner, and > this has to be communicated to the opponents. > So when compiling my convention card for next season, I decided to add > in the space 'psychic openings' (international model) the following > phrase : 'When holding 0-3 HCP in third pos, non-vul vs vul, HDW may > well open his shorter major'. > > This morning, we checked the convention cards for all national teams and > the colleague who had mine stumbled on this mention and put it to the > others. They were unanimous in deciding that this was not allowed. > According to them, putting it on the convention card was synonimous with > making it part of the system, which would then become a HUM (not allowed > at my level). > > What do you think ? I disagree. You are asked to describe _when_ you might _consider_ to psyche, which is what you did, you didn't say that you _will_ psyche whenever you hold this hand. Your system doesn't require to open these hands, it is something that you decide on a case by case basis. 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 Sep 11 22:33:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:33:59 +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 WAA09074 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:33:44 +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 MAA13901 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:33:07 GMT Message-Id: <199709111233.MAA13901@cadillac.meteo.fr> Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA11140; Thu, 11 Sep 97 12:33:06 GMT Date: Thu, 11 Sep 97 12:33:06 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: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:20 10/09/97 +0200, you wrote: >I have recently psyched in the following manner : > >holding xxx 87 KJxx xxxx, in third seat, non vul vs vul, I open 1 heart. > >Fourth seat doubles (what a surprise), partner raises to three hearts >and opponents bid on to four spades. > >The psych worked, because opponents have nine tricks both at spades or >no trump. > >I do not think anyone will object to this psych. Certainly opponents >didn't. > >When telling the story later on, I told the audience that I had never >had a really bad score with a psyche of this kind. In fact, I realized >that it is a psych that I often do. >I now realize that I have a habit : when holding 0-3(4) points in third >position, I will often open my shorter major. > >If I have experienced this as a habit, then so could my partner, and >this has to be communicated to the opponents. >So when compiling my convention card for next season, I decided to add >in the space 'psychic openings' (international model) the following >phrase : 'When holding 0-3 HCP in third pos, non-vul vs vul, HDW may >well open his shorter major'. > >This morning, we checked the convention cards for all national teams and >the colleague who had mine stumbled on this mention and put it to the >others. They were unanimous in deciding that this was not allowed. >According to them, putting it on the convention card was synonimous with >making it part of the system, which would then become a HUM (not allowed >at my level). > >What do you think ? > We need to know more about the rules of contest in Belgium, before thinking anything, but, should they be the same as in France, I think: a) your colleagues are right b) these rules are stupid. JP Rocafort >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium ________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 11 22:50:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:50:54 +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 WAA09119 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:50:48 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA09556 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:50:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 08:50:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Standard penalties (war: Dummy has a go!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Surely penalties should be expressed as a fraction of the total units one can obtain in a session. Matchpoints in a matchpoint pairs game, VPs in a team game. In a team game with win-loss scoring (Knockouts, for instance) or IMP pairs you would have to revert to IMP penalties, which is less desirable. Perhaps penalties there should be assessed as a percentage of actual score. The idea that a 1VP penalty is unduly harsh because it might affect one's placing is ludicrous. What's the point of a penalty if it can not affect one's result? -- Richard Lighton | People must not do things for fun. We are not here for (lighton@idt.net) | fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. Wood-Ridge NJ | A. P. Herbert USA | --Uncommon Law From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 11 23:16:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 23:16:36 +1000 Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09174 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 23:16:30 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id JAA08344 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970911091539_314228365@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: NABC Case Books are back Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-09-11 04:17:58 EDT, you write: > Something else: if there are appeals involving screens, can you put > a line across the diagram to indicate the screen? This makes a > sentence like "north told his screenmate" immediately obvious. > Right now, one has to think if N-E or N-W are on 1 side of the > screen. A great idea, Henk. I'll bet Linda can make it happen... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 01:31:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 01:31:51 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12121 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 01:31:38 +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 LAA08194 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04745; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:31:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:31:40 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709111531.LAA04745@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [1C-x-xx-1S; p-p-x-p- holding 985 Q5 KJT5 AK73] Based on the hand records, isn't it likely that East had UI about West's double? How else can one explain East's 2C bid with three trumps when partner has made a penalty-oriented double? Of course this evidence vanishes if the 2C bid is normal for the competition in question, but around here the 2C bid would be considered bizarre. Of course one would want to question the players closely before making a decision, but this is an aspect of the case that ought to be considered. Even if NS perceived no break in tempo or facial expression or whatever, the hands alone may provide sufficient evidence to rule UI. If the 2C bid is deemed to be based on UI, the obvious adjustment is to 1Sx making some overtricks, at least for EW. One might conceivably rule that the NS bidding is an egregious error and let them keep their score, but I think that is too harsh if we deem UI. The other issue is MI, which others have already addressed. The only thing to add is that East's action provides some evidence that the explanation of double ("at least proposition of penalty") was not correct. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 02:12:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:12:04 +1000 Received: from mail.thebest.net (thebest.net [207.124.26.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12730 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:11:55 +1000 Received: from 207.124.26.106 ([207.124.26.106]) by thebest.net (Eureka! Gold(tm) v2.4 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Sep11.121318.G1000.245553; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:13:21 -0400 Message-ID: <3417FFED.7A0E@thebest.net> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:27:57 -0400 From: ann parker Reply-To: annparker@thebest.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0-C-AICK1-2 (Macintosh; U; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: How would you rule? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailServer: Eureka! Gold Internet Server (v2.4) for Windows NT Organization: TheBest.Net, St. Simons Island, GA 31522, USA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although I am just a mediocre club level bridge player, I enjoy reading your posts to each other. I would appreciate you all telling me how you would have ruled in the following instance: Using bidding boxes, I pulled out what I thought was the two of hearts. It wasn't until the bidding got back to me that I noticed that I had opened with TWO DIAMONDS. I had a singleton diamond. My partner, who had seven diamonds, raised me to three diamonds. The opponents finally got to 6 spades, and I was on lead. I knew that, as defender, I could not mention my mistake until the hand had been played, so I kept quiet about it and led my singleton diamond. My partner took it with the Ace. Declarer took the next trick and led to dummy's King doubleton. Of course I trumped it, thus setting the slam. Declarer couldn't believe it! The director was called, and he looked at my hand and had us continue playing. At the end, the score was down one, and the director let it stand. He said, "Everyone makes mistakes. She meant to pull the heart card, but pulled the diamond card instead. She discovered her mistake too late, and thus had to wait until the end of the hand to mention it. The score remains down one." Was this a fair ruling? Of course I loved it, but our opponents were quite upset! They felt that some adjustment should have been made. What do you think? Ann Parker From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 02:17:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:17:22 +1000 Received: from mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com [149.174.64.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12779 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:17:16 +1000 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aagw1.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.56]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13638.; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:28:58 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA4959; Thu, 11 Sep 97 12:16:41 -0400 Message-Id: <9709111616.AA4959@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC125650F0048918D; Thu, 11 Sep 97 12:16:40 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 11 Sep 97 15:24:47 Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I now realize that I have a habit : when holding 0-3(4) points in third position, I will often open my shorter major. (...) So when compiling my convention card for next season, I decided to add in the space 'psychic openings' (international model) the following phrase : 'When holding 0-3 HCP in third pos, non-vul vs vul, HDW may well open his shorter major'. This morning, we checked the convention cards for all national teams and the colleague who had mine stumbled on this mention and put it to the others. They were unanimous in deciding that this was not allowed. << A psych is a serious deviation from the requirements in hcp's or distribution, which is not predictable for opponents or partner. If you agree on this kind of openings, it won't come as a surpise at all. If you open these hands regulary, it is no longer a psyche, but a convention. If you open this garbage, your partner will not be surprised at all (and he might even refrain from shouting after a bad score due to this convention). Even more, he will be alarmed and cautious about his responses. Therefore I think that your colleagues have a good point. >> According to them, putting it on the convention card was synonimous with making it part of the system, which would then become a HUM (not allowed at my level). << Putting it on the convention card is not the reason for prohibiting you to play this convention. If you would not write it down, it would be an undisclosed partnership agreement.... Just my 2c worth. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 03:41:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 03:41:18 +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 DAA13182 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 03:41:08 +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 NAA26371; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709111740.NAA12253@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: annparker@thebest.net CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3417FFED.7A0E@thebest.net> (message from ann parker on Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:27:57 -0400) Subject: Re: How would you rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Although I am just a mediocre club level bridge player, I enjoy reading > your posts to each other. I would appreciate you all telling me how you > would have ruled in the following instance: > Using bidding boxes, I pulled out what I thought was the two of hearts. > It wasn't until the bidding got back to me that I noticed that I had > opened with TWO DIAMONDS. I had a singleton diamond. My partner, who > had seven diamonds, raised me to three diamonds. This could be a problem; it suggests that partner was aware from your behavior that something was wrong. With seven diamonds in the suit in which you preempted, your partner should probabably have bid at least five diamonds and might have sacrificed. If there is no allegation that partner had unauthorized information, then your actions were correct, and you just got lucky after a misbid. > The opponents finally > got to 6 spades, and I was on lead. I knew that, as defender, I could > not mention my mistake until the hand had been played, so I kept quiet > about it and led my singleton diamond. You shouldn't notify the opponents of your error even if you are declarer in a situation like this one. Your obligation as declarer is to correct wrong explanations of your agreements; here, your agreement was explained correctly (2D is a weak two-bid in diamonds) and you misbid. > At the end, the score was down one, and the > director let it stand. He said, "Everyone makes mistakes. She meant to > pull the heart card, but pulled the diamond card instead. She > discovered her mistake too late, and thus had to wait until the end of > the hand to mention it. The score remains down one." This is the correct ruling. The opponents can only get an adjustment if there has been an infraction which damaged them, and you didn't commit one. -- 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 Sep 12 04:10:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:10:03 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA13252 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:09:57 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn95.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:05:53 +0200 Message-ID: <34183543.372@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:15:31 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" CC: lobo@ac.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: NABC Case Books are back References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi everybody! >> I am happy to inform everyone that Rich Colker will be again >> producing the ACBL NABC Appeals Case Books > > Great! Yes indeed!!! > > > We then hope to be back on schedule and produce a book just before each > > NABC, but this time they will be on a one Nationals delay (ie - St. > > Louis will come out before the summer NABC in Chicago)... it ends up > > that we can literally pick up six additional months of working time by > > producing them on this delayed schedule. > Henk wrote: > I guess that lots of directors and committee members want to have > every book in the series. Would it be possible to organize some sort > of subscription service to the series where people on the list get > sent every book when it appears? Either with a bill for book plus > shipping, or having paided for N books in advance. This way, you > get them all without having to check lists and announcements. I like this idea! Where is the subscription list for writing me in??? c u -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 04:11:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:11:03 +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 EAA13259 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:10:58 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa26612; 11 Sep 97 11:10 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: How would you rule? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:40:53 PDT." <199709111740.NAA12253@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:10:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9709111110.aa26612@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > > Although I am just a mediocre club level bridge player, I enjoy reading > > your posts to each other. I would appreciate you all telling me how you > > would have ruled in the following instance: > > > Using bidding boxes, I pulled out what I thought was the two of hearts. > > It wasn't until the bidding got back to me that I noticed that I had > > opened with TWO DIAMONDS. I had a singleton diamond. My partner, who > > had seven diamonds, raised me to three diamonds. > > This could be a problem; it suggests that partner was aware from your > behavior that something was wrong. With seven diamonds in the suit in > which you preempted, your partner should probabably have bid at least > five diamonds and might have sacrificed. Maybe, but she did say that she didn't realize anything wrong until the bidding got back to her; so at the time her partner bid 3D, she wouldn't have exhibited any behavior that could give anything away. I'm also mystified by the 3D call, but I also don't know how experienced her partner is. Back when I was just starting out, it's the kind of thing I might have done. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 04:16:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:16:03 +1000 Received: from eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA13332 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:15:54 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA09388 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA00843; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:15:51 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:15:51 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199709111815.LAA00843@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How would you rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: > I'm also mystified by the 3D call, but I also don't know how > experienced her partner is. Back when I was just starting out, it's > the kind of thing I might have done. Maybe she didn't notice the 2D opening? :) --Jeff # Is a standing committee one with no chair? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 04:51:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:51:46 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA13440 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 04:51:38 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA07786; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:51:00 -0800 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:51:00 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: David Grabiner Cc: annparker@thebest.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How would you rule? In-Reply-To: <199709111740.NAA12253@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, David Grabiner wrote: > You write: > > Although I am just a mediocre club level bridge player, I enjoy reading > > your posts to each other. I would appreciate you all telling me how you > > would have ruled in the following instance: > > Using bidding boxes, I pulled out what I thought was the two of hearts. > > It wasn't until the bidding got back to me that I noticed that I had > > opened with TWO DIAMONDS. I had a singleton diamond. My partner, who > > had seven diamonds, raised me to three diamonds. > > This could be a problem; it suggests that partner was aware from your > behavior that something was wrong. With seven diamonds in the suit in > which you preempted, your partner should probabably have bid at least > five diamonds and might have sacrificed. I'm not so sure about this. The odds against being dealt a 13-card fit are one in several thousand. Partners pull the wrong card much more often than that -- say, once in 500 or 1000 hands (just a guess). On this basis, I conclude partner probably does not have 6 diamonds. I don't have a basis to know whether partner intended 1D, 2C, 2H, or something else. Therefore: I bid 3D with my 7-card suit, hoping for 2 or 3 diamonds opposite: 3-level with 9 trumps. Had I had only 5 diamonds, yes, there is no good reason for me to not raise partner preemptively to game. As it is, I think 3D is a good bid, based strictly on what partner said and the fact that partner almost certainly doesn't have what he said. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 05:08:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:08:17 +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 FAA13497 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:08:11 +1000 Received: (from hastings@localhost) by accord.cco.caltech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA27110 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:08:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Curtis A. Hastings" Message-Id: <199709111908.MAA27110@accord.cco.caltech.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I now realize that I have a habit : when holding 0-3(4) points in third position, I will often open my shorter major. (...) So when compiling my convention card for next season, I decided to add in the space 'psychic openings' (international model) the following phrase : 'When holding 0-3 HCP in third pos, non-vul vs vul, HDW may well open his shorter major'. This morning, we checked the convention cards for all national teams and the colleague who had mine stumbled on this mention and put it to the others. They were unanimous in deciding that this was not allowed. << Equating this type of disclosure to a systemic partnership agreement is equivalent to disallowing the psychic call described (in violation of L40). Therefore, in order to exercise your L40 rights to psyche natural calls, you must either fail to disclose the frequency (clearly a bad thing), or do it so infrequently that there is no need to disclose the frequency (in other words, an effective limit on frequency of psyching). This area does not appear to be well handled by the Laws. Curt From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 05:16:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:16:25 +1000 Received: from fallback.mail.pipex.net (duct.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.61]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13530 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:16:20 +1000 Received: (qmail 19756 invoked from network); 11 Sep 1997 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from q.icl.co.uk (145.227.248.23) by relay1.pipex.net with SMTP; 11 Sep 1997 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk (mailhost.et.icl.co.uk) by Q.icl.co.uk (4.1/icl-2.12-server) id AA24061; Thu, 11 Sep 97 20:11:26 BST Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id UAA14510; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:03:32 +0100 X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 11 Sep 97 20:02:32 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=iclexpo/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 11 Sep 97 20:01:32 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 11 Sep 97 20:01:00 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 11 Sep 97 21:02:00 +0200 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 97 21:02:00 +0200 X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G10021B44F0D00000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <14267.1501104787@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Importance: normal Subject: RE:How would you rule? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ann parker: > >Was this a fair ruling? Of course it was. Your call "was not based on a partnership understanding" (L40A). Jan Romanski j.romanski@x400.icl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 05:34:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:34:06 +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 FAA13608 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:34:00 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa01885; 11 Sep 97 12:33 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: How would you rule? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:51:00 PDT." Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:33:23 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9709111233.aa01885@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, David Grabiner wrote: > > You write: > > > Although I am just a mediocre club level bridge player, I enjoy reading > > > your posts to each other. I would appreciate you all telling me how you > > > would have ruled in the following instance: > > > Using bidding boxes, I pulled out what I thought was the two of hearts. > > > It wasn't until the bidding got back to me that I noticed that I had > > > opened with TWO DIAMONDS. I had a singleton diamond. My partner, who > > > had seven diamonds, raised me to three diamonds. > > > > This could be a problem; it suggests that partner was aware from your > > behavior that something was wrong. With seven diamonds in the suit in > > which you preempted, your partner should probabably have bid at least > > five diamonds and might have sacrificed. > > I'm not so sure about this. The odds against being dealt a 13-card fit are > one in several thousand. Partners pull the wrong card much more often than > that -- say, once in 500 or 1000 hands (just a guess). On this basis, I > conclude partner probably does not have 6 diamonds. I don't have a basis > to know whether partner intended 1D, 2C, 2H, or something else. Therefore: > I bid 3D with my 7-card suit, hoping for 2 or 3 diamonds opposite: 3-level > with 9 trumps. If you and I ever end up playing together, please DO NOT adopt this type of thinking, ever!!! Even if your probabilities are correct, to bid based on the assumption that partner has probably made a mechanical error is, to me, an INEXCUSABLE violation of partnership bridge. Recently, a partner of mine made a call on the assumption that I had forgotten the system. (I hadn't; the result was that we lost the board and the match by 10 IMPs.) I was a lot angrier at him than I would have been if, say, he had forgotten the system himself or had made a dumb bid or play or had pulled the wrong card out of the bidding box. These things happen when you forget to concentrate. But making the deliberate decision not to trust your partner is a much worse offense. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 05:46:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:46:08 +1000 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13653 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:45:59 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA05201 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:45:03 +0200 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:45:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "christian.farwig" Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <9709111616.AA4959@notes2.compuserve.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If anything else fails, read the instruction manual :-) From the guide for filling out a WBF convention card, section on psyches: In other words the psychics should be made randomly but any understandings about them should be revealed. [...] Where partnerships have agreements that psychic bids are expected[...] then a convention has developed[...] Virtually no one fills in anything other than "rarely" here, but even where this is true, more detail is expected. When you do psych, what sort of hand would you have? [...] If I understand HdW correctly, then he tried to do what EOK asked him to do: describe the hands with which he is likely to psyche but still randomly decide when to psyche. 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 Sep 12 07:18:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:18:23 +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 HAA14039 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:18:13 +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 QAA10115 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:18:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0MVGJ01I Thu, 11 Sep 97 16:16:56 Message-ID: <9709111616.0MVGJ01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 97 16:16:56 Subject: DUMMY HAS A GO! To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Reply-To: David Stevenson B>Subject: Dummy has a go! B>Forwarded from Max Bavin, Chief TD, EBU, Joint [?] Chief TD, EBL B> B>The TDs first job will be to decide upon the status of the HA and B>south's "penalty card". This bit is fairly easy: the club IS a B>penalty card, so north may not cash the HA. Declarer can choose to allow North any lead. B>Hence, for the time being, the contract makes. Ahhh, the pesky exposed card makes life difficult. At the time the H ace was played, no TD had not assessed a lead penalty, therefore there was no enforceable penalty up to that time. The TD arrives and rules that there has been multiple improper communications by dummy and since declarer had not sought to enforce a lead penalty prior to dummy's doing so, also rules that the lead of the Heart Ace stands. Also, that lead penalties concerning the club suit go into effect at the subsequent trick. He will rule on PP later. B> B>As an aside (and not relevant to this case), the TD can and should B>use his Law 50 discretion, in conjunction with 11A, to decree that B>the HA is NOT a penalty card even though it has been exposed B>prematurely. This is a classic case of the non-offenders playing on B>after an irregularity and leading the offenders into an even worse B>mess than before. By contrast, south's club IS a penalty card - B>the offenders provided this all by themselves without any unwanted B>assistance from the non-offenders (I use the term non-offender in a B>very loose sense in this particualr case!). I still think lead penalties are not enforceable until after the TD assesses them. That players accept them amongst themselves is their business until the director is summoned. B> B>The TD's and ACs next job is to consider whether any of Laws 12A1, B>12A3 or 45F apply. It would be entirely legal to decide that one or B>more of them do apply, and so award an adjusted score. Equally, it B>would be legal (but not my personal preference) to decide that the B>club is not a penalty card and that the HA may therefore be cashed On this hand, it seems fairest and most appropriate that lead penalties on the club go into effect after the heart ace is played. As I said above, I think the club lead penalties should become effective at the subsequent trick. BUT, had declarer beat dummy to the punch, I could assess the lead penalty and allow declarer to assert his options at the current trick. Any improper communication by dummy does not go away and will be subject to PP. B>(again, not my personal preference). To this extent, the case is not B>all that interesting as virtually any conclusion is legal - we are B>left merely to discuss our personal preferences. B> B>I don't like using 12A1 here - I think that the Laws DO cover this B>situation (e.g. the other Laws quoted above). Likewise, I don't think B>12A3 is appropriate because the correct penalty WAS paid (except for B>the defenders not being warned about the consequences of their B>penalty card). I still disagree, the correct penalty was not paid- dummy suggested that declarer could change his card after the revoker changed his card and declarer was not going to change it on his own. Only after declarer botched his rights, dummy suggested an alternate play in violation of L43. B>So, we are left with 45F as our only real possibility. B>So, we are going to have to judge whether declarer was going to get B>this right had the TD explained things rather than dummy. Fact- declarer did not get it right about substituting a heart discard for dummy's club discard; albeit, dummy spoke first. Fact- declarer did not get it right about the lead penalties when North lead the heart ace; albeit, dummy spoke first. B> The B>end-game part of insisting upon a club lead wouldn't have been too B>hard for any declarer: it's the bit about changing his discard to a B>non-club in preparation for the end game which is interesting. You are probably right. What does happen? It makes little sense to [only] fix dummy's last screwed up ruling to the benefit of declarer [all of dummy's rulings to date have benefitted declarer]. What would happen if we go back to the beginning when dummy told declarer to change his club discard to a heart. I would rule that there had been improper communication by dumy suggesting retreiving the club. And since the club distribution was not known [ie that the winner of declarer's exit may not have a club to lead] and that the heart discard was chosen prior to dummy's illegal remarks the heart discard would have to stand... hand from before: to reach: -- > AJ9 > 54 > 7 > -- -- > 852 KQ64 > -- T6 > KQ5 Q -- > T73 > 8 > 8 > now: DT* C8 C5 D5 3 5 C5 D5 DT* C8 > >At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8 >with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. No TD > was called. *Dummy* now told declarer that he could change the card > played from dummy........ At this point, the director being summoned, dummy would not have the winners to fulfill the contract and would have to surrender the setting trick with his last heart. Therefore the contract should be ruled down one as the most probable result. A PP would be in order for dummy's illegal communication. B> B>Since this is a real case (I assume), this last bit is very hard to B>judge without speaking to the declarer. I am inclined to believe that B>he WOULD have got it right, and that dummy was "merely" informing B>everyone what the Law was rather than suggesting a play. Unfortunately, dummy was not conveying the law. He left so much out that declarer can not be entitled to make the contract if he botches his rights the way he did. B> I am aware B>that I might be being very naive here, but without speaking to the B>pair it really is impossible to tell. I say that it can not be relevent what declarer says he would have done, after the fact. B>So: 3NT makes! Players do have lapses. The defenders gave him a miracle and he did the ungentlemanly thing of turning it down. B> Dummy has played it very well, I beg to differ. I thought bridge was a real-time event and how can a hand be considered played well if you get overs every other trick. B>congratulate him on his excellent play and near-excellent knowledge B>of the Laws. I also beg to differ. He did not give complete rulings. He illegaly told declarer how to play the hand. He waited until declarer misstepped before giving his 'help'. He did not call the director in a timely manner. B> This will make him feel a whole lot better about the B>massive procedural penalty which I will then apply under Law 43A1 and B>Law 90 (and probably some other Laws as well). B> B>The effect will be that everyone gets a rotten score, which will B>please Burn enormously (and if he's Chairman of Appeals he will B>have great glee in upholding this particular decision). Actually, I'm B>not terribly keen on these "give 'em all a rotten score" type B>decisions - but in this particular case, it seems entirely B>appropriate. B> B>September 1997: Max Bavin This is my aside. It was said that the club was a penalty card with all the attributes of a penalty card even though no TD assessed penalties. I think it is convoluted and double dealing to take a complete case, dissect out a portion of it, apply the literal interpretation of one law [the club was an exposed card and therefore had lead penalties] while ignoring the literal interpretations of the remaining laws that are applicable so that a particular ruling is justified. I do not like it that one set of words, in this case the laws, can often be twisted to justify any desired position. In my opinion, the laws are a tool that should be used easily by all players of the game so that the remedies seem as fair possible. They should not read the book and have the rules later interpreted in ways opposite of what the book says; convoluted thinking as that drives away people from tournament play when they believe that they have been had. R Pewick Houston, Tx r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 07:48:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:48:49 +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 HAA14128 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:48:39 +1000 Received: from ptp2.ac.net (ptp2.ac.net [205.138.54.102]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA00907 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <341890C3.5242@ac.net> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:45:55 -0700 From: "L. Weinstein" Reply-To: lobo@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: NABC Case Books are back References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > I guess that lots of directors and committee members want to have > every book in the series. Would it be possible to organize some sort > of subscription service to the series where people on the list get > sent every book when it appears? Either with a bill for book plus > shipping, or having paided for N books in advance. This way, you > get them all without having to check lists and announcements. I believe this is a product that is sold by the ACBL. Any such arrangements would have to be made through them. Don't they always do everything they can to please their customers?? *ducking for cover* > > Something else: if there are appeals involving screens, can you put > a line across the diagram to indicate the screen? This makes a > sentence like "north told his screenmate" immediately obvious. > Right now, one has to think if N-E or N-W are on 1 side of the > screen. > I thought that S-W and N-E were always screenmates??.. I fiddled around with trying to type a diagonal on the screen that would look good and was unsuccessful. The plan then became to mention in the heading that screens were in use and to put a general reference in the introduction or somewhere else prominent that S-W and N-E are always screen mates... This is on the list, but I don't think any San Fran, Dallas or Abq committees have had screens... will try to remember to get this done.. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 08:21:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:21:38 +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 IAA14286 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:21:33 +1000 From: ardelm@ozemail.com.au Received: from oznet07.ozemail.com.au (oznet07.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.122]) by ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16456; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.55.88.52]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA02529; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:21:28 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:21:28 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199709112221.IAA02529@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: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:20 PM 10/09/97 +0200, you wrote: >I have recently psyched in the following manner : > >holding xxx 87 KJxx xxxx, in third seat, non vul vs vul, I open 1 heart. > >Fourth seat doubles (what a surprise), partner raises to three hearts >and opponents bid on to four spades. > >The psych worked, because opponents have nine tricks both at spades or >no trump. > >I do not think anyone will object to this psych. Certainly opponents >didn't. > >When telling the story later on, I told the audience that I had never >had a really bad score with a psyche of this kind. In fact, I realized >that it is a psych that I often do. > If this always leads to a good result, your partner may well be fielding the psych. Have you asked him or her, how he does it? If you do this sort of thing "often", then it is no longer a psych by definition, IMHO. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 10:03:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:03:02 +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 KAA14676 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:02:54 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-80.ime.net [209.90.193.110]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA13194; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970911200505.47f780dc@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: ardelm@ozemail.com.au, Herman De Wael From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:21 AM 9/12/97 +1000, ardelm@ozemail.com.au wrote: >At 05:20 PM 10/09/97 +0200, you wrote: >>I have recently psyched in the following manner : >> >>holding xxx 87 KJxx xxxx, in third seat, non vul vs vul, I open 1 heart. >> >>Fourth seat doubles (what a surprise), partner raises to three hearts >>and opponents bid on to four spades. >If this always leads to a good result, your partner may well be fielding= the >psych. Have you asked him or her, how he does it? If you do this sort of >thing "often", then it is no longer a psych by definition, IMHO. Partner raised to 3H. Doesn't sound like he fielded anything. What does the group think of the following agreement? (Perhaps I should rephrase: what does the group think about the legality of the following agreement?) Tim Overcalls One of a major over one of a minor may be weaker than what you see in the textbooks, and the suit may be shorter. It may also just be a hand on which everyone else will bid the same way. S:AQJx H:Kx D:xxx C:xxxx: One spade over one of a minor on your right at any vulnerability. They may well do the same thing at the other table. Not vulnerable, you might not wait for the heart king =97- and this time your action will not be duplicated at the other table. S:QJ3 H:JT5 D:53 C:J8642: Not vulnerable against vulnerable, you should at least consider bidding one spade over one club. (Adam Meredith not only considered it, but did it =97- at total points scoring in the World Championships (England vs. U.S., 1955, Deal 47). Nothing came of it, as the opponents brushed aside the overcall and bid their slam, while Reese and Shapiro got messed up in an uncontested auction at the other table and bid the wrong slam.) S:AKJxx H:xx D:AQxx C:Ax One spade over one club on your right at any vulnerability. The hand is the wrong type for a strong jump overcall (which, if available, shows a one-suiter), and has the wrong shape for a takeout double (which implies something better than xx in hearts, an unbid major). There is quite a difference between one spade on S:AKJxx H:xx D:AQxx C:Ax and one spade on S:AQJx H:xx D:xxx C:xxxx (not to mention S:QJ3 H:JT5 D:53 C:J8642). But they are the ones who choose to open a nebulous one club or one diamond vulnerable against not, or when nobody is vulnerable and one opponent has passed (situations which we call "pressure"), so they are the ones who have granted a license to steal =97- or even to psych, if that= seems appropriate.=20 Other simple overcalls =97- one diamond over one club, one of a major not at pressure, and two-level overcalls -=97 are still wide-range, but not "suspect." =20 Advancing an overcall: {The general rules cut.} The general rules also apply in the "suspect" major-suit overcall situation. The only difference is that advancer should bid somewhat more cautiously in that situation. Advancer should also be aware that a fit jump is not forcing on a joking overcaller. If you simply must force, no matter what partner has, start with a cue-bid: partner will think you have a constructive raise and will react accordingly, and then you can come out of the bushes with a forcing new-suit bid. Of course, if the enemy advertises strength when partner's overcall is suspect, you are not required to ignore the signs. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 14:15:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:15:28 +1000 Received: from emin17.mail.aol.com (emin17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15187 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:13:21 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emin17.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA05518; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970911225303_403461582@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: Dburn@btinternet.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridgelaws), jeff@bridgeworld.com Subject: Re: Edgar Kaplan dies Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, The last time I saw Edgar was when, sick as he was, he came to share the commentator's microphone with us in Albuquerque. When I introduced him, the audience broke out spontaneously into a standing ovation for several minutes. I'm so glad he had the energy and will to remain after his team exited the event and to come and join us for an hour or so at the Viewgraph. Having worked with him for many years on the Laws Commission and various Drafting Committees, I can certainly attest to his being "the Laws," as you so aptly commented. His knowledge was so vast and his vision so clear. Our work was always punctuated by laughter.. Edgar was certainly one of the great wits I've ever known and the application of his wit was never limited by the gravity of the work or the seriousness of the situation. He was born with a certain charm and grace and moved smoothly through life always saying and doing the right thing. He was a wonderful friend, a tireless mentor and willing to work doggedly to improve the game he loved so very much. I am only sorry that he had such a hard time physically for the last years of his life. Mentally he never seemed to diminish at all. There is a giant hole in my world now that won't ever be filled. I'm only immensely grateful to have known Edgar and spent so many hours in his presence. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 17:08:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:08:13 +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 RAA15676 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:08:09 +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 RAA05724 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:08:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port2.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.52]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA08229 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:08:03 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:08:03 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199709120708.RAA08229@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: CPU? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some weeks ago, my partner was playing a contract which depended on clubs being 3:3. Upon questioning, both opponents assserted they played natural count signals, confirmed on their CC. On the play of clubs, both opponents false carded to show an even number, despite which the contract made. At the time I thought, no problem, that's what I would do against any opponent who showed any interest in my signalling methods. Some false carding situations must be so standard that both sides of the defense knows what is going on, but the declarer is in the dark. Does this knowledge constitute a CPU under the act, and if so, how is the information that frequent (or standard) false carding is played, conveyed to the opponents. Perhaps the false carding is done only, or more frequently, against better players. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 17:35:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:35:42 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA15743 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:35:36 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA15713; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 01:04:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma015687; Fri, 12 Sep 97 01:03:38 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA05662 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709120754.AAA05662@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 08:29:47 GMT Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote: >I have recently psyched in the following manner : > >holding xxx 87 KJxx xxxx, in third seat, non vul vs vul, I open 1 heart. > >Fourth seat doubles (what a surprise), partner raises to three hearts >and opponents bid on to four spades. > >The psych worked, because opponents have nine tricks both at spades or >no trump. > >I do not think anyone will object to this psych. Certainly opponents >didn't. > >When telling the story later on, I told the audience that I had never >had a really bad score with a psyche of this kind. In fact, I realized >that it is a psych that I often do. >I now realize that I have a habit : when holding 0-3(4) points in third >position, I will often open my shorter major. > >If I have experienced this as a habit, then so could my partner, and >this has to be communicated to the opponents. >So when compiling my convention card for next season, I decided to add >in the space 'psychic openings' (international model) the following >phrase : 'When holding 0-3 HCP in third pos, non-vul vs vul, HDW may >well open his shorter major'. > >This morning, we checked the convention cards for all national teams and >the colleague who had mine stumbled on this mention and put it to the >others. They were unanimous in deciding that this was not allowed. >According to them, putting it on the convention card was synonimous with >making it part of the system, which would then become a HUM (not allowed >at my level). > >What do you think ? If you have this agreement, then you should disclose it in line with the regulations of the SO (Law 40B). As you might expect I do not know the regulations in your part of the world. In England we would certainly require disclosure of such an agreement, both on the convention card and by way of alert. Of course SOs have (Law 40D) the right to regulate conventions such as this appears to be. As noted above I don't know the rules in Belgium, but in England we certainly do not license conventions like this. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 18:19:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:19:41 +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 SAA15909 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:19:24 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0504488; 12 Sep 97 8:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:42:49 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs In-Reply-To: <199709062032.QAA02389@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo: I wonder about your use of 'converse' in relation to Law 40A. You do not intend, I think, the opposite or the contrary statement, which would say perhaps that "provided a call or play is not based upon a partnership understanding a player may not make such call or play without prior announcement" or "provided a call or play is based on a partnership understanding a player may make such call or play without prior announcement". So what of 'converse'? My difficulty is that the term is applicable to affirmations of truths; of "all women are human beings" the converse is "all human beings are women" - two statements which half the world assures me to be equally true. Our beleaguered law 40A has no statement of a truth, ergo no converse. If BLML tries to fit 'converse' to it BLML beats the air, in fact one private and distinguished source urges disregard of 'mouthings on the internet'. Instead let us do a tour of some relevant matters of law. In 40A we have an authorization allowing players to make calls or plays without prior announcement if they are not based upon partnership understandings - any kind of partnership understandings. As you rightly observe, this does not answer explicitly the question where there is a partnership understanding. However, at the second stop on our tour we arrive with sponsoring organizations; these are armed, at various points in the laws, to fill the gap by regulation. Regulations are made under the authority and the banner of the laws and in being so made they have the force of law. As we discover, the two blankets provide imperfect cover and still leave us open here and there to the night air. It is in this margin that our discussion lies and the question is what base the game reverts to when law and regulation say nothing. The laws do say certain relevant things: one is that the game is to be played in strict accordance with the laws, which I believe to mean that a player shall justify an action by pointing to the place in the laws (as extended by regulation) at which it is authorized. Whatever is not covered has to be 'extraneous', a word appearing in the laws without any other notable purpose. What we know about anything determined to be 'extraneous' is that the Director has discretion, under Laws 16 and 12A1, to award an adjusted score if a player derives information from it which he uses. In respect of Law 40 and of your parking notice: when the conditions they specify do not apply the norm or normality resumes. Our problem appears to be that we fail to agree what is normality. I do not accept that absence of statement confers freedom to do as we will and I consider that any action not dealt with in the laws/regulations is extraneous. I am fortified in my view by Law 40C which does not require a Director to know how it has come about, but only *whether* opponents have received a full explanation - and if not, however the failure may have occurred, empowers the Director to award an adjusted score if he deems the opponents damaged. -- Labeo "Salus populi suprema est lex" - the good of the people is the prime law. (Cicero) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 18:49:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:49:54 +1000 Received: from tycho.global.net.uk (tycho.global.net.uk [194.126.82.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA15989 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:49:47 +1000 Received: from default (client8766.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.102]) by tycho.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA03632; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:48:17 +0100 Message-Id: <199709120848.JAA03632@tycho.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Anna Gudge" Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:49:50 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : Edgar The lamp is out. This lantern did the haven mark: Now mystery is all about, The voyage home on sea of doubt And e'en the sunlight dark. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 19:11:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:11:05 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA16090 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:10:13 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0607254; 12 Sep 97 8:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:48:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Kaplan MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk His great strength stemmed from an encyclopaedic knowledge of the laws of duplicate bridge, present and past, and it lay in his ability to help others test whether their arguments could be persuasive. I think he will not be silent even now. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 19:44:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:44:16 +1000 Received: from mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com [149.174.64.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA16159 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:44:10 +1000 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aagw2.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.199]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA06426.; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:56:02 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA3612; Fri, 12 Sep 97 05:43:35 -0400 Message-Id: <9709120943.AA3612@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC125651000324A67; Fri, 12 Sep 97 05:43:33 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 12 Sep 97 11:19:51 Subject: Re: CPU? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> On the play of clubs, both opponents false carded to show an even number, despite which the contract made. (...) Does this knowledge constitute a CPU under the act << There's quite a difference between a CPU and common sense. For a player of a certain standard, falsecarding in such situations is obvious. This knowledge is part of his qualification as a player and not a partnership agreement. In this situation after the silly squestion, it's even more obvious. BTW, I believe that you will never be able to disclose everything you know about your partner. There is some reason why longtem partnerships are more successful and it is not their experience in filling out convention cards or agreeing funny conventions. If you have played a few thousand boards with somebody, you have a wealth of experience which is not an outspoken agreement. It would be totally stupid (and a big problem for the run of the tournament), if players would explain out everything they feel and assume about partners action. Yours, Christian Farwig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 19:55:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:55:22 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA16211 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:55:11 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id KAA21958 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:55:03 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 10:53 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? 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: <199709111531.LAA04745@cfa183.harvard.edu> willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > > [1C-x-xx-1S; p-p-x-p- holding 985 Q5 KJT5 AK73] > > Based on the hand records, isn't it likely that East had UI about > West's double? How else can one explain East's 2C bid with three > trumps when partner has made a penalty-oriented double? Of course this > evidence vanishes if the 2C bid is normal for the competition in > question, but around here the 2C bid would be considered bizarre. Of > course one would want to question the players closely before making a > decision, but this is an aspect of the case that ought to be > considered. Even if NS perceived no break in tempo or facial > expression or whatever, the hands alone may provide sufficient evidence > to rule UI. I find this assertion disturbing and slightly dangerous. Why couldn't East have AI from NS mannerisms/tempo and use that to make his bid? Aside from that he can certainly see the 3 small spades in his own hand and knows that in all liklihood: a) West doesn't have a trump stack so defending 1S* is risky, or b) West has a trump stack and South must have a red 2-suiter for his double and will find his heart fit if forced to do so. I must admit when I read the original post I took "at least a propostion of penalty" to mean a competitive, rather than a penalty double. I also thought that it was low-level penalty doubles that were alertable nowadays (overactive imagination?), not competitive/TO ones. BTW can anyone work out how EW managed only 8 tricks? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 20:25:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:25:34 +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 UAA16268 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:25:29 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-105.innet.be [194.7.10.105]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA20212 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:25:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341813F4.98F7CD25@innet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:53:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Standard penalties (war: Dummy has a go!) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > No, what matters are the number of VP's that you score IN THIS EVENT > with respect to the other contestants. It doesn't matter how many > VP's you score with respect to the teams in another event somewhere > else on this planet. > Of course. > If you now give IMP penalties, then this will translate in different > amounts of VP's. A team that is blizting (or being blitzed), doesn't > really care but for a team in a close match it makes a significant > difference. In other words, for the same offense, a team is penalized > a different number of VP's. > > VP penalties don't have this problem: a 1 VP penalty is a 1 VP penalty. > I have always stated that within the event - I am in favour of VP penalties. > You are right that 1 VP is worth more in a 8 round Swiss (8x25=200 VP > maximum, so 0.5%) than in the hypothetical 80 round Swiss (0.05%). > If you worry about this, then you should put in the conditions of > contest that the standard procedural penalty is 1 VP in the first > case and 10 VP's in the second. (Just as you'd probably reconsider > the 1 vp if the event was played using chess scoring: 1 VP for a win, > 0.5 for a tie). > Exactly what I am saying all along. The conditions of contest should state the standard penalty. This standard should be expressed in VP. The standard should be equivalent to a 3 IMP fine (which is the standard equivalent of 10%), translated by the VP scale in use in the tournament. > > The opposite is true in pairs play. Here the standard fine is expressed > > in percentages, because these do not vary from tournament to tournament. > > So the standard fines are expressed in percentage (10%) whereas the > > actual fine might well be expressed in matchpoints (even if that is > > hardly ever done). > > Actually, they do. If I play a 25 board club game, a penalty of 1 top > on a board means that I can only score 24 tops and thus only 96% on the > evening, compared to the 100% for the other pairs. If I get the > same penalty in a 6 session event, I can score 596% compared to the > 600% of the other contestants, or 99.3 vs 100%. The impact of > the penalty in the first case on my ultimate goal (score more than > the other pairs) is then much larger than the second case. > But do consider that in this 6-session event, you are six times as likely to do the particular transgression than in the one session. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 21:39:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:39:59 +1000 Received: from llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (root@llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA16446 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:39:51 +1000 Received: from tyr.cee.hw.ac.uk by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp tap_id root (Smail3.1.28.1 #97) id m0x9U4b-000761C; Fri, 12 Sep 97 12:39 BST Received: by tyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m0x9U4X-0005AqC; Fri, 12 Sep 97 12:39 BST Message-Id: Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 12:39 BST From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Tim West-meads's message of Fri, 12 Sep 97 10:53 BST-1 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Sendmail/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > [1C-x-xx-1S; p-p-x-p- holding 985 Q5 KJT5 AK73] [Steve Willner's message deleted] [Tim] > I find this assertion disturbing and slightly dangerous. Why couldn't > East have AI from NS mannerisms/tempo and use that to make his bid? > Aside from that he can certainly see the 3 small spades in his own hand > and knows that in all liklihood: > a) West doesn't have a trump stack so defending 1S* is risky, or > b) West has a trump stack and South must have a red 2-suiter for his > double and will find his heart fit if forced to do so. > > I must admit when I read the original post I took "at least a propostion > of penalty" to mean a competitive, rather than a penalty double. I also > thought that it was low-level penalty doubles that were alertable > nowadays (overactive imagination?), not competitive/TO ones. Tim's first point (jumping to conclusions about East having UI) is a good one but I can't go along with the rest. Surely the normal meaning of doubles after the redouble is penalties and anything else should be alerted. Just the same as after 1nt-x and a runout or 1nt-x-xx. Of course at the one level partner is entitled to remove the double without a suitable holding but three trumps in a balanced hand doesn't qualify. Why not? Because there should be a c) in the list of alternatives: partner has something like KTx AJxx xx Qxxx and the opponents are probably going a couple light in their 4-3 fit. And if I'm sitting on an appeals committee, someone who manages to go from "at least a proposition of penalty" to "competitive" to "competitive/TO" in two sentences had better not put any bets on getting a decision in their favour. B-> --- Question: If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... is he still wrong? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 22:43:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:43:07 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA16652 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 22:42:58 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id NAA10441 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:41:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 13:41 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card 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: <199709120754.AAA05662@cactus.tc.pw.com> Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > If you have this agreement, then you should disclose it in line with > the regulations of the SO (Law 40B). As you might expect I do not know > the regulations in your part of the world. In England we would > certainly require disclosure of such an agreement, both on the > convention card and by way of alert. > > Of course SOs have (Law 40D) the right to regulate conventions such as > this appears to be. As noted above I don't know the rules in Belgium, > but in England we certainly do not license conventions like this. However, surely psyching is not a matter of convention but one of style. And while your opponents are entitled to know about style it is not, AFAICS, a matter for licensing. I could be persuaded that if a psyche on such a hand was routine (ie pass effectively denied this hand type) then it was a (normally illegal) convention. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 12 23:04:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:04:12 +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 XAA16734 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:04:06 +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 JAA19160 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:04:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970912090351.006c0014@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:03:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Forcing and "To Play" Passes In-Reply-To: <199709101600.MAA31978@mime2.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:00 PM 9/10/97 -0500, CHYAH wrote: >The argument concerns which usage must be Alerted. A TD at the Queen >Mary >regional ruled that an opponent's "to play" pass over my redouble of >a >takeout double is Alertable, which seemed pretty obvious to me. >Several top >players here disagree, saying that the "to play" meaning of the pass >is the >"natural" meaning and should not have to be Alerted. >=========== >I have sent this question in to ACBL HQ with the further >clarification of asking what is the default meaning of >XX with no alert. Meaning, is XX an SOS XX or a I >want to play this XX. I fear that Chyah, too, has fallen into the pit, and this has led her to ask what is, on close examination, a purely rhetorical question to which the answer is "built in". Before I can accept the validity of this question I have a couple of my own: What is the meaning of "default meaning"? And where is it writ that every call must have one? 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 Sep 12 23:51:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:51:34 +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 XAA16916 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:51:26 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA18339 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970912083958.0068c584@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:39:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Forcing and "To Play" Passes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:49 PM 9/9/97 -0400, Mlfrench wrote: >An argument has sprung up among some top players in San Diego, some of whom >play that a pass over the redouble of partner's takeout or negative double is >"to play." Others have the more usual understanding that such a pass is not >"to play," making it a convention per '97 Laws (indicating "other than >willingness to play in the last denomination named"). > >The argument concerns which usage must be Alerted. A TD at the Queen Mary >regional ruled that an opponent's "to play" pass over my redouble of a >takeout double is Alertable, which seemed pretty obvious to me. Several top >players here disagree, saying that the "to play" meaning of the pass is the >"natural" meaning and should not have to be Alerted. The top players in San Diego have fallen into the pit, and I shall once again mount my favorite hobby-horse in an attempt to pull them out. The only reason an argument has sprung up is that the arguers have mutually accepted the irrational and misguided, but unfortunately common, notion that the alert procedure somehow requires that a given auction have one and only one non-alertable meaning. This is (a) false, (b) silly, and (c) the reason why the ACBL alert procedure has become massively unpopular and fallen into such disrepute. If there are a substantial number of players in the area who play that a pass is to play, and there are also a substantial number of players who play that partner is expected to take out, there is absolutely no reason why either treatment must require an alert. In other words, it is perfectly reasonable to decide that "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand [either] meaning". One can still, of course, argue the merits of requiring that one or the other treatment be alerted. But only if one understands that the regulations do not require that one or the other be chosen as such, and that absent positive reason to require an alert for either one, there is no reason to do so. In other words, a bid should be alertable if it meets one of the criteria for an alertable treatment; the mere fact that some other treatment of the same auction isn't alertable is NOT one of those criteria. The very fact that there is an argument going on as to which treatment should be "the" arbitrarily designated non-alertable one suggests the apppropriate resolution. 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 Sep 13 00:07:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:07:28 +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 AAA16975 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:07:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0512198; 12 Sep 97 14:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:19:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <3417011D.8E864C62@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote >I'm not knowledgeable about what the laws in this situation, but one >thing that is 'wrong' is north's reticence. Having bid only 1s, which >is reasonable, he has quite a lot in reserve and probably should have >redoubled to get partner tuned in. Barring that, he certainly should >have competed to 2S. If this pair plays the sort of takeout doubles >that might not include spade support, then they have fallen victim to >their own conventions. I find that a fairly incredible reason to rule against them. You play conventions, Irv? They ever go wrong? Of course, you can find a hand unsuitable for any convention. So, if a convention goes wrong, but there is an infraction, how would you like me to come to your table as a TD and say "Result stands because I don't like the Kostal 2D"? --------- David Grabiner wrote >I agree with this; at this level of play, he should know that can >compete safely. There was a failure to alert (West's double is penalty >if not alerted, and North has no reason to believe otherwise), but it >doesn't seem to have caused the damage. Indeed? At my level of play I do not find that it is safe to bid at the 2level when someone has doubled me for penalties at the 1level. Incidentally, I am interested in your knowledge of Polish alerting regulations. Do they require an alert for any double that is not pure penalties? --------- Steve Willner wrote >[1C-x-xx-1S; p-p-x-p- holding 985 Q5 KJT5 AK73] > >Based on the hand records, isn't it likely that East had UI about >West's double? How else can one explain East's 2C bid with three >trumps when partner has made a penalty-oriented double? Of course this >evidence vanishes if the 2C bid is normal for the competition in >question, but around here the 2C bid would be considered bizarre. Of >course one would want to question the players closely before making a >decision, but this is an aspect of the case that ought to be >considered. Even if NS perceived no break in tempo or facial >expression or whatever, the hands alone may provide sufficient evidence >to rule UI. If there is *no suggestion whatever* of UI then it is difficult to rule on that basis. However, this player is going to get a grilling. While people may be showing doubt about removing the double, no-one has commented on what it was removed to. ***2C!*** Rebidding a four card suit! Even if you assume that the 1C was short, or Polish, or something, why did he not bid 1NT? Oh no, he comes leaping in with 2C - and it's a 4-4 fit. Bingo! >If the 2C bid is deemed to be based on UI, the obvious adjustment is to >1Sx making some overtricks, at least for EW. One might conceivably >rule that the NS bidding is an egregious error and let them keep their >score, but I think that is too harsh if we deem UI. Incredibly harsh. >The other issue is MI, which others have already addressed. The only >thing to add is that East's action provides some evidence that the >explanation of double ("at least proposition of penalty") was not >correct. The main point, I would have thought. --------- Tim West-meads wrote >I find this assertion disturbing and slightly dangerous. Why couldn't >East have AI from NS mannerisms/tempo and use that to make his bid? Certainly that is reasonable. The first thing we do is to ask East why he bid 2C: if it is solely because of the opponents' demeanour and mannerisms that probably ends the matter for us. >Aside from that he can certainly see the 3 small spades in his own hand >and knows that in all liklihood: >a) West doesn't have a trump stack so defending 1S* is risky, or >b) West has a trump stack and South must have a red 2-suiter for his >double and will find his heart fit if forced to do so. That's good. So we never leave a penalty double by partner in. We either take it out because we are short, so it might make, or because we are long, so it might make, or because the opponents are in the wrong contract, so they aren't staying there. I must play against you, Tim, and bid lots! :))) >I must admit when I read the original post I took "at least a propostion >of penalty" to mean a competitive, rather than a penalty double. I also >thought that it was low-level penalty doubles that were alertable >nowadays (overactive imagination?), not competitive/TO ones. I do not know the Polish alerting rules. I think the description fits Optional better than Competitive, but agree it does not sound like pure penalties. East's hand still looks like an automatic pass. -- 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 Sep 13 00:23:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:23:46 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19298 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:23:39 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA23295 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:23:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 15:22 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? 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: > Tim's first point (jumping to conclusions about East having UI) is a > good > one but I can't go along with the rest. Surely the normal meaning of > doubles after the redouble is penalties and anything else should be > alerted. I agree that this would be the standard meaning at rubber, but I had the impression that low level penalty Xs in duplicate are pretty rare. (I think I need a copy of alerting regulations in EBU land!) > Just the same as after 1nt-x and a runout or 1nt-x-xx. Of > course at the one level partner is entitled to remove the double without > a suitable holding but three trumps in a balanced hand doesn't qualify. Certainly in a case where West *had* UI suggesting 2C I would not defend the pull. But on the same hand if West had UI suggesting a pass I would consider 2C an LA. But the hand itself is one that presents a judgement call and *not* one that infers the presence of UI. > Why not? Because there should be a c) in the list of alternatives: > partner has something like KTx AJxx xx Qxxx and the opponents are > probably going a couple light in their 4-3 fit. Actually this would fall into my classification of risky. It *might* go two off, it *might* be +1 if South has Qxx,KT9x,AQxxx,x or it might go one off when we have 9 tricks in clubs. > Question: > If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... > is he still wrong? Of course. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 01:46:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:46:00 +1000 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19943 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:45:53 +1000 Received: from default (ip220.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.163.220]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA21604; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:45:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709121545.LAA21604@brickbat8.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:25:34 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Steve Willner > > [1C-x-xx-1S; p-p-x-p- holding 985 Q5 KJT5 AK73] > > Based on the hand records, isn't it likely that East had UI about > West's double? How else can one explain East's 2C bid with three > trumps when partner has made a penalty-oriented double? Of course this > evidence vanishes if the 2C bid is normal for the competition in > question, but around here the 2C bid would be considered bizarre. Of > course one would want to question the players closely before making a > decision, but this is an aspect of the case that ought to be > considered. Even if NS perceived no break in tempo or facial > expression or whatever, the hands alone may provide sufficient evidence > to rule UI. > No they may not!! Weak players bid poorly -- by definition. Usually their bad bids fail, but sometimes they are unjustly successful, as in the present case. Without any direct evidence of an infraction (CPU, UI, or whatever), "bizarre" bidding by weak players is no basis for inferring an infraction. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 03:19:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:19:38 +1000 Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com (emout06.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.97]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20422 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:19:22 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA21618 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970912131454_-964822747@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Will everyone please read L75C before commenting on CPUs: "a player...need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." Also note that L75 uses the word "special" when referring to partnership agreements. If the writer meant ANY partnership agreement, he would have omitted the word "special." Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 03:42:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:42:07 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20503 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:41:58 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id SAA18896 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:41:51 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 18:40 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: >TWM: > >Aside from that he can certainly see the 3 small spades in his own > hand >and knows that in all liklihood: > >a) West doesn't have a trump stack so defending 1S* is risky, or > >b) West has a trump stack and South must have a red 2-suiter for his > >double and will find his heart fit if forced to do so. > > That's good. So we never leave a penalty double by partner in. We > either take it out because we are short, so it might make, or because we > are long, so it might make, or because the opponents are in the wrong > contract, so they aren't staying there. I must play against you, Tim, > and bid lots! :))) OK, as it happens I'll be in Liverpool next Tuesday. Personally I try to only leave penalty doubles in if this gets me a better score than bidding:-) I think we will find that, unless there is a possible cross-ruff, declarer finds life much easier when the opposing trumps are evenly split. Mind you, I suspect that adopting the principle of "Never leave oppos in a doubled 1 level contract for penalties" will very seldom cost! Like most people I am unfamiliar with Polish bidding systems but I assumed that the actual hand was *one* of the possible holdings consistent with the partnership agreements (maybe it can show either long or short spades and pard has to hope you can work it out [isn't that what people mean by Optional], maybe it is undiscussed and there are two main uses locally). If the double was alertable it looks like a fairly simple MI adjustment (I'd favour +140/-170). Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 04:44:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 04:44:44 +1000 Received: from pimaia2y.prodigy.com (pimaia2y.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA20714 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 04:44:37 +1000 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA44240 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:44:32 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id OAA66388 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:44:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199709121844.OAA66388@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:44:31, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: From Gary: X-XX-pass Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The penalty pass of a direct redouble of a takeout double has always required an Alert. It still does. -Gary Blaiss Further comments directed at Gary can be sent in directly via acbl@compuserve.com or you can send them to me. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 05:12:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:12:00 +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 FAA20788 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:11:54 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0609025; 12 Sep 97 14:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:18:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <14883.1492486681@x400.icl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Romanski wrote >I'm presenting the following hand on demand of NS pair. > >Brd 10 KQ1042 W N E S >Vul All J106 --- --- --- --- >Dlr E 82 1C x >Patton Teams 985 xx 1S p p > 7 985 x p 2C all pass > A742 N Q5 > Q643 W E KW105 8 tricks, 90 EW > QJ62 S AK73 > > AJ63 > K983 > A97 > 104 > >TD (me) was called by SOUTH after completion of the hand. >NS - good, expert pair - claimed, that auction was strange. >There was no hesitations. WEST's redouble and double as well was not alerted, >preventing NS from further bidding. NS could win even 4S: two rounds of clubs >and >then switch to diamonds was not so obvious! >EW - week pair from small town, but playing bridge for many years and never >suspicious - said that there were nothing to alert: redouble meant 9+HCP and >double was at least proposition of penalty, normal agreements in Poland. Theese >was in accordance with EW's convention card. Further explanations: >WEST: Redouble - I have 9 points. Double - I don't want to let them play 1S but >I >don't know what to do. >EAST: 2C as I'm very weak. > >TD: the result stand. >Jury: agreed with TD. > >Your opinion, please ! East's bidding is strange. Pass seems obvious, with 1NT a distant second place. No doubt it should be ruled back to 1S*+3 [something different in NAmerica - 1S*+4, maybe?] if there had been UI. North's failure to continue in the face of a penalty double is not an egregious error, not even close. The main point is that East must be asked why he bid 2C. I know he gave a reason, but a few more questions to find out whether that really is the reason. West's reason for doubling 1S does not sound convincingly like a penalty double either. If the TD is not convinced that it was a penalty double, pulled in a strange fashion, then he should rule N/S +620. Suppose he is convinced that it is a penalty double and there was no UI? Then the result stands. Poor players do incredible things, and if there was no infraction then it was just tough luck. After all, the TD heard the arguments, and he did rule result stands. EW were a weak pair from a small town, so this is quite possible. Just because the hand looks strange does not mean that an infraction was committed. -- 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 Sep 13 05:33:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:33:26 +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 FAA20871 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:33:04 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS1-36.star.net.il [195.8.208.36]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22323; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:25:48 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <34195F42.A2A3311D@artaxia.com> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:26:59 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's right to call the TD References: <199709102107.RAA04380@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "David Burn" > > so we looked at the 1987 version of 43A1(a) > > very hard. We concluded that, in the case in question, dummy did not have > > any right to make any suggestion along the lines of: "Partner, I think we > > should call the TD." This certainly seemed to us to be "initiating" a call > > for the TD, and in the 1987 code, L43 is *clearly* subordinate to L42B > > because L42B says that it is! Steve & all list I am very ANGRY because many of the remarks published here . I told my opinion and general outline of rulling in the message to David Burn . But , I don't understand why people here don't deal with the main and substancial problem : D U M M Y D I D A L L P O S S I B L E I N F R A C T I O N S T O C H A N G E T H E S P O R T I V E N A T U R A L R E S U L T . If any of you think I am wrong , please tell me - I should like to learn from other people opinions ......... It is forbidden to dummy to suggest declarer any card to play (45f) - the Law doesn't allow dummy to help declarer even in "a sportive way" I can't believe someone intended to allow dummy help declarer to win "not at table " ...... Please , I beg all of you - answer your opinion to these direct and specific question . Thanks DANY From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 05:33:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:33:44 +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 FAA20877 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 05:33:30 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS1-36.star.net.il [195.8.208.36]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22354; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:26:29 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <34195F6C.DA8F1B58@artaxia.com> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:27:40 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Romanski CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? References: <14883.1492486681@x400.icl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Romanski wrote: > I'm presenting the following hand on demand of NS pair. > > Brd 10 KQ1042 W N E S > Vul All J106 --- --- --- --- > Dlr E 82 1C x > Patton Teams 985 xx 1S p p > 7 985 x p 2C all pass > A742 N Q5 > Q643 W E KW105 8 tricks, 90 EW > QJ62 S AK73 > > AJ63 > K983 > A97 > 104 > > TD (me) was called by SOUTH after completion of the hand. > NS - good, expert pair - claimed, that auction was strange. > There was no hesitations. WEST's redouble and double as well was not alerted, > preventing NS from further bidding. NS could win even 4S: two rounds of clubs and > then switch to diamonds was not so obvious! > EW - week pair from small town, but playing bridge for many years and never > suspicious - said that there were nothing to alert: redouble meant 9+HCP and > double was at least proposition of penalty, normal agreements in Poland. Theese > was in accordance with EW's convention card. Further explanations: > WEST: Redouble - I have 9 points. Double - I don't want to let them play 1S but I > don't know what to do. > EAST: 2C as I'm very weak. > > TD: the result stand. > Jury: agreed with TD. > > Your opinion, please ! > > Jan Romanski > Warszawa, Poland > j.romanski@x400.icl.co.uk JAN - Nothing wrong with your decision and E-W's bidding. I don't know who are N-S , but I "feel" something suspicious with their way of bidding - if N didn't rebid 2S with his hand..... Anyway - keep an eye on that N-S pair - and keep on your decisions. Friendly, DANY From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 06:48:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 06:48:18 +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 GAA21152 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 06:48:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0602223; 12 Sep 97 20:44 BST Message-ID: <8Enc17BJmYG0Ewe5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:27:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote >Personally I don't think it is any worse for dummy to make rulings at the >table than it is for any other player - once attention has been drawn to >an irregularity. At least in this case the rulings appear to be correct! Was the ruling correct? When a MPC appears, the TD warns the defenders what will happen to them [a] when the defender with the MPC gets on lead and [b] when his partner gets on lead. He also warns them as to the AI and UI effects of all this. This is all part of the ruling. Did the dummy do this? >Had a TD been summoned (by dummy) at the first irregularity then the >result would (probably) have been 3nt making, so that is the result that >I think should stand. And then fine West half a board or so for not >calling the TD when he should have (despite the flames I received last >time I suggested that). Why would 3NT have probably been making if the TD had been summoned? If you have 6 cards in dummy, and you can never reach there, which one do you discard? Along comes a TD and gives a ruling that allows you to change this card: what do you do now? It takes quite an effort to realise that the penalty means that you may be able to get there, and most people would miss the possibility quite routinely, and would not bother to change a card from such a dummy. Now suppose your partner says to you "You know you can change the card that you played from dummy, don't you?". What's all this about? Why does he care? Can't he see it doesn't matter? Hey, just a minute ... LIGHT DAWNS ....... In my view, the chance of declarer realising that the card discarded from an apparently dead dummy might matter is greater when *partner* offers him the chance to change it than when the TD does. How much greater is the problem. Personally, I do not believe that 3NT is probably making. Admittedly, declarer reaches a point where he has nine on top, but since he did not cash his ninth at the table I think we can safely assume that he did not know his D6 was good. Without dummy's intervention, he would have probably not changed his discard from dummy. Now the contract goes off even when North is forced to lead a club to dummy instead of cashing his ace of hearts. I believe that 3NT would have gone off a majority of the time but for dummy's intervention. ------- Dany Haimovici wrote >the dummy >should be first "decapitated , shot, hung in city's square, etc....." . And some of us thought 1 VP was harsh! ------- Ian Reissman wrote >While this incident is interesting, it's also a mess. Leaving aside the >ruling, how should dummy behave in order to exercise his rights and duties to >prevent irregularities, while avoiding falling foul of the various rules >limiting dummy's possible legal actions ? > >Firstly, the actions by this dummy clearly breached several rules and were >therefore not correct. Other possible courses of action were : > > - at the revoke say "an irregularity has occured. It is our duty > to call the TD." > - call the TD > - say nothing until the end of the hand > >The first option could be argued as similar to the action taken by dummy - >there being an implication that options to be made available by the TD are >favourable to declarer. > >The second option breaches the rule the dummy may not initiate a call to the >TD. > >The last option results in a situation about as complicated as actually arose, >except that dummy/declarer would clearly be the non-offending side. IMO it >breaches dummy's responsibilty to prevent irregularites by declarer. > >Obviously the last option is not ideal, but appears to be forced by the rules. >Either of the other 2 options seems better to me, and would be permitted if >the rules on dummy not calling the TD were subordinate to dummy's >responsibility to prevent an irregularity by declarer. It is not a very reasonable argument to produce a hand where a different procedure might work better and then say that the established procedure is wrong. For many years the Laws have kept dummy fairly quiet and in most cases this is a benefit. I have no belief that allowing dummy to get his paws on rulings at the table will make things less complicated in general. Furthermore, whether we think the Laws are right or wrong, we might as well follow them. There are certain rules of the game of bridge that I think are wrong: should I therefore ignore them? No. For one thing my view may be blurred. At the end of the day though, if dummy had said "Let's get the Director. DIRECTOR !!!" then I would not mind very much. A very minor misdemeanor. But he didn't. >Secondly, a precedural penalty against dummy seems right. This should not be >in imps, as a large win or loss would make the penalty disappear (or at least >reduce it). That is silly. It should be in VPs. Of course it should be in VPs. >Thirdly, why do the defence suffer no PP. The pair concerned know a lot better >than to attempt to apply an (incorrect) penalty. It is this action which has >been instrumental in making this such a difficult ruling. Such action should >be discouraged. That is a very one-sided and unfair comment. What was instrumental in making it a difficult ruling was misdemeanors by both sides, with by far the most serious ones being by dummy. The other side added to the problems certainly, but they were not "instrumental" in making it difficult. ------- Dany Haimovici wrote >My opinion is that you shouldn't even think what dummy has to do - >he must respect his rights and limitations . I expect that an experienced >player should do it more than any one else ......and my "a-priori approach" >coming to the table is to be more exigeant with the "big guys". That's about 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 Sat Sep 13 07:32:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 07:32:18 +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 HAA21270 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 07:31:50 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS1-55.star.net.il [195.8.208.55]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04503; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:30:23 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3419C2C5.C78B9D27@artaxia.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:31:33 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian D Crorie CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > (Cut) > --- > Question: > If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... > is he still wrong? Nothing wrong ...... but it can be very dangerous..... a wild other kind of living.. creature can hear , and act even worse than a woman !!! Dany N.B. - I think your question and this answer fits the real problem From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 08:24:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 08:24:43 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21390 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 08:24:37 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id PAA13193; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma013025; Fri, 12 Sep 97 15:53:00 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id PAA03434 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 15:31:46 GMT Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote >Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: >> If you have this agreement, then you should disclose it in line with >> the regulations of the SO (Law 40B). As you might expect I do not know >> the regulations in your part of the world. In England we would >> certainly require disclosure of such an agreement, both on the >> convention card and by way of alert. >> >> Of course SOs have (Law 40D) the right to regulate conventions such as >> this appears to be. As noted above I don't know the rules in Belgium, >> but in England we certainly do not license conventions like this. > >However, surely psyching is not a matter of convention but one of style. A psyche is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". On the hypothesis that there is this agreement a 1H opener means NAT 11+HCP (or whatever) or, in certain cases, 0-3(4), weaker major. Thus this is not a psyche, IMO. >And while your opponents are entitled to know about style it is not, >AFAICS, a matter for licensing. I could be persuaded that if a psyche on >such a hand was routine (ie pass effectively denied this hand type) then >it was a (normally illegal) convention. I do not regard this as a matter of "style", but a convention. It will be interesting to see what others, especially outside the UK think. For example I have never understood why a convention card should have boxes indicating frequency of psyching (as they do, I believe, in the ACBL and many other jurisductions). To me a psyche is "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length" (and the Laws are with me on that). IMO only partnership understandings should be disclosed (Law 40B), and if a partnership agrees to psyche occasionally or (in particular) frequently, then that is a partnership understanding. But if there were a partnership understanding, IMO that prevents the bid from being a psyche in the first place since it is no longer a "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". I do not accept that "pass effectively denying this hand type" is a necessary condition for a call to be a convention, and perhaps that is the key difference in our views. I suspect that on both these points I am doing no more than put forward the generally-accepted English establishment view, and perhaps it is wrong, but it one I support. BTW I am not familiar with the abbreviation "AFAICS". Is it "as far as I can see"? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 09:03:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:03:38 +1000 Received: from wpg-01.escape.ca (root@wpg-01.escape.ca [198.163.232.254]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21458 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:03:32 +1000 Received: from wpg-01.escape.ca (mx4dl004.escape.ca [207.161.63.4]) by wpg-01.escape.ca (8.8.7/8.7.5) with ESMTP id RAA17032; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:46:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199709122246.RAA17032@wpg-01.escape.ca> From: "Jan and Cam's Home Computer" To: "DANY HAIMOVICI" , "Ian D Crorie" Cc: Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? -- Sexist/Mysoginst views not welcome Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:43:05 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry == I normally enjoy and look forward to the (relativey) dynamic interchange of ideas on BLML -- but this can't be right. Please. Dany, or whoever. Don't revert to putting down women to be funny or make a point. Not cool, interesting or appropriate. Cameron Fairbairn ---------- > From: DANY HAIMOVICI > To: Ian D Crorie > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? > Date: 12 September, 1997 17:31 PM > > > (Cut) > > > > > --- > > Question: > > If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... > > is he still wrong? > > Nothing wrong ...... but it can be very dangerous..... a wild other kind > of living.. creature can hear , and act even worse than a woman !!! > > Dany > > N.B. - I think your question and this answer fits the real problem > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 09:14:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:14:29 +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 JAA21492 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:14:23 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA15599 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA05869; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:14:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:14:35 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709122314.TAA05869@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > I wonder about your use of 'converse' in relation to Law 40A. It is a little hard to follow which of your words are rhetorical and which intended to be argument. You seem to understand "converse" well enough, but in case other readers do not, I mean in the mathematical sense: "If A then B" is the proposition. "If B then A" is the converse. "If not A then not B" is the inverse. "If not B then not A" is the contrapositive. The proposition and the contrapositive are logically equivalent; the inverse and converse are logically equivalent to each other but NOT to the proposition. The "fallacy of assuming the converse" means to assume that, because a proposition is true, its converse or inverse is true. L40A says "If not based on partnership understanding (A) then legal without prior announcement (B)." > You do not intend, I think, the opposite or the contrary statement, > which would say perhaps that > "provided a call or play is not based upon a partnership > understanding a player may not make such call or play without prior > announcement" or "If A then not B." This would be the "negation" or "negative" of the proposition. (There's another name, too, isn't there?) > "provided a call or play is based on a partnership > understanding a player may make such call or play without prior > announcement". "If not A then B." Is there a name for this one? > of "all women are human beings" > the converse is "all human beings are women" Just so. You seemed to be arguing "If based on partnership understanding, then illegal without prior announcement." This is the inverse. > sponsoring organizations; these are armed, at various points in the > laws, to fill the gap by regulation. Regulations are made under the > authority and the banner of the laws and in being so made they have the > force of law. No disagreement from me or, I suspect, anyone else. (Perhaps some would insist on 'that' after 'Regulations'.) > In respect of Law 40 and of your parking notice: when the conditions > they specify do not apply the norm or normality resumes. We seem to agree here. > Our problem > appears to be that we fail to agree what is normality. This is quite a change from how I read your earlier messages. Do we now agree that partnership understandings are regulated by the rest of L40, by L75, and by subordinate regulations and not by L40A? > I am fortified in my view by Law 40C which does not require a Director > to know how it has come about, but only *whether* opponents have > received a full explanation - and if not, however the failure may have > occurred, empowers the Director to award an adjusted score if he deems > the opponents damaged. This is an interesting reading, and I won't say it's wrong. I will say that the reading stands in sharp contrast to our discussion of the 4S - x - 7C hand that David Burn presented. There was no infraction in that hand -- no failure to alert and no wrong explanation -- yet the doubler was in some sense damaged by failure to understand his opponents' (non-) agreements. Would you adjust the score under L40C? What about in other cases where a player makes a wrong assumption about opponents' agreements? For example, some sponsoring organization do not require convention cards. The bidding goes 1S-P-3S. Fourth hand assumes this is limit, but it's really forcing, and fourth hand is damaged as a result. I think most of us would say "Score stands; you should have asked." Do you disagree? More generally, when, if ever, should a TD exercise his L40C authority, other than when there has been a specific infraction of the SO's disclosure regulations? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 09:24:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:24:19 +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 JAA21515 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:24:14 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA16268 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA05878; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:24:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:24:27 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709122324.TAA05878@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Weak players bid poorly -- by definition. Usually their > bad bids fail, but sometimes they are unjustly successful, as in the > present case. Without any direct evidence of an infraction (CPU, UI, or > whatever), "bizarre" bidding by weak players is no basis for inferring an > infraction. If the players are truly weak, then yes, even the most bizarre bidding may have an innocent explanation. It is, nevertheless, the TD's (and AC's) duty to investigate if the evidence of the hand is strong enough. In score adjustment matters, factual questions are decided by the preponderance of the evidence. There is no requirement that the evidence be "direct." If the hand evidence for an infraction is, on balance, stronger than any testimony ("direct evidence") against one, then the score can be adjusted. It seems David Stevenson and I agree on this. (!) No doubt that's a bad sign. Time to go home, at any rate. A good weekend to all. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 09:52:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:52:42 +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 JAA21580 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:52:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1513240; 12 Sep 97 20:44 BST Message-ID: <+VOMh9BslZG0EwuF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:35:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: <199709100822.BAA04371@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let us walk through this hand. First, a player revoked, dummy discarded from three winners and three losers which were unreachable, and then the defender realised he had revoked. Did his partner play before he realised? I do not know. Could it matter? Just possibly, as you will see. Dummy then pointed out to declarer that he could change his discard from the dummy. He may have suggested also that the TD be called: he told me that he did, though there is no such mention on the Appeals form. No TD was called, and declarer duly changed his discard from a winning club to a losing heart. There seem to have been infractions here under L9B1A [the TD should have been summoned], L43A1 [L9B1B points here, thus making it clear that dummy may not initiate such a call], L10A [dummy does not get the right to assess penalties] and L45F [dummy indicated a change of card, thus suggesting a play]. It has been suggested that dummy may call the TD. I even said it myself through misreading a Law. While I do not believe that to be the case, I consider this to be a trivial part of the problem. If dummy, immediately after the player said he had revoked, had said "Should I call the TD?" or even "Director, please!", then it would be a very minor infraction, and will in fact become legal when the 1997 Laws are in use. But saying "Do you know that you can change your card from dummy?" is not the same as calling the TD and is a breach of L10A. If it had been a correct ruling, it might not have mattered so much, but it was not: he didn't explain the UI/AI effects of the card nor declarer's rights when either defender got on lead: he merely concentrated on one small part of the ruling, thus making that small part loom large in declarer's mind and possibly [IMO probably] making declarer think more about that bit of the ruling than a TD would have. It constituted a direct suggestion to declarer in a way that a full and correct ruling [even if delivered by dummy] would not have. Let us assume, for a moment, that offender's partner played to the trick before offender realised his revoke. Does it make a difference? Yes! If, after the revoke is corrected, declarer changes the card from dummy as he is allowed to under L62C1, then the next defender may change his card under L62C2: but he may not change it if dummy's card is unchanged. If the TD had given the ruling, he would have mentioned this. Now if the changing of the card from dummy was done casually [remember, it was a dead dummy] then perhaps declarer would be less likely to change it if it gives the other defender an extra option. Did dummy mention this in his ruling? Let us consider what would have happened if the TD had been called at the correct time. If the call was made by dummy he would have received at most a trivial telling-off, nothing more. The TD would have explained all the matters above to the table and given declarer the chance to change his play. What would have happened? Did the AC ask the declarer why he changed his card? I should like to know. Was it because he saw the endgame, with the penalty card meaning he could force an entry to the dummy? Did he just change it for the sake of it? If he saw the endgame, did he realise it before dummy pointed his option out? If the other opponent had played, would he still have changed dummy's card and given that player an additional option? I am not saying that the TD and/or AC did not ask all these questions, merely that there has been no mention of it in all the sources at my disposal. I have seen the appeals form: I have had an exchange of emails with dummy: I have spoken to the TD: I have had comments via email from Ian Reissman, a friend of dummy, who had discussed it with him, and who has posted here. In the absence of knowledge whether these questions were asked and answered, I can but make my best guess. I would expect that declarer would change the discard from a dead dummy because he had seen the end position about 20% of the time, and just for the hell of it about 10% of the time. Knowing the next player would have an additional option would not reduce the 20%, but might reduce the 10% to 5%. How often would he have changed the card from dummy after dummy's question? Well, he might have thought the penalty through rather more, so let us say he would see the end position 40% of the time. When his partner suggested a change he probably would change dummy's card for the hell of it 15% of the time, and a further 15% because of an indefinable feeling that partner had suggested it [an unconscious feeling, I hasten to point out]. There's no reduction for the next player's option, as dummy didn't mention it, so it probably was not realised by declarer. With dummy's help, declarer was going to make 3NT 70% of the time, without it 25% to 30%. I think the happenings thereafter have been answered very satisfactorily. The club was a MPC, no reason to designate otherwise, and declarer would have always forced a club lead to the dummy with the TD's help, so the play of the heart ace becomes irrelevant. I approve that thatt was not an MPC because of L11A. So how do I rule? I adjust the score under L45F to 3NT going one off. No need to fine dummy in view of this. As an AC, I give declarer some proportion of 3NT making, probably 40%. Why 40%, why not 25% or 30%? Because we know this was one of the cases where declarer would make it with dummy's help: we can ignore the other 30%. So it is 27.5*100/70, say 40%. I would now give dummy a 0.5 VP fine as a reminder not to get involved in the play. -- 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 Sep 13 11:50:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:50:06 +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 LAA21787 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:49:58 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x9hT3-0007QW-00; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:57:49 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.45.75] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x9hM5-0004M7-00; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:50:37 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:49:31 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As Chair of the AC that heard the case, I feel that I ought to reply to various points in this post. Despite the fact that it means I will have to disagree with DWS fairly violently in a public forum, I will plough on in the hope that he and I both realise that I mean absolutely nothing personal thereby. ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! > Date: 12 September 1997 20:35 > > > Let us walk through this hand. First, a player revoked, dummy > discarded from three winners and three losers which were unreachable, > and then the defender realised he had revoked. Did his partner play > before he realised? I do not know. Could it matter? Just possibly, as > you will see. > No, his partner did not play before the defender realised that he had revoked. The corrected revoke occurred on a lead from the revoker's partner, so the situation could not arise. Although the losers were as unreachable as the winners, the force of DWS's statement would have been clearer had it read: "declarer discarded one of dummy's three winners, which were unreachable, instead of one of dummy's losers." > Dummy then pointed out to declarer that he could change his discard > from the dummy. That was certainly the case. For the benefit of those who came in late, not only did I chair the appeal, I also heard during the play (from the adjoining table) much of the discussion on which the appeal was based. [Ob Question: should I have disqualified myself from hearing the appeal on that basis? What I did was to explain to the players that I had heard much of what had passed; they made no objection to my chairing the appeal.] > He may have suggested also that the TD be called: he > told me that he did, though there is no such mention on the Appeals > form. As I recall, no such suggestion was made at the time (though I may not have heard it). Certainly, none of the players claimed that there had been any move on anyone's part to call the TD at the time of the corrected revoke. It would have been illegal, in my view, for dummy to make such a suggestion under the 1987 Code. > No TD was called, and declarer duly changed his discard from a > winning club to a losing heart. As I said in an earlier post, dummy was a player of the first rank, while declarer was not (though he was certainly a player of considerable experience of the game at the highest level, and while not a leading expert, was no rabbit). It seemed entirely natural to us that declarer would take cognizance of dummy's implied suggestion that he change his discard, though he would not necessarily have any idea at the time of how it might work to his advantage. > There seem to have been infractions here under L9B1A [the TD should > have been summoned], L43A1 [L9B1B points here, thus making it clear that > dummy may not initiate such a call], L10A [dummy does not get the right > to assess penalties] and L45F [dummy indicated a change of card, thus > suggesting a play]. Seems, David? Nay, it is; I know not "seems". (Hamlet, or close enough) > It has been suggested that dummy may call the TD. I even said it > myself through misreading a Law. It ain't so. At least, in the 1987 Code, it certainly weren't so. In 1997, it may or may not be so (see my forthcoming treatise on "The world-wide increase in the manufacture of fudge, with particular attention to the Laws of Bridge"). > While I do not believe that to be the > case, Good man. > I consider this to be a trivial part of the problem. I take that last comment back. > If dummy, > immediately after the player said he had revoked, had said "Should I > call the TD?" or even "Director, please!", then it would be a very minor > infraction, It would be a direct violation of Law 43 [1987 Code]. It would be a minor infraction if there were such a thing as an insignificant murder. There is not, though I am aware that subscribers to BLML who live in New York may find this hard to believe. > and will in fact become legal when the 1997 Laws are in use. This is at best debatable. Does a player draw attention to his own infraction by the mere act of committing it? (Answers on a postcard; this is not actually germane.) > But saying "Do you know that you can change your card from dummy?" is > not the same as calling the TD and is a breach of L10A. I take back the retraction of my ante-penultimate comment. > If it had been > a correct ruling, it might not have mattered so much, I would have thought it mattered quite a lot to you (it might not matter so much to me). Men in purple jackets give rulings. If dummies arrogated that function, who knows where it might end up? > but it was not: he > didn't explain the UI/AI effects of the card nor declarer's rights when > either defender got on lead: he merely concentrated on one small part of > the ruling, thus making that small part loom large in declarer's mind > and possibly [IMO probably] making declarer think more about that bit of > the ruling than a TD would have. It constituted a direct suggestion to > declarer in a way that a full and correct ruling [even if delivered by > dummy] would not have. So we thought. So I continue to think, which is why I found the whole business so tricky. It was open to us to rule 3N-1, on precisely the grounds that "dummy's discard" of a heart instead of a club was a suggestion to declarer contrary to L45F. We ended up not doing this, and I am still not sure that we were right. > Let us assume, for a moment, that offender's partner played to the > trick before offender realised his revoke. Does it make a difference? > Yes! It may make a difference in the general case. But it did not - could not - apply to this case, as I have explained. > If, after the revoke is corrected, declarer changes the card from > dummy as he is allowed to under L62C1, then the next defender may change > his card under L62C2: but he may not change it if dummy's card is > unchanged. If the TD had given the ruling, he would have mentioned > this. Now if the changing of the card from dummy was done casually > [remember, it was a dead dummy] then perhaps declarer would be less > likely to change it if it gives the other defender an extra option. Did > dummy mention this in his ruling? No, of course not. But (see above) this did not matter. This whole line of argument is a herring of the crimsonest hue, and the jury should strike it from their minds. > Let us consider what would have happened if the TD had been called at > the correct time. Good idea. That's exactly what we did consider. > If the call was made by dummy he would have received > at most a trivial telling-off, nothing more. I emphatically do not agree with this view. L43A (unfortunately) does not prescribe what actually happens if the TD is called to the table by a dummy who should not have called him (and the 1997 Code remains silent on this point). But the Preface to the 1987 Laws states that when a player "should" do something, his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardise his rights. My reading of this is that when a player should not do something, his doing it is also an infraction of law. A "trivial telling-off" is in my view not an adequate penalty for a violation of a law that includes the word "should"; the rights of dummy's side ought to be in more jeopardy than that. > The TD would have > explained all the matters above to the table and given declarer the > chance to change his play. What would have happened? Well, he might have changed his play, or he might not. That was the view we ended up taking. But, if the TD had explained that in his view, dummy's suggestion that a heart be discarded instead of a club was illegal (L45F), we would not have had any quarrel with that. > Did the AC ask the declarer why he changed his card? I should like to > know. No. Declarer was not present (having shown far greater foresight than the rest of us, who merely wished that we were not present). But it appeared clear enough to us that he had changed his card because dummy had implanted the notion of so doing in his mind. However, if the TD had been called at the right time, it also appeared to us that he would (with 70% probability) have changed it anyway; his subsequent play indicated to us that he possessed the requisite degree of low cunning. > Was it because he saw the endgame, with the penalty card meaning > he could force an entry to the dummy? Did he just change it for the > sake of it? If he saw the endgame, did he realise it before dummy > pointed his option out? Who knows? We answered these questions in accordance with the probabilities as we saw them. > If the other opponent had played, would he > still have changed dummy's card and given that player an additional > option? Irrelevant (see above, passim). > I am not saying that the TD and/or AC did not ask all these questions, > merely that there has been no mention of it in all the sources at my > disposal. The reasons for this may now be clear. Or at any rate, clearer. We much regretted the absence of declarer, but... > I have seen the appeals form: I have had an exchange of > emails with dummy: I have spoken to the TD: I have had comments via > email from Ian Reissman, a friend of dummy, who had discussed it with > him, and who has posted here. I have seen part of this correspondence, which falls under the category of routine ear-bashing (though I expect that they expected more sympathy from you that they knew they would get from me). > In the absence of knowledge whether these questions were asked and > answered, I can but make my best guess. I would expect that declarer > would change the discard from a dead dummy because he had seen the end > position about 20% of the time, and just for the hell of it about 10% of > the time. Funnily enough, that's almost the view we took. Only, we expected that had the TD been called timeously (a cracker of a word that does not mean anything like what people would expect it to mean), the declarer - who, as I have pointed out and as the later play clearly indicated, was not lacking in basic shrewdness - would have got it right instead of wrong 70% of the time. > Knowing the next player would have an additional option would > not reduce the 20%, but might reduce the 10% to 5%. I refer the Honourable Member to the answer I gave some moments ago. > How often would he have changed the card from dummy after dummy's > question? Oh, pretty much always. But, had the TD been called at the correct time (the correction of the revoke), dummy's question would not have arisen. I confess that I wholly fail to see the point of this line of reasoning. > Well, he might have thought the penalty through rather more, > so let us say he would see the end position 40% of the time. When his > partner suggested a change he probably would change dummy's card for the > hell of it 15% of the time, and a further 15% because of an indefinable > feeling that partner had suggested it [an unconscious feeling, I hasten > to point out]. There's no reduction for the next player's option, as > dummy didn't mention it, so it probably was not realised by declarer. This is part of the line of reasoning of which I wholly fail to see the point. > With dummy's help, declarer was going to make 3NT 70% of the time, > without it 25% to 30%. See above. This conclusion is, in my opinion, simply wrong. > I think the happenings thereafter have been answered very > satisfactorily. The club was a MPC, no reason to designate otherwise, > and declarer would have always forced a club lead to the dummy with the > TD's help, so the play of the heart ace becomes irrelevant. I approve > that thatt was not an MPC because of L11A. Back on the rails. I agree with all of this. > So how do I rule? I adjust the score under L45F to 3NT going one off. We might have done that. > No need to fine dummy in view of this. Nonsense. The argument that because a player has got a worse score than he would have got had he not broken most of the laws, he does not deserve an additional penalty for flagrant breaches of procedure, has (as I recall pointing out about a year ago) absolutely nothing to commend it on either legal or moral grounds. > As an AC, I give declarer some > proportion of 3NT making, probably 40%. Why 40%, why not 25% or 30%? > Because we know this was one of the cases where declarer would make it > with dummy's help: we can ignore the other 30%. So it is 27.5*100/70, > say 40%. I would now give dummy a 0.5 VP fine as a reminder not to get > involved in the play. These calculations are based on what I believe to be fallacious arguments, for the reasons I have stated above. Looking at it simply: if dummy had remained silent and matters had taken their natural course, we opined that declarer would have made 3NT about 70% of the time. Since everyone at the table connived equally in dummy's diverse violations of the Laws - in particular, the failure to summon the TD at the earliest opportune moment - we chose to ignore their combined effect. But, since dummy had behaved as no dummy should behave (and dummy was a player of sufficient skill and experience to know that he was in the wrong, a fact that he admitted to our committee), we stuck him with the fine that the TD had assigned. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 12:45:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:45:36 +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 MAA21859 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:45:29 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x9iKj-00012i-00; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:53:17 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.45.75] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0x9iDn-0002nc-00; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:46:07 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "DANY HAIMOVICI" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Why we're here (was: Dummy's right to call the TD) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:45:01 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany What I have to say is mostly along the lines of: "while I personally agree with a lot of what you say in terms of sportsmanship, this is not a concept defined in the Laws, nor should the Laws necessarily have to take it into account." [snip] > > Steve & all list > > I am very ANGRY because many of the remarks published here . Don't be. Here, we discuss the technical implications of the Laws as we understand them. We are not really concerned with whether the actions of players are "sporting" [as I understand your use of the word "sportive" - forgive me if I am wrong]. > I told my opinion and general outline of ruling in the message to > David Burn . You did, and I'm sorry if my reply seemed to dismiss your main argument in favour of answering a technical point. But, as I've said, this group discusses legal technicalities, not morals. > But , I don't understand why people here don't deal with > the main and substantial problem : > > D U M M Y D I D A L L P O S S I B L E I N F R A C T I O N S > T O C H A N G E T H E S P O R T I V E N A T U R A L R E S U L T . That may or may not be so. I personally felt (as AC Chair) that dummy had perhaps acted beyond the bounds of what he knew to be sporting behaviour in order to further his side's interests. But what I personally may think of the way in which dummy behaved should not change - and did not change - my duty simply to apply the Laws of Bridge to the situation that had arisen. We are a group comprising senior Tournament Directors, referees, members of our countries' Laws Commissions, and others who have a technical interest in the way the Laws work. We discuss questions that arise in this forum from that point of view. We do not sit in judgement on the behaviour of players. > If any of you think I am wrong , please tell me - I should like to learn > from other people opinions ......... We may or may not think you are "wrong" in terms of your view of dummy's behaviour as unsporting. We are all administrators of considerable experience, and we have all seen behaviour at the table that would make a cat vomit. But we are concerned only with questions like: "is West's behaviour illegal? what should the penalty be under the Laws? how should an appeals committee's ruling differ from that given by a TD?" We do not answer questions such as: "should West be taken out and shot?" > It is forbidden to dummy to suggest declarer any card to play (45f) - > the Law doesn't allow dummy to help declarer even in "a sportive way" What you say is true, and it is possible (as I have indicated in other postings) that we should simply have ruled that declarer's club discard from dummy had to stand. But there were other legal questions that needed to be addressed, and we could not allow ourselves to be blinded by the notion that the substitution of a heart for a club was illegal under L45F, because to do so would have ignored what might have happened had the TD been called at the right time (among other things). > I can't believe someone intended to allow dummy help declarer to win > "not at table " ...... That is to your credit. Sadly, though, it's not the way the game - or the world - actually works. Maybe it should be, but we are a miserable crew of hard-bitten cynics who deal with what is, not what ought to be. > Please , I beg all of you - answer your opinion to these > direct and specific question . I tell you naught for your comfort, Nay, naught for your desire, Save that the sky grows darker yet, And the sea rises higher... G.K.Chesterton, "Ballad of the White Horse" From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 12:50:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:50:18 +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 MAA21886 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:50:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1201728; 12 Sep 97 20:44 BST Message-ID: <+0Hc5nBKjYG0Ew8o@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:24:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dummy's right to call TD In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote >While I agree with your temporal-geographical analysis I am not sure that >it matters in this instance. IMO 1997 does no more than clarify the 1987 >meaning of L9/L43. Ie a director call is initiated by someone other than >dummy drawing attention to an irregularity. Thereafter all 4 players are >at liberty (indeed obliged) to call the TD. Although I would view with >sympathy any dummy who remained silent believing they were not entitled >to do otherwise. I thought this originally, but I had misread L9B1B. It redirects you away from allowing any player to summon the TD to a Law that says dummy may not initiate a call. IMO this makes it clear. There would be no need for this redirection if any player included dummy. -------- David Stevenson wrote >Eric Landau wrote >>My earlier message on this subject may have been inappropriate; subsequent >>messages, which I read only after replying to David B., suggest that the >>ruling David S. presented was made under the 1987 laws (here (ACBL) we've >>been using the 1997 laws for several months already, and tend to forget >>that that's not the case everywhere). >> >>But it may not have been. As others' replies have suggested, here in ACBL >>territory we tend to view the change to L43A1(a) as a purely procedural >>change with no substantive effect. The prevailing interpretation under the >>1987 laws would have been much the same: Once an irregularity has been >>pointed out by declarer or a defender, L42B2 permits dummy to try to >>prevent the subsequent irregularity of failing to summon the director as >>required by L9B1(a), which places declarer under an obligation to do so. >>The revision of L43A1(a) merely says that dummy is no longer required to, >>in effect, summon the director via this somewhat roundabout procedure, but >>may simply do so directly. > In my view the changes to L9B1B and L43A1A are purely an attempt to >clarify, and are not real changes at all. 1987 L9B1B says "Any player" >and it really does not need a note that any player includes dummy, >though it can do no harm. In the same way, 1987 L43A1A says Dummy >should not "initiate" a call, and does not need a note that this does >not include cases where dummy is not initiating the call. Again, the >change does no harm, but there is no change in the meaning. Sorry, this is wrong! I had failed to appreciate that 1987 L9B1B directs you to L43A1. My apologies. It is quite clear that dummy may not call the TD under the 1987 Laws. --------- Jens wrote >David Grabiner wrote >> Also, Law 43B2 gives the dummy the right to attempt to prevent an >> irregularity by declarer; failure to call the director is an >> irregularity. >I agree with this. In the case of an exposed card, when one of the >players draws attention to it, I feel that Dummy has the right to >say to declarer (under the 1987 laws) that he really ought to call >the director, under the heading of preventing an irregularity. Now, >if declarer chooses not to do so, Dummy must shut up until the end >of play. This means that you can ignore L9B1B and L43A1. Can this be right? -------- David Burn wrote >Jesper Dybdal wrote >>Of course, the 1987 laws do not allow dummy to call the TD (which >>might not stop this particular dummy from doing so, however). >>But they do allow him to warn declarer against "any irregularity" >>- such as playing on after a revoke without calling the TD. >Interesting. Our view was that because L42B2 (which gives dummy the right >to prevent an irregularity by declarer) is subordinate to L43A1(a), (which >prohibits dummy from initiating a call to the Director), dummy was *not* >allowed to say: "Partner, I think you should call the TD before playing >on". Otherwise, there appears to be a contradiction between the two Laws. I find it difficult to believe that you can read "Dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play" to mean that dummy may not call the TD, but then allow him to do so by some other Law. Surely we must assume that the Laws are not ridiculous [unless we can find *no* other explanation] and it is ridiculous to assume that dummy can use the authority from another Law to ignore this one. If that was the case, why not just delete this one? -- 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 Sep 13 14:17:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:17:20 +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 OAA22032 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:17:14 +1000 Received: from default (pm3-05.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.195]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA25564 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <341A14E0.1C45910F@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:21:52 -0400 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: IMPORTANT VIRUS INFORMATION !!! NO JOKE!!!!]]]]] X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0A4B7890AFCC9EF59BE4A2AA" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0A4B7890AFCC9EF59BE4A2AA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------0A4B7890AFCC9EF59BE4A2AA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.33]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA16781; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default ([207.116.38.92]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA13094; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:50:56 +0000 From: "Bernard D. Tarr" Cc: "Andrew & Cara M Tarr" <106373.1625@compuserve.com>, "Andy M Tarr" , "Bernard D Tarr, Jr." , "Gina & Murray Ferencz" , "Jonathan Bushnell" , "Jonathan C Tarr" , "Meridith Best" , "Merle and Troy Lowell" , "Nancy J Tarr" , "Nancy T Dressing" , "Petro Resources" , "Rick Twining" , "Tom Dressing" , "Valerie Tarr" , "Wallace Beeson" Subject: Fw: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: IMPORTANT VIRUS INFORMATION !!! NO JOKE!!!!]]]] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:50:17 -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 Message-ID: <19970911225050.AAA13094@default> ---------- > From: Steven J. Blumenkrantz > To: Rose Levin ; rothenrd@snyoneva.cc.oneonta.edu; Rich Flathmann ; Michael , Linda. Claude <" 101510.1542"@compuserve.com>; Maureen Ganley ; Martha Mauro ; Mark Drnek ; LouAnn Virgil ; L. David Zube ; glantz@warwick.net; dornjt99@snyoneva.cc.oneonta.edu; John Adams ; Joan Duhamel ; James Milavec ; Irving Levin ; Helen Newman ; Edward May ; David Muehl ; David Blumenkrantz > Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: IMPORTANT VIRUS INFORMATION !!! NO JOKE!!!!]]]] > Date: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 6:55 PM > > Steven J. Blumenkrantz wrote: > > > > received this today.....9/10 ..... have not verified its validity.... > > sjb<:)..... > > > > > > >Read.....important..... > > > >>--------------------- > > > >>Forwarded message: > > > >>Subj: Virus Information - NO JOKE > > > >>Date: 97-09-03 19:29:59 EDT > > > >> > > > >>VIRUS INFORMATION ************************* > > > >> > > > >>A few hours ago, someone opened an E-mail that had the subject heading of > > > >>ao4free.com. Within seconds of opening it, a window appeared and began to > > > >>display all files that were being deleted. The user immediately shut down > > > >>the PC, but it was too late. This virus wiped everything out. It > > > >>destroyed the Anit-Virus Software that comes with Windows"95, along with > > > >>IBM Anti-virus Software. McAfee was not even able to detect it. Please be > > > >>careful and send this to as many people as possible, so maybe this new > > > >>virus can be eliminated. > > > >> > > > >>This information was received this morning from IBM, please share it with > > > >>anyone that might access the Internet. > > > >> > > > >>If anyone receives e-mail entitled 'PENPAL GREETINGS!' pelase delete it > > > >>WITHOUT READING IT!!!!! This is a warning for all Internet users - there > > > >>is a dangerous virus propagating across the Internet through an e-mail > > > >>message entitled 'PENPAL GREETINGS!' DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANY MESSAGE ENTITLED > > > >>PENPAL GREETINGS!! This message appears to be a friendly letter asking you > > > >>if you are interested in a penpal, but by the time you read the letter, it > > > >>is too late. The "Trojan horse" virus will have already infected the boot > > > >>sector of your hard drive, destroying all of the data present. It is a > > > >>self-replicating virus, and once the message is read, it will AUTOMATICALLY > > > >>forward itself to anyone whose e-mail address is present in YOUR mailbox. > > > >> > > > >>This virus will DESTROY your hard drive, and holds the potential to DESTROY > > > >>the hard drive of anyone whose mail is in your IN BOX, and whose Mail is in > > > >>their in box and so on. If this virus keeps getting passed, it has the > > > >>potential to do a great deal of damage to computer networks worldwide!!! > > > >>Please delete the message entitled 'PENPAL GREETINGS!' AS SOON AS YOU SEE > > > >>IT! Pass this message along to all of your friends and other readers > > > >>of the newsgroups and mailing lists which you are on so that they are not > > > >>hurt by this dangerous virus!! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > --------------0A4B7890AFCC9EF59BE4A2AA-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 15:19:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA22144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:19:48 +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 PAA22139 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:19:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0602223; 12 Sep 97 20:44 BST Message-ID: <8UkcB3BElYG0Ew$F@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:26:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >Jens wrote >> At trick 11, I find that it is possible that dummy is >> suggesting to declarer that he choose a specific penalty, which is a >> violation of L10C2; > >We did not consider this as such, and were possibly wrong to fail to do >so. > >> I would now rule that the right to penalize is >> forfeited. >> >On what grounds? Not that I think you would be wrong so to rule, but >I'm not sure which Law gives you the authority. Certainly we do not want a toothless Law. L10C2 says that "he must make his selection without consulting partner". How do we make sure this happens? Generally we no longer permit the option that the partner has indicated. The legality of this is interesting. Possibly we should allow such a selection, and then fine him enough under L90 to make sure it will not recur. However, in this specific instance we can use L11A. >> Dummy gets a PP (L90) in the form of a formal warning. >Dummy got a PP from the TD in the form of a 1 VP penalty. We did not >consider this harsh. Dummy was an expert, declarer was not, and it >certainly appeared to us that dummy was orchestrating matters to his side's >best advantage. It does rather depend on the final ruling. Jens said that he would make an adjustment, but rather confucingly did not tell us what. If he adjusted from 3NT= to 3NT-1 then I feel a PP of a strong warning is ample. -------- Jesper Dybdal wrote >David Burn wrote >>One of the factors that we considered was: the TD should have been called >>when the corrected revoke appeared. He was not. What would have happened if >>he had been? > >The contract would probably, but not quite certainly, have won. Stephen Barnfield wrote >But I do not think the play or defence would have proceeded >differently in that case. Thus I would leave the score at EW+600 for both >sides. Max Bavin wrote >Since this is a real case (I assume), this last bit is very hard to >judge without speaking to the declarer. I am inclined to believe that >he WOULD have got it right, and that dummy was "merely" informing >everyone what the Law was rather than suggesting a play. I am aware >that I might be being very naive here, but without speaking to the >pair it really is impossible to tell. As you will see from my other posts, I find these three comments surprising, though I am clearly in a minority. Declarer has thrown a winner away from dummy because he knows he can never reach it: do you really believe that he will change that if a TD is called and explains the effect of an MPC? -- 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 Sep 13 16:40:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:40:05 +1000 Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22220 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:29:34 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id CAA08313 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:20:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:20:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970913022046_-1734927044@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: From Gary: X-XX-pass Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The penalty pass of a direct redouble of a takeout double has always >required an Alert. It still does. >-Gary Blaiss Maybe it would have been, and would be, a good idea to say so in the ACBL Alert Procedure. Suggested wording: -- -- Alert a pass over the redouble of a takeout or negative double if both the redouble and the pass signify a desire to play the redoubled contract. If the redouble asks for a rescue ("S. O. S."), a pass "to play" is not Alertable. Alert all other passes that have an unexpected meaning. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 18:20:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA22316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:20:48 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA22311 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:20:41 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id JAA13601 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 09:20:35 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 97 09:19 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card 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: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > I do not accept that "pass effectively denying this hand type" is a > necessary condition for a call to be a convention, and perhaps that is > the key difference in our views. Fair enough. I'd also consider a mechanism for the partnership to discriminate between normal and "psychic" bids or evidence of cautious bidding by psychers partner as showing a convention. I believe that your interpretation of the law leads to a situation of "Regular partnerships may not psyche (successfully)". This may be the right thing to do, and popular with many players, but a significant campaign of re-education would be needed to get the message across to the world at large. > > I suspect that on both these points I am doing no more than put forward > the generally-accepted English establishment view, and perhaps it is > wrong, but it one I support. My heart leans towards rubber bridge rather than duplicate (no conventions, psyche at your own risk) so my view may well be at odds (yet again) with the duplicate establishment. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 19:02:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 19:02:57 +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 TAA22382 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 19:01:59 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS1-2.star.net.il [195.8.208.2]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA17308; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:00:09 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <341A646F.5DD35EA5@artaxia.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:01:19 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Why we're here (was: Dummy's right to call the TD) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DAVID Thank you very much for your detailed answer . Here my final remarks about this subject. No doubt that as a TD we must apply the laws "as they are" , if we like them or not , and even we believe that must be changed . _______________________________________________________ The idea I tried to promote is :"what should be the main considerations when an infraction - or many subsequent produced by the first - are connected to many laws wich sometimes may be contradictoraly ?!" _______________________________________________________ I appologize I didn't mention all the laws involved in my corespondance because I was sure that most of us know them "by heart" . Anyway , in this case , I should apply the law 11A superior to all other laws ( still don't put them in detail because I respect the forum deep knowledge ) forfeiting the dummy's pair rights to penalize the irregularity and let play continue NATURAL. I choose this option with no doubts ,because of my ideology , and I am sure I fulfilled all the "technical" laws , even applied them the best way the legislators intended .......... I must be sincere and tell you and all the forum that I insist here because I should like all of us - TD and AC - act this way.... (I believe that this is the "principle of equity") "WHEN HAVE PROBLEMS/DOUBTS WITH A LOT OF LAWS INVOLVED IN ONE DECISION AND THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT INDICATION OF PRIORITY IN ^THE BIBLE^ , CHOOSE THE PRIORITY OF SPORT AND NATURAL CONDUCT " I am sure we"ll cooperate friendly and fruitfully in order to promote the scope of the laws and try to arrive at an homogenous spirit of rulling and managing bridge events Cordially DANY David Burn wrote: > Dany > > What I have to say is mostly along the lines of: "while I personally agree > with a lot of what you say in terms of sportsmanship, this is not a concept > defined in the Laws, nor should the Laws necessarily have to take it into > account." > > [snip] > > > > Steve & all list > > > > I am very ANGRY because many of the remarks published here . > > Don't be. Here, we discuss the technical implications of the Laws as we > understand them. We are not really concerned with whether the actions of > players are "sporting" [as I understand your use of the word "sportive" - > forgive me if I am wrong]. > > > I told my opinion and general outline of ruling in the message to > > David Burn . > > You did, and I'm sorry if my reply seemed to dismiss your main argument in > favour of answering a technical point. But, as I've said, this group > discusses legal technicalities, not morals. > > > But , I don't understand why people here don't deal with > > the main and substantial problem : > > > > D U M M Y D I D A L L P O S S I B L E I N F R A C T I O N S > > T O C H A N G E T H E S P O R T I V E N A T U R A L R E S U L T . > > That may or may not be so. I personally felt (as AC Chair) that dummy had > perhaps acted beyond the bounds of what he knew to be sporting behaviour in > order to further his side's interests. But what I personally may think of > the way in which dummy behaved should not change - and did not change - my > duty simply to apply the Laws of Bridge to the situation that had arisen. > We are a group comprising senior Tournament Directors, referees, members of > our countries' Laws Commissions, and others who have a technical interest > in the way the Laws work. We discuss questions that arise in this forum > from that point of view. We do not sit in judgement on the behaviour of > players. > > > If any of you think I am wrong , please tell me - I should like to learn > > from other people opinions ......... > > We may or may not think you are "wrong" in terms of your view of dummy's > behaviour as unsporting. We are all administrators of considerable > experience, and we have all seen behaviour at the table that would make a > cat vomit. But we are concerned only with questions like: "is West's > behaviour illegal? what should the penalty be under the Laws? how should an > appeals committee's ruling differ from that given by a TD?" We do not > answer questions such as: "should West be taken out and shot?" > > > It is forbidden to dummy to suggest declarer any card to play (45f) - > > the Law doesn't allow dummy to help declarer even in "a sportive way" > > What you say is true, and it is possible (as I have indicated in other > postings) that we should simply have ruled that declarer's club discard > from dummy had to stand. But there were other legal questions that needed > to be addressed, and we could not allow ourselves to be blinded by the > notion that the substitution of a heart for a club was illegal under L45F, > because to do so would have ignored what might have happened had the TD > been called at the right time (among other things). > > > I can't believe someone intended to allow dummy help declarer to win > > "not at table " ...... > > That is to your credit. Sadly, though, it's not the way the game - or the > world - actually works. Maybe it should be, but we are a miserable crew of > hard-bitten cynics who deal with what is, not what ought to be. > > > Please , I beg all of you - answer your opinion to these > > direct and specific question . > > I tell you naught for your comfort, > Nay, naught for your desire, > Save that the sky grows darker yet, > And the sea rises higher... > G.K.Chesterton, "Ballad of the White Horse" From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 20:26:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA22482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 20:26:11 +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 UAA22477 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 20:26:05 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1513240; 12 Sep 97 20:44 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:14:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: How do we show the play of the cards? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eight opinions expressed. 1] In recapping the play of the hand, stationary compass position is easier to follow. 2] For me, always West first is the most easy to read. 3] I greatly prefer the WNES form. 4] If it is in tabular form, I prefer fixed compass directions. W N E S H2 H3 HQ* H7 S6 D2 S3 SA* DA* D3 D7 DK CA* C5 C7 C6 5] Next leader first. H2 H3 HQ* H7 S3 SA* S6 D2 DK DA* D3 D7 CA* C5 C7 C6 6] Next leader first... with a designation who the leader is... i.e. N: Hk h3 h3 hA W: sA s2 s4 s5 etc... then you are covered if you make a typing error... 7] I prefer the next leader first - it seems most natural. And if you also add a designation of who the leader is it will be even easier to follow. W: H2 H3 HQ* H7 E: S3 SA* S6 D2 S: DK DA* D3 D7 W: CA* C5 C7 C6 8] Prefer the OKBridge format. 1 2 3 4 W: H2 S6 DA*CA* N: H3 D2 D3 C5 E: HQ*S3 D7 C7 S: H7 SA*DK C6 -- 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 Sep 13 20:30:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA22499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 20:30:45 +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 UAA22494 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 20:30:31 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS1-2.star.net.il [195.8.208.2]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA18480; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 13:02:48 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <341A731F.A0328EC3@artaxia.com> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 13:03:59 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jan and Cam's Home Computer" CC: Ian D Crorie , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? -- Sexist/Mysoginst views not welcome References: <199709122246.RAA17032@wpg-01.escape.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To all women and men here and everywhere I never intend to say any really bad word about women . I always loved women and now I love wife and daugter very much. My cinyc answer was just in women's favour ( that's what I believe) If someone hurt - please get my profound and sincere appologize . I hope that some humor will still be "on" and even if someone will not like a remark , word , idiom or whatever - I beg her/him to look at it as a constructive and happy intention DANY Jan and Cam's Home Computer wrote: > Sorry == I normally enjoy and look forward to the (relativey) dynamic > interchange of ideas on BLML -- but this can't be right. > > Please. Dany, or whoever. Don't revert to putting down women to be funny > or make a point. Not cool, interesting or appropriate. > > Cameron Fairbairn > > ---------- > > From: DANY HAIMOVICI > > To: Ian D Crorie > > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? > > Date: 12 September, 1997 17:31 PM > > > > > (Cut) > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Question: > > > If a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman to hear him... > > > is he still wrong? > > > > Nothing wrong ...... but it can be very dangerous..... a wild other kind > > of living.. creature can hear , and act even worse than a woman !!! > > > > Dany > > > > N.B. - I think your question and this answer fits the real problem > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 22:37:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 22:37:45 +1000 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22661 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 22:37:38 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id NAA28819 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 13:36:28 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 97 13:35 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! 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: A couple of points on the issue at large. Firstly as to dummy's right, or otherwise, to summon director under the 1997 laws. L9B1a uses the word "must", according to the preface the "strongest" word. L43A1a uses "should". It is entirely consistent with the laws that the reference to L43a1 in L9b1 restricts dummy from calling attention to an irregularity either directly, or by summoning the director when the table at large is unaware of the irregularity. I cannot believe that in the current case South replaced his revoke with the D8 (shame he hadn't kept the D9, David) without some sort of "Oops", "Sorry", "Oh dear" so attention *had* been drawn to the irregularity. Even if we ignore the right of dummy to attempt to prevent an infraction by declarer (L42b2), and the possible ambiguity of "initiate" we only reduce dummy to a choice of infractions either he contravenes the "must" of L9 or the "should" of L43. Given that even this forum is unable to reach full agreement it would IMO be unreasonable to even consider a penalty for a dummy who called the TD in these circumstances. While I acknowledge that DWS may have revised his own opinion of the changes from 1987 to 1997 in L43 as no more than "an attempt to clean up wording" any reader of English Bridge (Aug 1997) who has seen the '97 laws will not be aware of this. Secondly, we have the actual behaviour of dummy. His initial "ruling" of "you may change your discard" is, to say the least incomplete, and might be taken as a suggestion to do so. However, compare this to a full directors ruling which not only informs declarer of his right to change the discard but also makes clear that the defence are likely to have to lead a club at their first opportunity. If anything this makes me feel that David Burn's 70% may well be too low, particularly since declarer apparently refrained from cashing his master diamond and letting NS off the hook. Indeed prior to the revoke becoming known the C5 is clearly useless while H8xx might, on a miracle of misdefence, provide a trick/entry. Result stands, as a TD ruling, certainly seems to me to "restore equity" to the post-revoke situation (of course the revoke law itself is one of the few that ignore equity, but we have to live with it for a while yet). It is almost impossible to determine an appropriate PP without talking to the players but anything from 0.25 to 2vps could be in order. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 13 23:58:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:58:40 +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 XAA22793 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:58:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1110550; 13 Sep 97 14:20 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 04:46:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >> From: David Stevenson >> No need to fine dummy in view of this. > >Nonsense. The argument that because a player has got a worse score than he >would have got had he not broken most of the laws, he does not deserve an >additional penalty for flagrant breaches of procedure, has (as I recall >pointing out about a year ago) absolutely nothing to commend it on either >legal or moral grounds. It's a good thing, then, that these are not the grounds that we employ. We do it on practical grounds. PPs are to persuade players to follow procedure, nothing 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 Sun Sep 14 00:02:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:02:55 +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 AAA22824 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:02:48 +1000 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA23635 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:02:41 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:02:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <341f917e.3030908@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> In-Reply-To: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> 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, 12 Sep 97 15:31:46 GMT, Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: >I do not regard this as a matter of "style", but a convention. It will = be=20 >interesting to see what others, especially outside the UK think. For = example I=20 >have never understood why a convention card should have boxes indicating= =20 >frequency of psyching (as they do, I believe, in the ACBL and many other= =20 >jurisductions). To me a psyche is "a deliberate and gross misstatement = of=20 >honour strength or suit length" (and the Laws are with me on that). IMO= only=20 >partnership understandings should be disclosed (Law 40B), and if a = partnership=20 >agrees to psyche occasionally or (in particular) frequently, then that = is a=20 >partnership understanding. But if there were a partnership = understanding, IMO=20 >that prevents the bid from being a psyche in the first place since it is= no=20 >longer a "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit= =20 >length". Not necessarily. We have that box on the Danish CCs, which means that the general psyche frequency is a partnership understanding and AI for partner. IMO this means, for instance, that if your partner has "often" in that box and your RHO has "never", and you see an auction that indicates that either partner or RHO has psyched, then you are allowed to guess correctly that partner is the psycher. >I do not accept that "pass effectively denying this hand type" is a = necessary=20 >condition for a call to be a convention, and perhaps that is the key = difference=20 >in our views. I agree. In a case like these 0-3 HCP openings third in hand, there is a limit to how often they can occur and still be considered psyches: - A player who opens 10% of such hands (randomly chosen, of course) is IMO psyching legally. It might be a good idea to write something about it on the CC and to alert and explain "he sometimes psyches in that situation - when he does, he usually has 0-3 HCP". - A player who opens 50% of such hands is IMO not psyching; he has a system agreement with the unusual property that these hands can be shown in two equally good ways (pass or open). He must write it on the CC (and alert) and play it only in events where such systems are allowed. My borderline is thus somewhere between 10% and 50%, and I do not have a clear opinion as to the exact figure. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 00:02:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:02:57 +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 AAA22825 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:02:50 +1000 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA23638 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:02:42 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: IMPORTANT VIRUS INFORMATION !!! NO JOKE!!!!]]]]] Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:02:42 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34209acc.5413353@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <341A14E0.1C45910F@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <341A14E0.1C45910F@pinehurst.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 Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:21:52 -0400, "Nancy T.Dressing" wrote: >> > > >>VIRUS INFORMATION ************************* This is a hoax. There have been many like it in the past few years. The "virus" is the warning itself - it is spread by kind and well-meaning people warning their friends. Reading e-mail cannot in itself infect your computer with a virus. If you execute a program (*.exe or *.com file) received by e-mail then you may get a virus. If you open a document received by e-mail in an advanced word processor then you may also get a virus (the only viruses of this kind I've heard of are MS Word documents - don't open *.doc files unless you trust the sender and author). But simply looking at an e-mail message in an ordinary e-mail program is not dangerous. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 00:03:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:03:06 +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 AAA22834 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:02:55 +1000 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA23632 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:02:39 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:02:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <341e8cc3.1820627@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 Sat, 13 Sep 1997 02:49:31 +0100, "David Burn" wrote: >> and will in fact become legal when the 1997 Laws are in use. > >This is at best debatable. Does a player draw attention to his own >infraction by the mere act of committing it? (Answers on a postcard; = this >is not actually germane.) David S's original description of the case says: > At this point, South discovered he had a diamond, and replaced the C8=20 >with the D8, leaving the C8 as a major penalty card on the table. As I read this, the offender himself had drawn attention to the irregularity by placing his C8 in a penalty-card-like position and playing the D8 instead. So unless I've misunderstood something rather badly, it must have been very clear to all four players that there had been an irregularity. This means that _if_ dummy had called the TD, his offense would have been minor (and no offense at all in the new laws). If dummy had been the first to call attention to the revoke, then it would have been a different matter. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 00:31:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:31:30 +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 AAA25209 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:31:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1020135; 13 Sep 97 14:20 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:11:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >As Chair of the AC that heard the case, I feel that I ought to reply to >various points in this post. Despite the fact that it means I will have to >disagree with DWS fairly violently in a public forum, I will plough on in >the hope that he and I both realise that I mean absolutely nothing personal >thereby. I have no problem with disagreeing with David, and expect to continue to do so! Isn't a Chair something the Chairman or Lady Chairman sits on? >That was certainly the case. For the benefit of those who came in late, not >only did I chair the appeal, I also heard during the play (from the >adjoining table) much of the discussion on which the appeal was based. [Ob >Question: should I have disqualified myself from hearing the appeal on that >basis? What I did was to explain to the players that I had heard much of >what had passed; they made no objection to my chairing the appeal.] As a practical matter, once you explained and they made no objection, then I am happy. this is the first I had heard of this. >> There seem to have been infractions here under L9B1A [the TD should >> have been summoned], L43A1 [L9B1B points here, thus making it clear that >> dummy may not initiate such a call], L10A [dummy does not get the right >> to assess penalties] and L45F [dummy indicated a change of card, thus >> suggesting a play]. > >Seems, David? Nay, it is; I know not "seems". (Hamlet, or close enough) You are sounding more like Grattan Endicott [gester] every day! >> I consider this to be a trivial part of the problem. > >I take that last comment back. > >> If dummy, >> immediately after the player said he had revoked, had said "Should I >> call the TD?" or even "Director, please!", then it would be a very minor >> infraction, > >It would be a direct violation of Law 43 [1987 Code]. It would be a minor >infraction if there were such a thing as an insignificant murder. There is >not, though I am aware that subscribers to BLML who live in New York may >find this hard to believe. Spitting on the sidewalk is, I believe, somewhat insignificant, especially compared with murder. The difference lies in the effect of the infraction. The effect of dummy calling the Director would be to get the Law applied to an infraction. That does not sound very terrible to me. I stand by my original comment, it would be a very minor infraction. >> and will in fact become legal when the 1997 Laws are in use. > >This is at best debatable. Does a player draw attention to his own >infraction by the mere act of committing it? (Answers on a postcard; this >is not actually germane.) Ok, we'll debate it. Let's start another thread on how the words "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity" [1997 L9B1B] do not give dummy the right to call a TD. >> but it was not: he >> didn't explain the UI/AI effects of the card nor declarer's rights when >> either defender got on lead: he merely concentrated on one small part of >> the ruling, thus making that small part loom large in declarer's mind >> and possibly [IMO probably] making declarer think more about that bit of >> the ruling than a TD would have. It constituted a direct suggestion to >> declarer in a way that a full and correct ruling [even if delivered by >> dummy] would not have. > >So we thought. So I continue to think, which is why I found the whole >business so tricky. It was open to us to rule 3N-1, on precisely the >grounds that "dummy's discard" of a heart instead of a club was a >suggestion to declarer contrary to L45F. We ended up not doing this, and I >am still not sure that we were right. The Law tells you to assign if there was damage from this. Surely, that's what you did? >> Let us consider what would have happened if the TD had been called at >> the correct time. > >Good idea. That's exactly what we did consider. > >> If the call was made by dummy he would have received >> at most a trivial telling-off, nothing more. > >I emphatically do not agree with this view. L43A (unfortunately) does not >prescribe what actually happens if the TD is called to the table by a dummy >who should not have called him (and the 1997 Code remains silent on this >point). But the Preface to the 1987 Laws states that when a player "should" >do something, his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will >jeopardise his rights. My reading of this is that when a player should not >do something, his doing it is also an infraction of law. A "trivial >telling-off" is in my view not an adequate penalty for a violation of a law >that includes the word "should"; the rights of dummy's side ought to be in >more jeopardy than that. Why? Are you not making a mountain out of a molehill? We tend to make the punishment fit the crime, that being a loose way of describing the word adequate in "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure", from the Scope of the Laws. We consider effects of infractions. Dummy calling the TD did not cause the contract to make. >> The TD would have >> explained all the matters above to the table and given declarer the >> chance to change his play. What would have happened? > >Well, he might have changed his play, or he might not. That was the view we >ended up taking. But, if the TD had explained that in his view, dummy's >suggestion that a heart be discarded instead of a club was illegal (L45F), >we would not have had any quarrel with that. > >> Did the AC ask the declarer why he changed his card? I should like to >> know. > >No. Declarer was not present (having shown far greater foresight than the >rest of us, who merely wished that we were not present). But it appeared >clear enough to us that he had changed his card because dummy had implanted >the notion of so doing in his mind. However, if the TD had been called at >the right time, it also appeared to us that he would (with 70% probability) >have changed it anyway; his subsequent play indicated to us that he >possessed the requisite degree of low cunning. >> In the absence of knowledge whether these questions were asked and >> answered, I can but make my best guess. I would expect that declarer >> would change the discard from a dead dummy because he had seen the end >> position about 20% of the time, and just for the hell of it about 10% of >> the time. > >Funnily enough, that's almost the view we took. Only, we expected that had >the TD been called timeously (a cracker of a word that does not mean >anything like what people would expect it to mean), the declarer - who, as >I have pointed out and as the later play clearly indicated, was not lacking >in basic shrewdness - would have got it right instead of wrong 70% of the >time. 20% + 10% = 70%? I do not quite understand this, unless it was satire. However, I do not believe that a shrewd and reasonable declarer is going to change his discard from a dead dummy 70% of the time. >Oh, pretty much always. But, had the TD been called at the correct time >(the correction of the revoke), dummy's question would not have arisen. I >confess that I wholly fail to see the point of this line of reasoning. How much damage was there? >> So how do I rule? I adjust the score under L45F to 3NT going one off. > >We might have done that. > >> No need to fine dummy in view of this. > >Nonsense. The argument that because a player has got a worse score than he >would have got had he not broken most of the laws, he does not deserve an >additional penalty for flagrant breaches of procedure, has (as I recall >pointing out about a year ago) absolutely nothing to commend it on either >legal or moral grounds. I have explained my view on this in a separate article. Unless or until you can convince me/us of your views, David, either here or in another forum, TDs in England will tend to follow this which is understood to be equitable. Thus I stand by the result that I would have given as a TD. >These calculations are based on what I believe to be fallacious arguments, >for the reasons I have stated above. Looking at it simply: if dummy had >remained silent and matters had taken their natural course, we opined that >declarer would have made 3NT about 70% of the time. Since everyone at the >table connived equally in dummy's diverse violations of the Laws - in >particular, the failure to summon the TD at the earliest opportune moment - >we chose to ignore their combined effect. But, since dummy had behaved as >no dummy should behave (and dummy was a player of sufficient skill and >experience to know that he was in the wrong, a fact that he admitted to our >committee), we stuck him with the fine that the TD had assigned. Never a bad thing to agree with the level of fine the TD has given if you agree with him. I am curious what you would have decided as an AC if the TD had ruled as I said, 3NT-1, no fine. Would you have instituted a fine then? You do not seem anywhere in this to have considered the question of damage. If declarer would get it right without dummy's help 70% of the time, and with dummy's help 70% of the time, then there is no damage. L45F only gives you the right to assign a score if the other side was damaged. I am interested I your overall approach, where you don't consider the proportion of damage. It seems harsher on the offending side, which may not be a bad thing, and simpler to apply, which is certainly a good thing. I think that I am happy to go along with it. So, in summary, I consider the 70% far too high: you have to consider whether damage occurred: no fine was suitable for a TD who made a full adjustment: it is reasonable to split a score on the overall 'what would have happened on the board' rather than just on the amount of damage caused by the infraction, as I did originally. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 01:45:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:45:36 +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 BAA25808 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:45:28 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1000185; 13 Sep 97 16:29 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:51:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote >Indeed prior to the revoke becoming known the C5 is clearly >useless while H8xx might, on a miracle of misdefence, provide a >trick/entry. True: so you would expect a heart discard. But he didn't: he discarded a club, so why should he change his mind? I agree that the heart discard is more likely, but it didn't happen. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 02:44:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 02:44:22 +1000 Received: from tycho.global.net.uk (tycho.global.net.uk [194.126.82.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA26141 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 02:44:14 +1000 Received: from default (client8426.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.38]) by tycho.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA03232; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:42:38 +0100 Message-Id: <199709131642.RAA03232@tycho.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Forcing and "To Play" Passes Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:40:41 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : > From: Mlfrench@aol.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Forcing and "To Play" Passes > Date: 09 September 1997 20:49 > > An argument has sprung up among some top players in San Diego, some of whom > play that a pass over the redouble of partner's takeout or negative double is > "to play." Others have the more usual understanding that such a pass is not > "to play," making it a convention per '97 Laws (indicating "other than > willingness to play in the last denomination named"). > > The argument concerns which usage must be Alerted. > /////snip\\\\\ My suspicion is that it will turn out no-one has sorted it out and that for now BOTH meanings are alertable. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 11:42:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:42:10 +1000 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA27285 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:42:03 +1000 Received: from default (ip96.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.96]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA24373 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 21:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709140141.VAA24373@brickbat8.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 21:38:57 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Steve Willner > > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > > Weak players bid poorly -- by definition. Usually their > > bad bids fail, but sometimes they are unjustly successful, as in the > > present case. Without any direct evidence of an infraction (CPU, UI, or > > whatever), "bizarre" bidding by weak players is no basis for inferring an > > infraction. > > If the players are truly weak, then yes, even the most bizarre bidding > may have an innocent explanation. It is, nevertheless, the TD's (and > AC's) duty to investigate if the evidence of the hand is strong > enough. > > In score adjustment matters, factual questions are decided by the > preponderance of the evidence. There is no requirement that the > evidence be "direct." If the hand evidence for an infraction is, on > balance, stronger than any testimony ("direct evidence") against one, > then the score can be adjusted. > > It seems David Stevenson and I agree on this. (!) No doubt that's a > bad sign. Time to go home, at any rate. > > A good weekend to all. As to the evidence provided by the hands, it is nearly non-existent. I certainly don't endorse either the double or the 2C call, but more than one correspondent in this forum has defended each action, and I have some sympathy with the difficulties faced by each player at the table. (West was understandably unwilling to sell but had no easy alternative,and East understandably uncertain about defensive prospects against a one-level suit contract). But that discussion misses your main point, which is that the evidence of the hands and the auction alone might in principle suffice to demonstrate UI even when no other basis for such a charge was present. I really don't see how this could work in any situation, but especially not when the alleged culprits are weak players, as is stipulated in the present case. Investigate all you want, but I'd give fairly good odds against you finding either a) a compelling and cogent defense of the EW auction or b)an admission that indeed, the placement of partner's scoring pencil indicated that the double was for takeout. Just as weak players bid poorly, they are often quite inarticulate in their analysis of why they bid as they do. In fact, if they could make a compelling case for their bad bids, they wouldn't be so bad, would they? So you will be disappointed if you hope to find a reasonable basis for the EW actions. If, on the other hand, you approach this problem as an "investigator", intent on uncovering the "real" motivations behind this suspicious bidding, then the fumbling and inconsistent explanations which will be offered by EW will be exactly what you're looking for to hang them. Mike From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 11:42:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:42:49 +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 LAA27292 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:42:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1409145; 14 Sep 97 1:51 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:33:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Revoke and claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is time we got back to the easy ones! Declarer leads a small diamond to dummy .... LHO puts down a small CLUB .... dummy plays K and RHO follows suit .... At this moment and simultaneously .... declarer claims, facing his hand, and announcing since LHO is void in diamonds the finesse is marked .... AND LHO says .... I revoked .... I have a diamond! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 12:14:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:14:25 +1000 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA27386 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:14:19 +1000 Received: from default (ip96.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.96]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA05603 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 22:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709140214.WAA05603@brickbat8.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: UI Ruling in Club Game Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 22:11:20 -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 Several weeks ago the following auction occurred at the local duplicate: N E S W - - - 1D P 1H P 2NT P 4C P 4S P 4NT* P 6NT *Long hesitation, all agreed. After the slow 4nt bid I (North) asked if everyone agreed that there had been a substantial pause, and everyone did. After the 6NT bid, I summoned the director, who duly noted and asked to be recalled if necessary. 6NT rolled for an essentially flat board (dummy had the A she had "promised"), and of course I did call the director back. He ruled to let the 6NT bid stand, as West held a 3-2-5-3 20 count. In later discussions with the director, I protested the ruling fairly vehemently. To me, this "hesitation Gerber" sequence is pretty much the canonical UI situation, and if the director can't make the correct ruling in this case, it seems unlikely he will ever get it right. In defense of his ruling, the director eschewed the tradtional "LA" and "may reasonably suggest" analysis. He pointed out that the 6NT bidder had plenty in reserve (perhaps too much) for his earlier actions, but also admitted that he might have ruled differently in a tournament setting. His last argument more or less confirmed a suspicion of mine. He said that although rulings about leads out of turn or insufficient bids were pretty-well tolerated as simple factual adjudications, most club players get cranky about adverse UI rulings, taking them as personal charges of unethical conduct. This director depends heavily on his director fees as pretty much his sole source of income, and can't afford to alienate paying customers by implicitly calling them cheaters. I asked this fellow to consult with some of his colleagues, and to my surprise, he found two others who agreed with the ruling outright, and several who thought it was very close. Only one (a well-respected national director) thought the ruling was obviously wrong. I was fairly mystified by this result, until I happened upon a copy of Harris' "Bridge Director's Companion" this afternoon. In the section on UI, it advises the director to give an adjusted score if he judges that the result "may have been" affected by the UI. Although it is possible to reconcile this language with that of 16A, the tone is quite different, and indeed seems a reasonable basis for exactly the ruling which troubled me in the first place,i.e., I agree with the director's judgement that the UI was not actually the basis for the 6NT bid in this case. So, after rather an excessive amount of verbiage, my questions to any who have made it this far: 1. Is the original ruling in fact as clear-cut as I believe it to be? 2. Do real-world directors tend to have a more lenient view toward UI than the prevailing attitude on BLML? 3. Is this book sanctioned (or indeed marketed) by the ACBL, and if so, why would a book recommending a counter-legal basis for rulings be endorsed by that organization? (Chyah?) Thanking you all for your patience, I am, Humbuggedly, Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 12:27:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:27:54 +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 MAA27418 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:27:47 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1229861; 14 Sep 97 1:51 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:43:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Call OOT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have now received a rather fetching small book, called The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, so I thought I would use it. East opens 2S showing both minors and 7-12 HCP. North looks fairly pointedly at the Dealer mark opposite him, and the TD is called. South does not accept the 2S, North opens 1NT, and East overcalls. His conventional defence to 1NT is that 2C shows the minors, 11-15 HCP, 2D shows diamonds, 11-15 HCP, 2S shows spades plus a red suit, 11-15 HCP. What happens if East [a] overcalls 2C? [b] overcalls 2D? [c] overcalls 2S? Enjoy! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 20:06:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:06:20 +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 UAA28081 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:06:14 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-114.innet.be [194.7.10.114]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21283 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:06:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341BAE38.6CDBA710@innet.be> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:28:24 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> <341f917e.3030908@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Not necessarily. > > We have that box on the Danish CCs, which means that the general > psyche frequency is a partnership understanding and AI for > partner. > > IMO this means, for instance, that if your partner has "often" in > that box and your RHO has "never", and you see an auction that > indicates that either partner or RHO has psyched, then you are > allowed to guess correctly that partner is the psycher. > I agree with this, but only if the knowledge that 'A is a more frequent psycher than B' is freely available to both pairs. > >I do not accept that "pass effectively denying this hand type" is a necessary > >condition for a call to be a convention, and perhaps that is the key difference > >in our views. > > I agree. In a case like these 0-3 HCP openings third in hand, > there is a limit to how often they can occur and still be > considered psyches: > - A player who opens 10% of such hands (randomly chosen, of > course) is IMO psyching legally. It might be a good idea to > write something about it on the CC and to alert and explain "he > sometimes psyches in that situation - when he does, he usually > has 0-3 HCP". > - A player who opens 50% of such hands is IMO not psyching; he > has a system agreement with the unusual property that these hands > can be shown in two equally good ways (pass or open). He must > write it on the CC (and alert) and play it only in events where > such systems are allowed. > > My borderline is thus somewhere between 10% and 50%, and I do not > have a clear opinion as to the exact figure. I want to be honest, it is closer to 80%. However, this situation arises so seldom, that even 80% of this is once every six months. But I open 1H in third seat once every two tournaments. Surely you cannot expect partner to be aware of the possibility every time I open my mouth. In response to one very interesting point : NO, I do not have any psych-catching methods in my arsenal, not even the very common Drury to catch light third seat openings (but these would not work anyway, as fourth seat is almost certain to do something). Indeed, your arguments that I should not put this on the convention card implies that you think frequent psychers should not do so. I refuse to believe that the Laws might imply that I may not do something that you are allowed to do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 20:06:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:06:23 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA28086 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:06:18 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-114.innet.be [194.7.10.114]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21291 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:06:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341BAFD0.CF75B388@innet.be> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:35:12 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Revoke and claim 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: > > It is time we got back to the easy ones! > > Declarer leads a small diamond to dummy .... LHO puts down a small > CLUB .... dummy plays K and RHO follows suit .... > > At this moment and simultaneously .... declarer claims, facing his hand, > and announcing since LHO is void in diamonds the finesse is marked .... > > AND LHO says .... I revoked .... I have a diamond! > Now David, you are making these up, aren't you ? I have never believed in 'simultaneous actions'. If something like this happens, I decide, as director, which came first: - if I find it's the claim, I deal with that. - if the finding of the diamond, I deal with that. Both these rulings have been clouded by the subsequent action, and both are interesting cases, but putting them together is not interesting. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 20:06:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:06:15 +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 UAA28074 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:06:09 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-114.innet.be [194.7.10.114]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21278 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:06:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341BA76B.61B0DB61@innet.be> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 10:59:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Call OOT 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: > > I have now received a rather fetching small book, called The Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, so I thought I would use it. > > East opens 2S showing both minors and 7-12 HCP. North looks fairly > pointedly at the Dealer mark opposite him, and the TD is called. South > does not accept the 2S, North opens 1NT, and East overcalls. His > conventional defence to 1NT is that 2C shows the minors, 11-15 HCP, 2D > shows diamonds, 11-15 HCP, 2S shows spades plus a red suit, 11-15 HCP. > > What happens if East > > [a] overcalls 2C? > [b] overcalls 2D? > [c] overcalls 2S? > > Enjoy! > You beat me to it, David ! Although I had not yet found such a fetching example as this. IMHO, and without RTFLB, I would say that [a] shuts up partner for one round, [b] and [c] for the rest of the bidding. But I await a fuller analysis. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 23:10:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:10:48 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28415 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:10:43 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.06) with SMTP id JAA27967 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:10:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Sep14.210300.1189.132610; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:03:40 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Sep14.210300.1189.132610@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:03:40 -0600 Subject: FW: Call OOT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, September 13, 1997 10:40 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: Call OOT >I have now received a rather fetching small book, called The Laws of >Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, so I thought I would use it. >East opens 2S showing both minors and 7-12 HCP. North looks fairly >pointedly at the Dealer mark opposite him, and the TD is called. South >does not accept the 2S, North opens 1NT, and East overcalls. His >conventional defence to 1NT is that 2C shows the minors, 11-15 HCP, 2D >shows diamonds, 11-15 HCP, 2S shows spades plus a red suit, 11-15 HCP. >What happens if East >[a] overcalls 2C? >[b] overcalls 2D? >[c] overcalls 2S? To me, one of the most important points about this posting of David's is that the initial 2S opening shows a point range which is significantly different from that promised by the 2C overcall. Even if East were to substitute a new bid which accurately describes his distribution, he can not help but to have given partner Unauthorized Information. I feel that partner be banned from bidding regardless of what call East chose. If East were to have an overcall which showed the same hand type, I think the problem becomes more difficult. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 23:32:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:32:15 +1000 Received: from tycho.global.net.uk (tycho.global.net.uk [194.126.82.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28495 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:32:08 +1000 Received: from default (client876d.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.109]) by tycho.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA11613; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:30:41 +0100 Message-Id: <199709141330.OAA11613@tycho.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Lighton" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Standard penalties (war: Dummy has a go!) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:01:51 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : > From: Richard Lighton > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: Standard penalties (war: Dummy has a go!) > Date: 11 September 1997 13:50 > > The idea that a 1VP penalty is unduly harsh because it might affect > one's placing is ludicrous. What's the point of a penalty if it > can not affect one's result? > \\\\snip//// It would become very hard to apply the principle of a non-penalising penalty with any degree of consistency -as between, for example, boards 1 and 128 of a match? Similar occurrences? On the subject generally of the severity of penalties I think we have nothing, other than general and maybe misguided assumption, to make it certain that uniform standards are desirable in all competitions, or more significantly all locations around the world. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 23:32:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:32:21 +1000 Received: from tycho.global.net.uk (tycho.global.net.uk [194.126.82.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28502 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:32:15 +1000 Received: from default (client876d.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.109]) by tycho.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA11616; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:30:43 +0100 Message-Id: <199709141330.OAA11616@tycho.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:09:27 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card > Date: 12 September 1997 16:31 > > Tim West-Meads wrote > > >Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > >> If you have this agreement, then you should disclose it in line with > >> the regulations of the SO (Law 40B). . > >> \\\\snipped//// > >> > > >And while your opponents are entitled to know about style it is not, > >AFAICS, a matter for licensing. I could be persuaded that if a psyche on > >such a hand was routine (ie pass effectively denied this hand type) then > >it was a (normally illegal) convention. > > I do not regard this as a matter of "style", but a convention. It will be > interesting to see what others, especially outside the UK think. For example I > have never understood why a convention card should have boxes indicating > frequency of psyching (as they do, I believe, in the ACBL and many other > jurisductions). \\\\snip//// If not too early to quote him, I attest to an exchange of some length with Edgar K. concerning the relationship between this box and the general requirement of the laws precluding a psyche as a partnership understanding. He assured me that information in the box is authorized for opponents only and not for the psyching side. Consequently the psyching side cannot use what is in the box in arguing that a psyche was reasonably identified by the partner. The case for fair reading of a psyche must depend upon legal information as defined in Law 16. Our discussion covered also the kind of information for which the box is to be used - inclination to psyche, frequency, both or only one of the players. What the box should not contain is any attempt to specify a situation *and type* of psyche that may be anticipated [e.g. 1H - dbl - 1S*] since this declares an agreement to a specific action. Somewhere someone has questioned whether the rules on psychic action do not preclude psyches by regular partnerships. They do inhibit regular psyching by a partnership in a *manner* that can be laid out on a convention card. As some have suggested already that is a departure from the fundamental concept of a psyche which is a breach of agreement that is as much of a shock to partner as to anyone; That is the law already and needs no regulation to prop it up. The words 'intentionally misleading' in the laws have a significance here since the meanings in the auction are for all players at the table and not opponents alone. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 14 23:58:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:58:45 +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 XAA28554 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 23:58:37 +1000 Received: from cph63.ppp.dknet.dk (cph63.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.63]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA20419 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:58:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:58:23 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <341cec00.376651@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> <341f917e.3030908@pipmail.dknet.dk> <341BAE38.6CDBA710@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <341BAE38.6CDBA710@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 Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:28:24 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: [as a follow-up to my contribution] >Indeed, your arguments that I should not put this on the convention card >implies that you think frequent psychers should not do so. I refuse to >believe that the Laws might imply that I may not do something that you >are allowed to do. I don't understand this. I think perhaps you have somebody else's arguments confused with what I wrote. I hope I haven't written anything that could be taken as an indication that I _ever_ find it wrong to write correct information about partnership agreements, style, and psyche tendencies on the CC; if I have, then it was a mistake. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 00:06:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:06:15 +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 AAA28600 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:06:08 +1000 Received: from cph63.ppp.dknet.dk (cph63.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.63]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20582 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 16:06:00 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 16:05:59 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <341dedbf.823534@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199709141330.OAA11616@tycho.global.net.uk> In-Reply-To: <199709141330.OAA11616@tycho.global.net.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 Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:09:27 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >If not too early to quote him, I attest to an exchange of some length = with >Edgar K. concerning the relationship between this box and the general >requirement of the laws precluding a psyche as a partnership = understanding. >He assured me that information in the box is authorized for opponents = only >and not for the psyching side. But if that is the case, where is the law that allows sponsoring organisations to require players to fill out the box? L40E1 allows SOs to require players to "list their conventions and other agreements" on the CC. My opinion of this has always been that _since_ you are required to inform the opponents of your psyche frequency, then the frequency must be a partnership understanding - and it is therefore authorized for partner. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 04:29:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:29:10 +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 EAA02182 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 04:29:02 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA07912 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:27:31 +0200 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:27:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Grattan Endicott Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <199709141330.OAA11616@tycho.global.net.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Grattan Endicott wrote: > If not too early to quote him, I attest to an exchange of some length with > Edgar K. concerning the relationship between this box and the general > requirement of the laws precluding a psyche as a partnership understanding. > He assured me that information in the box is authorized for opponents only > and not for the psyching side. If I understand this correctly: partner and I have to independently fill out this box, since otherwise we would be discussing bidding agreements. However, we do have to put the same text in the box, as both our convention cards have to be identical. Then, when we sit down to play, we have to forget that we ever filled out the box and what is in there, as otherwise we are in the possesion of UI and the TD/AC will rule against us if and when we succesfully psyche. This seems hopelessly impractical.... > Our discussion covered also the kind of information for which the box is to > be used - inclination to psyche, frequency, both or only one of the > players. What the box should not contain is any attempt to specify a > situation *and type* of psyche that may be anticipated [e.g. 1H - dbl - > 1S*] since this declares an agreement to a specific action. It looks to me that there is a grey area between "inclination" and "agreement". If I agree with partner that I won't psyche in 1st and 2nd seat, is this an agreement or am I merely suppressing my inclination to psyche? 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 Mon Sep 15 05:42:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:42:46 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA02348 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:42:39 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0901456; 14 Sep 97 20:19 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:08:38 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: CPUs In-Reply-To: <199709062032.QAA02389@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199709062032.QAA02389@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Labeo >> (cut) Steve W. says: > >Under my reading, L40A says nothing whatever about calls based on a >partnership agreement. There are plenty of other Laws that do regulate >partnership agreements, notably other parts of L40 and all of L75. Labeo: Oh, dear me, no! *By your own convention* Law 75C only applies in a situation when an enquiry has been put. That is what, I think, you term a 'mathematical' reading of the law. We have to look elsewhere to learn the responsibilities when no question is asked, or return to the 'default' position. The discussion has centred upon voluntary prior disclosure with no enquiry from opponent, a situation in which your reading of the laws must require we should disregard 75C. Law 75A says something relevant and refers us to Law 40, the whole of Law 40. At the very least Law 40C is absolutely clear: if EW are damaged through ignorance of a N-S partnership agreement as to something they could not reasonably be expected to understand, the Director is empowered to award an adjusted score. All this whether there has been enquiry or not; indeed on your rendering of the music I doubt whether I can even say 'as to something they could not reasonably be expected to understand' since this is culled from a different segment of the law: maybe it is just any agreement at all, mathematically, although I distrust any suggestion this was what was intended. -- Labeo {who now thinks this subject has been cooked to a frazzle and proposes to dowse the fire.} From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 05:44:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:44:12 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02368 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:44:05 +1000 Received: from default (cph57.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.57]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA27621 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:43:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199709141943.VAA27621@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:45:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: FW: Call OOT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) > Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:03:40 -0600 > From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 1997 10:40 PM > To: bridge-laws > Subject: Call OOT > > >I have now received a rather fetching small book, called The Laws of > >Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, so I thought I would use it. > > >East opens 2S showing both minors and 7-12 HCP. North looks fairly > >pointedly at the Dealer mark opposite him, and the TD is called. South > >does not accept the 2S, North opens 1NT, and East overcalls. His > >conventional defence to 1NT is that 2C shows the minors, 11-15 HCP, 2D > >shows diamonds, 11-15 HCP, 2S shows spades plus a red suit, 11-15 HCP. > > >What happens if East > > >[a] overcalls 2C? > >[b] overcalls 2D? > >[c] overcalls 2S? > Nice one to investigate the new L29C. To me the 2C bid clearly leads to L31A2a, because the 'denomination' (effectively clubs and diamonds) is repeated, and so partner is banned for one round. Similarly, the 2S bid clearly leads to L31A2b, and partner is banned for the duration (and lead penalties may apply). The 2D call seems to be more open to interpretation, but since it does not show the club suit, I think the best ruling is to ban partner for the duration, but to apply lead penalties only in clubs (provided that he does not show clubs later). > To me, one of the most important points about this posting of > David's is that the initial 2S opening shows a point range which > is significantly different from that promised by the 2C > overcall. Even if East were to substitute a new bid which > accurately describes his distribution, he can not help but to > have given partner Unauthorized Information. Well, of course not. He has taken back a call, and any information from that call is UI, according to the new L16C2. > I feel that partner be banned from bidding regardless of what call East > chose. That is not what I read in the Law! Whether to ban partner for one round or for the rest of the auction depends on whether the denomination is repeated, not on whether the repeated call has the same meaning in all details. The UI aspects (i.e., partner must not choose to play the overcaller for the low range, because he has UI that suggests that he does indeed have the low range) are covered by L16. > If East were to have an overcall which showed the same hand type, I think > the problem becomes more difficult. We disagree, of course. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 05:44:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:44:13 +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 FAA02369 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:44:06 +1000 Received: from default (cph57.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.57]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA27624 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:43:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199709141943.VAA27624@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:45:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Revoke and claim Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:35:12 +0200 > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Revoke and claim > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > It is time we got back to the easy ones! > > > > Declarer leads a small diamond to dummy .... LHO puts down a small > > CLUB .... dummy plays K and RHO follows suit .... > > > > At this moment and simultaneously .... declarer claims, facing his hand, > > and announcing since LHO is void in diamonds the finesse is marked .... > > > > AND LHO says .... I revoked .... I have a diamond! > > > > Now David, you are making these up, aren't you ? > > I have never believed in 'simultaneous actions'. > > If something like this happens, I decide, as director, which came first: > > - if I find it's the claim, I deal with that. > - if the finding of the diamond, I deal with that. > > Both these rulings have been clouded by the subsequent action, and both > are interesting cases, but putting them together is not interesting. Come, come, Herman, think it through once more. Just assume the following sequence of events: 1. The revoke (for now not discovered as such). 2. The claim. 3. The revoke is discovered. After all, it really does not matter whether the revoke is discovered in the post mortem or by a simultaneous remark. The ruling is not clouded by any subsequent action, and of course it is interesting. Let me have a go on this easy one. 1. The revoke is not established, since the defenders need to acquiesce for that to happen (L63A3). We can safely assume that acquiescence is not forthcoming. 2. All play has ceased, and declarer cannot retract his statement and make a new one (l68D, L70D). There is no way I can justify the penalties for an established revoke, and there is no way I can allow declarer to have further influence on his line of play. So I need to rule based on stopped play and a non-established revoke, not known by declarer. Obviously, the laws have not foreseen this turn of events, so I will award an adjusted score (L12A), treating declarer as a non-offender. To consider declarer to be an offender would be to make him responsible for investigating a possible revoke before claiming, which is ridiculous. When determining the adjusted score, I will consider outcomes reached if the club had been allowed to become a major penalty card. This is actually pretty easy, but is it right? --- Oh, and by the way, if the discovery of the revoke occurs first, and declarer had a chance to understand this, and still made his claim, I would agree with you, Herman, that we are far out. Declarer is in violation of L9B, for which the penalty is, as we all know, draconic. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 05:48:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:48:59 +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 FAA02407 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:48:54 +1000 Received: from default (ip59.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.163.59]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA17847 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709141948.PAA17847@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: UI Ruling in Club Game Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:46:06 -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: G. R. Bower > To: Michael S. Dennis > Subject: Re: UI Ruling in Club Game > Date: Sunday, September 14, 1997 12:40 AM > > > > On Sat, 13 Sep 1997, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > [snip] > > > > So, after rather an excessive amount of verbiage, my questions to any who > > have made it this far: > > 1. Is the original ruling in fact as clear-cut as I believe it to be? > > I don't think it's a particularly clear-cut ruling -- mostly because it's > hard for me to say what would have happened had there not been a > hestitation. Among the factors that seem relevant are their 2NT opening > range (if its 20-22, then 2NT showed 18-19 and the 6NT guy has a good > argument for going on anyway -- if 21-22, this isn't so convincing) and > whether 4C-then-4NT is an unequivocal signoff or a very mild slam > invitation (in my partnerships this is a signoff and we could be off two > aces, perhaps not so for others.) > I have never heard of an agreement to the effect that an ace-asking bid followed by a sign-off in game by the asker is invitational to slam, even mildly. Probably because such a method is unplayable. A claim to that effect would have to be buttressed by documentation, IMO. More fundamentally, I think it is incorrect to focus on the reasonableness of the 6NT bid. The question is not whether the guy has a good case for 6NT but whether 1) Pass is a logical alternative and 2) the UI-based inference that partner holds the third ace makes the 6NT bid more attractive compared to Pass. I don't think there is much to argue about with respect to either question, and so the reasonableness of 6NT, absent the UI, is moot. > While I probably shouldn't be, I am also influenced by the fact that > everyone else is in 6NT -- this suggests that a majority of players feel > 6NT is the right bid, though probably none of them used this particular > bidding sequence. Had they gotten a top by making 6NT I probably would > have taken it away from them. > You're right, this shouldn't influence your ruling at all. > > 2. Do real-world directors tend to have a more lenient view toward UI than > > the prevailing attitude on BLML? > > Yes, but not by choice. > > In tournaments we can apply the rules strictly. But if someone called cops > every time there was an obvious UI infraction at my club (they don't) and > I always ruled the way I think the laws say I am supposed to, one of two > things would happen: half the club's already-small membership would leave, > or, more likely, I would be accused of being a rude powerh-hungry ass of a > director and summarily fired by the club manager. > > We must remember too that people go to bridge clubs and tournaments to > playcards, not to argue. Many people,e ven at tournaments, prefer to "settle > out of court" than call for committee or even for a director. I'm not > saying this is right, jsut that it's how it is. > So in your club games, those who routine take advantage of UI are rewarded at the expense of players who obey the rules. Is this really doing the job the right way? But anyway, thanks for your response. Mike Dennis > > 3. Is this book sanctioned (or indeed marketed) by the ACBL, and if so, why > > would a book recommending a counter-legal basis for rulings be endorsed by > > that organization? (Chyah?) > > I know the ACBL sells Greenberg's Duplicate Decisions, and has at times > sold editions of that book which have conflicted with the laws in effect > at time of sale. Harris is sold by most bridge bookselling firms in the > US, but I don't recall whether it's in the ACBL catalog. > > > Gordon Bower > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 11:26:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:26:48 +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 LAA03433 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:26:43 +1000 Received: from oznet07.ozemail.com.au (oznet07.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.122]) by ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA00987 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:26:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p13.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.93]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA08177 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:26:32 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970915111719.006c8dbc@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:17:19 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: 97 Laws: 3 problem areas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In Australia and New Zealand, we won't be applying the 97 Laws until 1.1.98. This will give us a chance to see how the ambiguous Laws will be interpreted and applied in other jurisdictions. On behalf of the Australian Bridge Directors' Association, I produce a quarterly Directors' Bulletin, which circulates in Australia, NZ, to some extent in Japan and scattered other countries (circulation about 400). It has no official standing, but in Australia, where our distances preclude weekend seminars for other than a few directors, it becomes a guideline for our members. I try to obtain consensus amongst our senior directors before publishing recommendations. There are three areas of the 97 Laws where consensus has been difficult. I would appreciate opinions from BLML subscribers, and particularly any reports of official policy or teaching in these areas. 1. Definition of a conventional bid - 'short' 1C or 1D. I think that BLML reached a consensus that an opening 1C or 1D which may contain less than three cards in that suit is conventional. One of our senior directors feels strongly that such a bid is not conventional, and that, for example, if insufficient would not bar partner if the suit is rebid. Any official policy on this? As a follow-on, I would have thought that, if this sort of bid does not show a real willingness to play in that suit, then a canape opening of 1H or 1S which may have only three cards likewise does not show a real willingness to play in that suit. But, as I recall, the BLML consensus was that this bid was not conventional. 2. If we accept that such a 1C or 1D opening is conventional, does Law 26A or 26B apply to the opening lead after such a call is withdrawn? We have a majority for 26B, because, if treated as conventional, it can't be said to relate to the suit named. I lean towards 26A, because it does show a holding of some sort in that suit, however tenuous. But what about some Precision players who open 1D with a diamond void? 3. UI remains UI. I don't recall that consensus was reached in BLML. Example: the opponents reach game by an uninterrupted auction 1NT - 2C - 2S - 4S. My partner OOT leads the HK (in our methods showing also the HA). Declarer forbids the heart lead from me and the HK is returned to hand. Partner's possession of the HK remains UI to me. But are my deductions, as distinct from my knowledge, arising from that lead still UI? Namely, that partner probably holds the HA, and that, having done my sums, declarer can't have more than 12 HCP? Would welcome comments either through BLML or personal Email. Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 16:39:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:39:11 +1000 Received: from woozle.isode.com (woozle.isode.com [193.133.227.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA03971 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:38:58 +1000 Message-Id: <199709150638.QAA03971@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from isode.com (actually brian.isode.com) by woozle.isode.com with SMTP (local); Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:37:50 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96 To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, I.Reissmann@isode.com Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:35:08 BST." <+VOMh9BslZG0EwuF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:39:47 +0100 From: Ian Reissmann Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, > It has been suggested that dummy may call the TD. I even said it >myself through misreading a Law. While I do not believe that to be the >case, I consider this to be a trivial part of the problem. If dummy, >immediately after the player said he had revoked, had said "Should I >call the TD?" or even "Director, please!", then it would be a very minor >infraction, and will in fact become legal when the 1997 Laws are in use. What is the 97 law change which will permit this ? Ian From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 16:46:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA04009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:46:19 +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 QAA04004 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:46:13 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xAV2t-0006PL-00; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 06:54:08 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.46.98] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xAUvv-0004Ir-00; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:46:56 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Furniture (was: Dummy has a go!) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:45:47 +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 I shall now, as a leading English lawyer once said in a dispute concerning a will, address myself to the furniture (at which point the judge remarked wearily: "You have been addressing the furniture for the last three hours"). DWS wrote: > I have no problem with disagreeing with David, and expect to continue > to do so! Isn't a Chair something the Chairman or Lady Chairman sits > on? Not in this context. "chair, n. ...a bishop, or the person presiding over any meeting, the chairman..." (Chambers, 1997) In these days of political correctness, it is pleasant to be able to use a non-sexist term that does not offend the ear. "Chairperson" is a monstrosity, "lady chairman" is little short of ridiculous, but "chair" is a wholly acceptable substitute for either. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 16:57:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA04061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:57:54 +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 QAA04055 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:57:41 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xAVDX-0006di-00; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:05:07 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.46.98] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xAV6Y-0005bx-00; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:57:55 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Self-alerting irregularities (was: Dummy has a go!) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:56:46 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: [snip] > Let's start another thread on how the words > "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention > has been drawn to an irregularity" [1997 L9B1B] do not give dummy the > right to call a TD. > Of course they do, and I had no intention of suggesting that they did not. But there is (or at any rate there may be) a distinction between the commission of an irregularity and the drawing of attention to it. Presumably this distinction is supposed to be considered under the Laws, otherwise L91B1 would read: "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after an irregularity has occurred." Now, in the case of a player who contributes a club to a round of diamonds, and then says: "Sorry, I have a diamond" which he then plays, I am quite prepared to accept that the player himself has drawn attention to his own irregularity (revoke), and that dummy may indeed call the TD under the 1997 Code. But *in the general case*, I do not believe that an irregularity is of necessity "self-alerting", and that was the only point I wished to make. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 19:03:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:03:23 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA04414 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:03:16 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id CAA15653; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma015550; Mon, 15 Sep 97 02:32:24 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id CAA16527 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709150923.CAA16527@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 15 Sep 97 09:38:19 GMT Subject: Re: UI Ruling in Club Game Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: >N E S W >- - - 1D >P 1H P 2NT >P 4C P 4S >P 4NT* P 6NT > >*Long hesitation, all agreed. > >After the slow 4nt bid I (North) asked if everyone agreed that there had >been a substantial pause, and everyone did. After the 6NT bid, I summoned >the director, who duly noted and asked to be recalled if necessary. 6NT >rolled for an essentially flat board (dummy had the A she had "promised"), >and of course I did call the director back. He ruled to let the 6NT bid >stand, as West held a 3-2-5-3 20 count. ---snip--- >He pointed out that the 6NT bidder had plenty in reserve >(perhaps too much) for his earlier actions, but also admitted that he might >have ruled differently in a tournament setting. His last argument more or >less confirmed a suspicion of mine. He said that although rulings about >leads out of turn or insufficient bids were pretty-well tolerated as simple >factual adjudications, most club players get cranky about adverse UI >rulings, taking them as personal charges of unethical conduct. This >director depends heavily on his director fees as pretty much his sole >source of income, and can't afford to alienate paying customers by >implicitly calling them cheaters. Of course this is nothing to do with cheating. It is a question of a ruling under the Law book, using the TD's judgment of whether there are "logical alternatives". ---snip--- >1. Is the original ruling in fact as clear-cut as I believe it to be? In England we tend to rule, in tournaments at least, against "hesitation-Blackwood" or "hesitation-Gerber" situations as a matter of routine. It is hard to speak for clubs since very few people have reliable knowledge of what happens in more than a few clubs. My experience suggests I would expect "hesitation-Blackwood" or "hesitation-Gerber" situations to be ruled against in the clubs I play in. I would not go so far as to say that I would never rule in favour of "hesitation-Blackwood" or "hesitation-Gerber". I have, however, never yet seen the right hand for it. I take the view that most players do not even think of proceeding over a prompt sign-off following Blackwood or Gerber. Thus "not-to-proceed" is a logical alternative, and since proceeding is suggested by the hesitation, the score should be adjusted if the responder does advance. >2. Do real-world directors tend to have a more lenient view toward UI than >the prevailing attitude on BLML? As noted above, not in English tournaments >3. Is this book sanctioned (or indeed marketed) by the ACBL, and if so, why >would a book recommending a counter-legal basis for rulings be endorsed by >that organization? (Chyah?) Can't help you here, I 'm afraid. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 20:03:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:03:46 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04551 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:03:40 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-196.innet.be [194.7.10.196]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA23583 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:03:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341C4B69.7B3CE7A3@innet.be> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:39:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199709141330.OAA11616@tycho.global.net.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > If not too early to quote him, I attest to an exchange of some length with > Edgar K. concerning the relationship between this box and the general > requirement of the laws precluding a psyche as a partnership understanding. > He assured me that information in the box is authorized for opponents only > and not for the psyching side. Consequently the psyching side cannot use > what is in the box in arguing that a psyche was reasonably identified by > the partner. The case for fair reading of a psyche must depend upon legal > information as defined in Law 16. > > Our discussion covered also the kind of information for which the box is to > be used - inclination to psyche, frequency, both or only one of the > players. What the box should not contain is any attempt to specify a > situation *and type* of psyche that may be anticipated [e.g. 1H - dbl - > 1S*] since this declares an agreement to a specific action. > > Somewhere someone has questioned whether the rules on psychic action do not > preclude psyches by regular partnerships. They do inhibit regular psyching > by a partnership in a *manner* that can be laid out on a convention card. > As some have suggested already that is a departure from the fundamental > concept of a psyche which is a breach of agreement that is as much of a > shock to partner as to anyone; > That is the law already and needs no regulation to prop it up. The words > 'intentionally misleading' in the laws have a significance here since the > meanings in the auction > are for all players at the table and not opponents alone. I agree with one aspect of this: > What the box should not contain is any attempt to specify a > situation *and type* of psyche that may be anticipated [e.g. 1H - dbl - > 1S*] since this declares an agreement to a specific action. > But only in the sense that this auction becomes systemic, and putting it in the psyche box does not make it a psych. As I have at length pointed out, the situation I describe is so rare, that partner cannot be expected to cater for it if the opening happens. Thus my bid continues to meet the qualifications for a psych as I interpret them. I do not agree with the statement that a mention in the psych box is UI for partners. This is part of their "experience" already, and writing it down does not make that experience UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 20:49:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:49:18 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04679 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:49:12 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-98.innet.be [194.7.10.98]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01711 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:49:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341D09E8.FDF07D7B@innet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:11:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 97 Laws: 3 problem areas X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19970915111719.006c8dbc@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: > > > 1. Definition of a conventional bid - 'short' 1C or 1D. I think that BLML > reached a consensus that an opening 1C or 1D which may contain less than > three cards in that suit is conventional. In Belgium, for all purposes, the following bid is deemed natural : a 1C opening in a system where 1S, 1H are 5 cards and 1D is a 4-card, provided that it is only done on precisely 4432, and non-forcing! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 23:03:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:03:27 +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 XAA05053 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:03:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0626973; 15 Sep 97 12:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:09:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <199709140141.VAA24373@brickbat8.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote > > >---------- >> From: Steve Willner >> > From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> > Weak players bid poorly -- by definition. Usually their >> > bad bids fail, but sometimes they are unjustly successful, as in the >> > present case. Without any direct evidence of an infraction (CPU, UI, or >> > whatever), "bizarre" bidding by weak players is no basis for inferring >an >> > infraction. >> >> If the players are truly weak, then yes, even the most bizarre bidding >> may have an innocent explanation. It is, nevertheless, the TD's (and >> AC's) duty to investigate if the evidence of the hand is strong >> enough. >> >> In score adjustment matters, factual questions are decided by the >> preponderance of the evidence. There is no requirement that the >> evidence be "direct." If the hand evidence for an infraction is, on >> balance, stronger than any testimony ("direct evidence") against one, >> then the score can be adjusted. >> >> It seems David Stevenson and I agree on this. (!) No doubt that's a >> bad sign. Time to go home, at any rate. >> >> A good weekend to all. > >As to the evidence provided by the hands, it is nearly non-existent. I >certainly don't endorse either the double or the 2C call, but more than one >correspondent in this forum has defended each action, and I have some >sympathy with the difficulties faced by each player at the table. (West was >understandably unwilling to sell but had no easy alternative,and East >understandably uncertain about defensive prospects against a one-level suit >contract). > >But that discussion misses your main point, which is that the evidence of >the hands and the auction alone might in principle suffice to demonstrate >UI even when no other basis for such a charge was present. I really don't >see how this could work in any situation, but especially not when the >alleged culprits are weak players, as is stipulated in the present case. >Investigate all you want, but I'd give fairly good odds against you finding >either a) a compelling and cogent defense of the EW auction or b)an >admission that indeed, the placement of partner's scoring pencil indicated >that the double was for takeout. > >Just as weak players bid poorly, they are often quite inarticulate in their >analysis of why they bid as they do. In fact, if they could make a >compelling case for their bad bids, they wouldn't be so bad, would they? So >you will be disappointed if you hope to find a reasonable basis for the EW >actions. If, on the other hand, you approach this problem as an >"investigator", intent on uncovering the "real" motivations behind this >suspicious bidding, then the fumbling and inconsistent explanations which >will be offered by EW will be exactly what you're looking for to hang them. I am not quite sure what this post was meant to be in answer to, but I trust it was not in answer to my post. When I referred to a searching examination, I had no intention of looking for deliberate irregularities, and I hope nobody would think so. Among poor players, as among good ones, I seek evidence of what occurred at the table, so that I can tell what infraction and damage occurred. I am not looking for anything more. I find this a disturbing post. -- 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 Sep 15 23:03:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:03:20 +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 XAA05048 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:03:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0522773; 15 Sep 97 12:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:35:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <341dedbf.823534@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote >On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:09:27 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" > wrote: >>If not too early to quote him, I attest to an exchange of some length with >>Edgar K. concerning the relationship between this box and the general >>requirement of the laws precluding a psyche as a partnership understanding. >>He assured me that information in the box is authorized for opponents only >>and not for the psyching side. > >But if that is the case, where is the law that allows sponsoring >organisations to require players to fill out the box? > >L40E1 allows SOs to require players to "list their conventions >and other agreements" on the CC. Law 40 - Partnership Understandings E. Convention Card 1. Right to Prescribe The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements, and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method). One regulation for the use of the card could be: "Players are required to list on the card their frequency of psyching for the benfit of their opponents." >My opinion of this has always been that _since_ you are required >to inform the opponents of your psyche frequency, then the >frequency must be a partnership understanding - and it is >therefore authorized for partner. This seems at variance with L40A. -- 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 Sep 15 23:09:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:09:54 +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 XAA05095 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:09:33 +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 JAA25927 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970915090913.006cc880@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:09:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Forcing and "To Play" Passes In-Reply-To: <970912132913_1493754684@emout11.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:30 PM 9/12/97 -0400, Mlfrench wrote: >A "standard bidding specification" should long ago have been established by >the ACBL, with perhaps annual updates. The outdated convention card used to >say that we had to Alert any non-standard call, but no one could tell us what >was standard! Of course they couldn't; the question is inherently unanswerable. Within the ACBL's jurisdiction, even in the purely theoretical sense "standard" varies widely depending on what part of North America you're from and how old you are. And in practice you can't get any consensus even after you fix those variables. So "standard" really doesn't mean anything. Fortunately, the writers of the Laws were clever enough to eschew any use of the word "standard". For purposes of disclosure (which includes alert requirements) the operative definition of a "standard" call is one such that "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning" [L40B]. This does NOT mean "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to know its precise meaning to the exclusion of all possible alternatives". >I think what Chyah meant, or should have said, was that she would find out >what TDs are told (or going to be told) how to rule on the Alertability of a >pass over a redouble: Alert "to play" or Alert the conventional "not to >play." I think it will be the former. The Alert Procedure should have >addressed conventional passes in general, and this one in particular. This simply rephrases the rhetorical trap that, as I earlier pointed out, is built into the question. As phrased above, the question permits only a choice of two answers; either [a] "alert 'to play' or [b] alert the conventional [sic] 'not to play'", and leaves no room for what may well be the correct answer, i.e. neither of the above. Let me repeat that I'm not necessarily saying that it IS the correct answer, only that the possibility must not be dismissed as definitionally precluded by the nature of the disclosure (alerting) requirements. P.S. Has anyone noticed that "alerting" can be anagrammed into four other English words? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 15 23:10:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:10:24 +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 XAA05116 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:10:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1402017; 15 Sep 97 12:33 BST Message-ID: <39cOLBAizRH0EwlA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:32:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke and claim In-Reply-To: <341BAFD0.CF75B388@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> It is time we got back to the easy ones! >> >> Declarer leads a small diamond to dummy .... LHO puts down a small >> CLUB .... dummy plays K and RHO follows suit .... >> >> At this moment and simultaneously .... declarer claims, facing his hand, >> and announcing since LHO is void in diamonds the finesse is marked .... >> >> AND LHO says .... I revoked .... I have a diamond! >Now David, you are making these up, aren't you ? No. I have been asked this one by a correspondent. *She* may have made it up: I do not know: I did not ask her. >I have never believed in 'simultaneous actions'. Why on earth not? simultaneous, adj, being or happening at the same time. If I speak to Jens, and you speak to Jesper at the same time they are "simultaneous". Nothing to do with who started first. If you do not believe in simultaneous actions them you cannot perceive the order in this world as others see it. Any time you do something and someone else does something at the same time they are simultaneous actions. >If something like this happens, I decide, as director, which came first: The people spoke at the same time. Or do you mean who *started* first? >- if I find it's the claim, I deal with that. >- if the finding of the diamond, I deal with that. > >Both these rulings have been clouded by the subsequent action, and both >are interesting cases, but putting them together is not interesting. A very interesting statement. Obviously, no-one can say your ruling is wrong if you are not prepared to give it. Also, fairly obviously, there are points of interest. This leads one to the conclusion that the ruling which you had in your mind when you wrote the above was wrong. Ok, so I cannot be sure, but perhaps if you think there is no interest in the situation, then you might educate the rest of us by actually telling us the ruling? -- 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 Sep 16 01:10:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:10:21 +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 BAA07928 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:10:07 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA02579 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07205; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:09:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:09:51 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709151509.LAA07205@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: CPUs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In message <199709062032.QAA02389@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >Under my reading, L40A says nothing whatever about calls based on a > >partnership agreement. There are plenty of other Laws that do regulate > >partnership agreements, notably other parts of L40 and all of L75. > Labeo: Oh, dear me, no! > *By your own convention* Law 75C only applies in a situation > when an enquiry has been put. That is what, I think, you term a > 'mathematical' reading of the law. Now you have lost me completely. Of course L75C only applies after a question has been asked. It regulates how partnership agreements are to be disclosed in that situation. What is the problem? There are other laws and regulations that deal with situations where no question has been asked. > We have to look elsewhere to learn the responsibilities > when no question is asked, or return to the 'default' position. Exactly. > The discussion has centred upon voluntary prior disclosure with no > enquiry from opponent, a situation in which your reading of the > laws must require we should disregard 75C. I would have said "included" rather than "centred upon." Your original assertion, if I understand it, was that a pair may not use a special agreement unless it _has been_ disclosed. My assertion is that the agreement must be disclosed _in accordance with the regulations._ That is to say, depending on the SO, may there exist agreements that need be disclosed only in response to questions? Once a question is asked, there is no doubt that L75C requires full disclosure. There is also no doubt about the rules for agreements for which the SO requires a specific form of disclosure (e.g. CC, alerts, etc.). The discussion is about how or whether to disclose agreements in other cases -- no question, no specific requirement for disclosure. > Law 75A says something relevant and refers us to Law 40, > the whole of Law 40. At the very least Law 40C is absolutely clear: > if EW are damaged through ignorance of a N-S partnership > agreement as to something they could not reasonably be expected to > understand, the Director is empowered to award an adjusted score. The interpretation of L40C is not clear to me, as I said before. While it empowers the director, it does not oblige. So I ask again, _absent an infraction_, when, if ever, should an adjusted score be awarded under L40C? Or what of my specific example (the limit/forcing raise)? > All this whether there has been enquiry or not; indeed on your > rendering of the music I doubt whether I can even say 'as to > something they could not reasonably be expected to understand' > since this is culled from a different segment of the law: maybe it > is just any agreement at all, mathematically, although I distrust > any suggestion this was what was intended. I haven't a clue what this means. Perhaps I am missing the point entirely. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 01:13:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:13:52 +1000 Received: from tycho.global.net.uk (tycho.global.net.uk [194.126.82.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07964 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:13:40 +1000 Received: from default (client8797.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.151]) by tycho.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA13889; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:12:02 +0100 Message-Id: <199709151512.QAA13889@tycho.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Curtis A. Hastings" , Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:57:26 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : > From: Curtis A. Hastings > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card > Date: 11 September 1997 20:08 > > > >> > I now realize that I have a habit : when holding 0-3(4) points in third > position, I will often open my shorter major. (...) > So when compiling my convention card for next season, I decided to add > in the space 'psychic openings' (international model) the following > phrase : 'When holding 0-3 HCP in third pos, non-vul vs vul, HDW may > well open his shorter major'. > > \\\\\snip///// > > > This area does not appear to be well handled by the Laws. > Opinion ******** The subject of psyches is misunderstood, I would say, almost universally. A psychic call is a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length. This definition is in the laws. Such calls divide into two categories: 1. Instances where there is no partnership understanding or agreement that an intentionally misleading call may be made. 2. Other instances where the call is based on partnership understanding (which may derive from explicit discussion, from partnership experience of earlier occasions, or from other information shared by the partners). Law 40A provides that Cat 1 psyches may be made without disclosure. Since they are not the subject of partnership agreement there is in any case nothing to disclose. Category 2 psyches require to be disclosed. They form part of the partnership's systemic arrangements. They constitute conventional arrangements EITHER because the meaning otherwise of the call, if it were not designed to mislead, would be conventional, OR if the partnership understanding allows that the call may be made on a holding that does not reflect a willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named) and may not alternatively show high card strength or length (3+ cards) in that denomination. Such agreements are subject to regulation as conventions and may be prohibited. [This is where the majority of would-be psychers fails to grasp the effects of the law, and a high proportion of what are termed psyches these days can be attributed to this category. The exemption from control created in law 40A is available only to a psyche not based on partnership understanding.] Category 2 psyches which avoid being tagged as conventional, because they specify that the named suit is to be present, will still be subject to regulation if the understanding relates to an initial action that may be made on less than eight HCP - see law 40D. Finally, yes, I am aware that some people question whether an SO has power to ban psyching of a convention. On behalf of the European Bridge League I took this question to the WBF Laws Committee some years ago; the answer was that the Committee would not dispute such action by an SO. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 01:13:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:13:57 +1000 Received: from tycho.global.net.uk (tycho.global.net.uk [194.126.82.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07973 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:13:52 +1000 Received: from default (client8797.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.151]) by tycho.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA13852; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:11:41 +0100 Message-Id: <199709151511.QAA13852@tycho.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "DANY HAIMOVICI" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Why we're here (was: Dummy's right to call the TD) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 17:22:37 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ---------- > From: David Burn > To: DANY HAIMOVICI > Cc: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Why we're here (was: Dummy's right to call the TD) > Date: 13 September 1997 03:45 > > Dany > > > [snip] > > > > Steve & all list > > > > I am very ANGRY because many of the remarks published here . > Well, it does seem to be a very emotional game. /\\\SNIP////\ > > We may or may not think you are "wrong" in terms of your view of dummy's > behaviour as unsporting. We are all administrators of considerable > experience, and we have all seen behaviour at the table that would make a > cat vomit. But we are concerned only with questions like: "is West's > behaviour illegal? what should the penalty be under the Laws? how should an > appeals committee's ruling differ from that given by a TD?" We do not > answer questions such as: "should West be taken out and shot?" > >\\snip// ................................................we are a miserable crew of > hard-bitten cynics who deal with what is, not what ought to be. > > > Please , I beg all of you - answer your opinion to these > > direct and specific question . > > I tell you naught for your comfort, > Nay, naught for your desire, > Save that the sky grows darker yet, > And the sea rises higher... > G.K.Chesterton, "Ballad of the White Horse" As for what is discussed, I do suppose applications of Laws 74 and 91 are legitimate subjects, and whether a player should be 'shot'? W-e-ell, perhaps not? but 'Taken out'? Certainly! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 01:41:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:41:51 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08131 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:41:40 +1000 Received: from cph30.ppp.dknet.dk (cph30.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.30]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA13986 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:41:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:41:30 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <341f561f.829392@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> <341f917e.3030908@pipmail.dknet.dk> <341BAE38.6CDBA710@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <341BAE38.6CDBA710@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 Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:28:24 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I want to be honest, it is closer to 80%. > >However, this situation arises so seldom, that even 80% of this is once >every six months. But I open 1H in third seat once every two >tournaments. Surely you cannot expect partner to be aware of the >possibility every time I open my mouth. No, but every time you pass third in hand (which probably happens fairly often) he will know that there is an 80% probability that you have at least a few points. This is close enough to a partnership agreement that opponents should be notified (the pass is IMO alertable). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 01:55:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:55:13 +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 BAA08212 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:55:05 +1000 Received: from cph46.ppp.dknet.dk (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA14460 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:54:54 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:54:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <342058f4.1554615@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> <341f917e.3030908@pipmail.dknet.dk> <341BAE38.6CDBA710@innet.be> <341f561f.829392@pipmail.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <341f561f.829392@pipmail.dknet.dk> 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 wrote: >No, but every time you pass third in hand (which probably happens >fairly often) he will know that there is an 80% probability that >you have at least a few points. Oops - that didn't come out right (mathematically, that is). The probability is of course far greater than 80%. A better wording would be: he will know that the probability of your having less than about 4 points is only a fifth of what it would be with a partner who never psyched. The basic point is valid: the opponents have a right to know that it is extremely unlikely that you have a 0-3-point hand when you pass third in hand. This could, for instance, be very relevant for declarer's count of the hand if you end up defending. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 02:04:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:04:50 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08538 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:04:44 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA03661 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA07251; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:04:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 12:04:30 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709151604.MAA07251@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Opinion > ******** > 1. Instances where there is no partnership understanding or > agreement that an intentionally misleading call may be made. > > 2. Other instances where the call is based on partnership > understanding (which may derive from explicit discussion, > from partnership experience of earlier occasions, or from > other information shared by the partners). This is a very helpful categorization, but I'm afraid it doesn't answer all practical questions. Suppose our agreement (explicit if you like, so there is no argument) is: In third seat at favorable vul, we open 1M with the normal hands and, further, when we are dealt 0-4 points and short in M, we open 1M x% of the time. If x=0, there is no problem. If x=100, this is case 2 above. It makes no difference that only a small fraction of 1M openings will in fact turn out to be weak. It makes no difference whether or not our subsequent bidding agreements allow for the weak meaning. Our 1M opening is a convention, possibly an illegal one. At any rate, we all know what the rules are (provided, of course, the SO has provided clear rules about the legality or otherwise of this convention). What happens if x is not 0 or 100? Does it matter how big x is? Absent discussion (playing with a new partner), I'd expect x to be non-zero, perhaps in the neighborhood of 1 (i.e. a 1% chance that a player dealt a worthless hand might randomly psych). My estimate might be different depending on the age and overall style of this partner. Does this matter? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 03:05:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:05:15 +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 DAA08754 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:05:09 +1000 Received: from cph7.ppp.dknet.dk (cph7.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.7]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA17399 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:04:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:04:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <342267d1.5359716@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, 15 Sep 1997 02:35:27 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote >>But if that is the case, where is the law that allows sponsoring >>organisations to require players to fill out the box? > >Law 40 - Partnership Understandings > >E. Convention Card=20 > 1. Right to Prescribe=20 > The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on > which partners are to list their conventions and other > agreements, and may establish regulations for its use, including > a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same > system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, > only method).=20 > > One regulation for the use of the card could be: > >"Players are required to list on the card their frequency of psyching >for the benfit of their opponents." I do not read "may establish regulations for its use" as granting a right to establish any regulation whatsoever. The law also tells us what the purpose of the card is: to list conventions and other agreements. There would be no need to do that if the SO could make any regulation whatsoever as long as it had something to do with a card called a "convention card". As I read it, the regulations in question concern such things as: * required layout of the CCs, * required content of the CCs (i.e., which conventions and agreements need to be mentioned on the CC and in how much detail), * how many copies of the CC each partnership must provide, * where and when they must provide them, * and, specifically mentioned, whether the two players must use the same system. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 03:09:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:09:59 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08780 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:09:53 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-12.innet.be [194.7.10.12]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA21815 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:09:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341D40C4.5D4335DF@innet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:05:56 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Revoke and claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK, I have been drawn into this one : David Stevenson wrote: > > It is time we got back to the easy ones! > > Declarer leads a small diamond to dummy .... LHO puts down a small > CLUB .... dummy plays K and RHO follows suit .... > > At this moment and simultaneously .... declarer claims, facing his hand, > and announcing since LHO is void in diamonds the finesse is marked .... > > AND LHO says .... I revoked .... I have a diamond! > I stand by my saying that there are no simultaneous actions at a bridge table. I do concede that some actions are being done independently of something that might have come before. That is a more important point! So let's consider the following actions : - declarer leads a diamond - defender plays a club - two more cards are being played that don't matter to the story - declarer decides to claim - declarer claims - defender finds another diamond in his hand - defender tells the table about this diamond OK, first for the easy part : - the revoke has not been established, since neither defender has acquiesced to the claim - the claim is final and should be dealt with, no further play is possible Now it seams to me that there are two articles missing in the Law book, without which we cannot rule this case. I propose to include therefor : L47D' : After a change of play .., a claim may be retracted If we can change a played card, then why not all played cards ? Of course that law shall include that shown cards are UI for partners, but AI for declarer. Without such a rule, how can we effectively prevent ourselves from ruling against declarer in a perhaps faulty claim ? However, there is another ruling if my criterium of independence is not fulfilled, namely that the finding of the diamond has somehow happened through the examination of the claim (as in, I finesse the King over you - but I don't have it - then where is it - oh, I have some more diamonds !) For this we would need : L63A4 : A revoke becomes established if it is discovered during the examination of a claim, even if this has not been acquiesced to. Since we do not have these Laws, nor any other that would deal with this situation, I deem these pseudo-laws to be equitable, I apply them and award the result of that application as an assigned adjusted score in accordance with L12A1. Comments of course welcome. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 04:40:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:40:37 +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 EAA09028 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 04:40:31 +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 OAA08351 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07328; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:40:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:40:16 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709151840.OAA07328@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke and claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > If we can change a played card, then why not all played cards ? I would read 'any' in L62C1 as meaning 'all'. (A common case would be: South leads, West revokes, North wins trick, East follows, North leads to next trick. Now West corrects the revoke. Surely both cards played from North can be changed. Is there any controversy about this?) The interesting question is whether a claim can, for this purpose, be considered as equivalent to the play of several cards. If so, it can be withdrawn under L62C1. This seems to restore equity, but it may not be correct. Of course one applies L47F if seeing declarer's hand helps the defenders. Under the 1997 Laws, one also would check for "could have known" by the revoker. (I thought there was already an Alcatraz Coup "could have known" revoke provision in the 1987 Laws, but now I can't find it. Am I overlooking it?) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 05:33:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 05:33:11 +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 FAA09215 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 05:33:05 +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 OAA11106 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:32:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA09253; Mon, 15 Sep 97 14:32:58 CDT Message-Id: <9709151932.AA09253@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 97 14:33 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: Revoke and claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I sent in something very similar about a year ago to rec.games.bridge. Do you remember the following? <<< Subject: Revoke then claim From: Barry Wolk Date: 1996/12/09 Message-Id: <32AC76C6.72A0@ccm.umanitoba.ca> Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge The following constructed ending is based on something similar that happened at the club. North: K4 void void 863 West: East: 63 Q72 4 52 void void 97 void South: AJ85 void void K Playing NT, S cashed the club K, and both E and W discarded hearts. Declarer then claimed, saying "2 spades and 2 clubs" Naturally West objected. How do you rule? Ruling on the revoke is easy -- it was caught in time to let it be corrected. Then how do you rule on the claim? And would the ruling be the same if the EW cards were West: Q3 4 void 97 Easr: 762 52 void void >>> -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 06:35:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 06:35:29 +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 GAA09392 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 06:35:23 +1000 Received: from default (ip148.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.148]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA19291 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709152035.QAA19291@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:30:38 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >As to the evidence provided by the hands, it is nearly non-existent. I > >certainly don't endorse either the double or the 2C call, but more than one > >correspondent in this forum has defended each action, and I have some > >sympathy with the difficulties faced by each player at the table. (West was > >understandably unwilling to sell but had no easy alternative,and East > >understandably uncertain about defensive prospects against a one-level suit > >contract). > > > >But that discussion misses your main point, which is that the evidence of > >the hands and the auction alone might in principle suffice to demonstrate > >UI even when no other basis for such a charge was present. I really don't > >see how this could work in any situation, but especially not when the > >alleged culprits are weak players, as is stipulated in the present case. > >Investigate all you want, but I'd give fairly good odds against you finding > >either a) a compelling and cogent defense of the EW auction or b)an > >admission that indeed, the placement of partner's scoring pencil indicated > >that the double was for takeout. > > > >Just as weak players bid poorly, they are often quite inarticulate in their > >analysis of why they bid as they do. In fact, if they could make a > >compelling case for their bad bids, they wouldn't be so bad, would they? So > >you will be disappointed if you hope to find a reasonable basis for the EW > >actions. If, on the other hand, you approach this problem as an > >"investigator", intent on uncovering the "real" motivations behind this > >suspicious bidding, then the fumbling and inconsistent explanations which > >will be offered by EW will be exactly what you're looking for to hang them. > > I am not quite sure what this post was meant to be in answer to, but I > trust it was not in answer to my post. When I referred to a searching > examination, I had no intention of looking for deliberate > irregularities, and I hope nobody would think so. Among poor players, > as among good ones, I seek evidence of what occurred at the table, so > that I can tell what infraction and damage occurred. I am not looking > for anything more. > The post was not in response to you in particular, but to Steve Willner who, inter alia, suggested that the EW auction was sufficiently strange to warrant an investigation into the possibility of UI, even though no suggestion of such had been offered by the players at the table. He proposed questioning EW closely to uncover the relevant evidence. At the risk of rehashing the debate, I will restate my objections to this plan: 1. The auction is not actually very suspicious at all, especially by poor players faced with difficult alternatives. I don't endorse their actions as good bridge (although some corrspondents have), but to characterize it in any way as suggestive of UI, without any other basis, takes an active imagination and a director with rather too little real work. 2. Even if the case for UI were far more persuasive on its face, the tactic of questioning EW is not apt to yield useful information. Bad bidders are usually no better at explaining their poor decisions than they are at making them in the first place, so what we probably will be left with is an unsatisfying, incoherent, and inconsistent account of a weak decision-making process. 3. I should have added that, from the standpoint of UI and L16A, explanations from EW are largely irrelevant, except in so far as they can shed light on specific agreed methods. As I probably don't need to tell you, L16A is written in such a way as to obviate the need for an evaluation of the thought processes and motivations of the players concerned. What a UI investigation is properly concerned with is LA's and "might reasonably suggests" from the standpoint of other players of comparable skill and similar methods. > I find this a disturbing post. My apologies. I had no idea you were so easily disturbed. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 08:52:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:52:20 +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 IAA09743 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 08:52:14 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA16845 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07509; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:52:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:52:00 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709152252.SAA07509@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > In fact, if they could make a compelling case for their bad bids, > they wouldn't be so bad, would they? So you will be disappointed if > you hope to find a reasonable basis for the EW actions. If, on the > other hand, you approach this problem as an "investigator", intent on > uncovering the "real" motivations behind this suspicious bidding, then > the fumbling and inconsistent explanations which will be offered by EW > will be exactly what you're looking for to hang them. If the explanations are fumbling and inconsistent, then indeed one may reach the conclusion that the pair are simply clueless. On the other hand, the pair may give explanations that suggest logic but are not consistent (for example when a double "at least suggestion of penalty" suddenly becomes takeout) or they may actually admit having UI. One would also wish to question the opponents. Even though they have not mentioned UI initially, they may have noticed something. One must be careful not to plant ideas, of course, and I hope it's obvious that each player should be questioned out of earshot of the others. One needs to evaluate which statements are consistent with each other. > 1. The auction is not actually very suspicious at all, especially by poor > players faced with difficult alternatives. I don't endorse their actions as > good bridge (although some corrspondents have), I'm afraid our bridge judgments differ as to the suspiciousness of the auction. I don't recall any correspondents claiming that the auction was good bridge, but perhaps I have overlooked their messages. > 2. Even if the case for UI were far more persuasive on its face, the tactic > of questioning EW is not apt to yield useful information. This depends on the questions one asks and on how one interprets the answers. One would also question NS, of course. > 3. I should have added that, from the standpoint of UI and L16A, > explanations from EW are largely irrelevant [...] What a > UI investigation is properly concerned with is LA's and "might reasonably > suggests" from the standpoint of other players of comparable skill and > similar methods. A UI investigation is first concerned with determining the fact of whether or not UI was made available. I'd recommend the Bridge World's "Appeals Committee" booklets as one introduction of how an investigation can proceed. They are more concerned with the usual situation where one side claims there was UI and the other side claims there was none, but the need to establish the presence or absence of UI is always the first step. I'm reluctant to mention this, but I will. In ACBL play, the director would quite likely simply apply the "Rule of Coincidence" and be done with the matter. I am quite strongly against this practice, but the alternative is to investigate both UI and MI when appropriate situations arise. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 09:02:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:02:31 +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 JAA09788 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:02:24 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA30364; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:02:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:02:09 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke and claim In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] [defender revokes, declarer claims, revoke is noticed.] A similar situation was discussed here a year or so ago -- I don't recall us reaching any consensus on the matter, though. I favor Herman de Wael's interpretation that the right to retract subsequently-played cards allows declarer to withdraw his claim and play on by another line after the revoke is corrected. I hold this opinion not so much because I believe this is what the law actually _says_, but because the other options (forcing the revoke to be treated as established or holding declarer to his stated and no-longer-successful line after correcting the revoke are two obvious options) leave a very bad taste in my mouth. There does indeed appear to be a clear conflict between the revoke law and claim law here, and this might be a candidate for clarification in a future version of the laws. * * * This made me think of a whole new can of worms. What if the revoke occurs after declarer has been able to obtain a count on the hand? A sufficiently good declarer would KNOW the revoke had occurred, and could either play another trick trying to establish the revoke or demand its correction. If this were the situation, I am less willing to let declarer retract his claim, as he already has the information available that his claim as stated will not work the way he said it would. (But please, let's try to settle the original question of how to treat a revoke-then-claim before we worry about whether declarer knows better.) Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 10:45:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:45:03 +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 KAA10054 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:44:56 +1000 Received: from zariski.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@zariski.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.38]) by null.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA14797; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709160043.UAA13822@zariski.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu) Subject: Re: Revoke and claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > This made me think of a whole new can of worms. What if the > revoke occurs after declarer has been able to obtain a count > on the hand? A sufficiently good declarer would KNOW > the revoke had occurred, and could either play another trick > trying to establish the revoke or demand its correction. I wouldn't trust a count on the hand if I knew there had been a revoke somewhere. Most declarers miscount hands occasionally, and probably most declarers are more likely to miscount the hand than to have a correct count with a revoke. In addition, maybe the revoke was an irrelevant one much earlier and fouled up the count on the "revoke" trick which had no revoke; I don't think declarer should be required to work that out. > If this were the situation, I am less willing to let declarer > retract his claim, as he already has the information available > that his claim as stated will not work the way he said it > would. Another possible ruling on a revoke-then-claim would be to treat the revoke as a revoke subject to adjustment but not penalty, awarding an adjusted score as if the revoke never happened. This is following the spirit of Law 64C if not the letter (which says that the director should restore equity after an established revoke not subject to penalty.) This might be the ruling used if I judge as above that declarer knew he was claiming with an outstanding revoke. Otherwise, it's unfair to the declarer to deny him the penalty that he would have received from the infraction had he played on, and I would give declarer the most favorable result which was likely had the revoke card been withdrawn as a penalty card. -- 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 Tue Sep 16 11:51:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:51:53 +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 LAA10225 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:51:41 +1000 Received: from default (ip201.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.163.201]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA17347 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709160151.VAA17347@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:47:59 -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: "Michael S. Dennis" > > > In fact, if they could make a compelling case for their bad bids, > > they wouldn't be so bad, would they? So you will be disappointed if > > you hope to find a reasonable basis for the EW actions. If, on the > > other hand, you approach this problem as an "investigator", intent on > > uncovering the "real" motivations behind this suspicious bidding, then > > the fumbling and inconsistent explanations which will be offered by EW > > will be exactly what you're looking for to hang them. > > If the explanations are fumbling and inconsistent, then indeed one may > reach the conclusion that the pair are simply clueless. On the other > hand, the pair may give explanations that suggest logic but are not > consistent (for example when a double "at least suggestion of penalty" > suddenly becomes takeout) or they may actually admit having UI. > > One would also wish to question the opponents. Even though they have > not mentioned UI initially, they may have noticed something. One must > be careful not to plant ideas, of course, and I hope it's obvious that > each player should be questioned out of earshot of the others. One > needs to evaluate which statements are consistent with each other. > > > 1. The auction is not actually very suspicious at all, especially by poor > > players faced with difficult alternatives. I don't endorse their actions as > > good bridge (although some corrspondents have), > > I'm afraid our bridge judgments differ as to the suspiciousness of the > auction. I don't recall any correspondents claiming that the auction > was good bridge, but perhaps I have overlooked their messages. > I'm afraid I may have overstated this point. Danny Haimovici, for one, saw nothing wrong with the EW auction, and Tim West-Meads made a fairly extensive argument in favor of E pulling the double, going on to say that if this were a UI case in which Pass were the questioned option, he would certainly consider 2C an LA. Nobody actually nominated it for a Bols prize. > > 2. Even if the case for UI were far more persuasive on its face, the tactic > > of questioning EW is not apt to yield useful information. > > This depends on the questions one asks and on how one interprets the > answers. One would also question NS, of course. This raises an interesting problem. Suppose in response to your tactful but probing questions, E and/or W tell you to stuff it, or are otherwise merely unresponsive. ("I bid it that way because it seemed like the best call at the time.") Do you believe that the laws impose on EW any obligation to cooperate with your investigation, beyond frankly detailing their agreements? Are you prepared to make an adverse ruling against an uncooperative EW, and if so, what is the legal basis for such a ruling other than personal pique? For the fact is, their unhelpful attitude is technically correct. As with many of the formulations of the laws, L16A is written in such a way that we need not consider the thought processes of the players in the adjudication process. Thus EW are quite within their rights in pointing out that such information is extraneous, and essentially none of your business. >A UI investigation is first concerned with determining the fact of >whether or not UI was made available. I'd recommend the Bridge World's >"Appeals Committee" booklets as one introduction of how an >investigation can proceed. They are more concerned with the usual >situation where one side claims there was UI and the other side claims >there was none, but the need to establish the presence or absence of UI >is always the first step. Precisely so. The fact of UI needs to be established before we even get to the issues of LA's and "may suggests." But you seem willing to put the cart before the horse, attempting to establish the basis for UI by performing the analysis first. >I'm reluctant to mention this, but I will. In ACBL play, the director >would quite likely simply apply the "Rule of Coincidence" and be done >with the matter. I am quite strongly against this practice, but the >alternative is to investigate both UI and MI when appropriate >situations arise. I'm sorry, I can't seem to find that reference in the Laws. Could you please quote the relevant passage? Thanks, Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 12:30:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA10414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:30:29 +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 MAA10409 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:30:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1214983; 16 Sep 97 1:11 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:11:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Furniture (was: Dummy has a go!) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote >I shall now, as a leading English lawyer once said in a dispute concerning >a will, address myself to the furniture (at which point the judge remarked >wearily: "You have been addressing the furniture for the last three >hours"). > >DWS wrote: > >> I have no problem with disagreeing with David, and expect to continue >> to do so! Isn't a Chair something the Chairman or Lady Chairman sits >> on? > >Not in this context. "chair, n. ...a bishop, or the person presiding over >any meeting, the chairman..." (Chambers, 1997) > >In these days of political correctness, it is pleasant to be able to use a >non-sexist term that does not offend the ear. "Chairperson" is a >monstrosity, "lady chairman" is little short of ridiculous, but "chair" is >a wholly acceptable substitute for either. I do not object to the idea, bit I do not see why we need to mangle the language. If you want something "little short of ridiculous" then I consider using the term "political correctness" for something that is apolitical fits the bill. And I still believe a chair is something you sit on. -- 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 Sep 16 14:26:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:26:25 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2a.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10679 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:26:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0623401; 16 Sep 97 1:11 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:03:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy has a go! In-Reply-To: <874305472.068067.0@woozle.isode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian Reissmann wrote >> It has been suggested that dummy may call the TD. I even said it >>myself through misreading a Law. While I do not believe that to be the >>case, I consider this to be a trivial part of the problem. If dummy, >>immediately after the player said he had revoked, had said "Should I >>call the TD?" or even "Director, please!", then it would be a very minor >>infraction, and will in fact become legal when the 1997 Laws are in use. > >What is the 97 law change which will permit this ? 1987: Law 9 - Procedure Following an Irregularity B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity 1. Summoning the Director (b) Who May Summon Any player may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity (for dummy, see Law 43A1). 1997: Law 9 - Procedure Following an Irregularity B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity (b) Who May Summon Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. -- 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 Sep 16 15:14:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:14:19 +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 PAA10777 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:13:29 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-69.star.net.il [195.8.208.69]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA16878; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:11:53 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <341E1554.A65786A2@artaxia.com> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:12:52 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Furniture (was: Dummy has a go!) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DAVID It is gorgious . I like we are able to be human beings with full humor sense and not only "dry" administrators. As much as I read "distinct" remarks here - it was the best DANY David Burn wrote: > I shall now, as a leading English lawyer once said in a dispute concerning > a will, address myself to the furniture (at which point the judge remarked > wearily: "You have been addressing the furniture for the last three > hours"). > > DWS wrote: > > > I have no problem with disagreeing with David, and expect to continue > > to do so! Isn't a Chair something the Chairman or Lady Chairman sits > > on? > > Not in this context. "chair, n. ...a bishop, or the person presiding over > any meeting, the chairman..." (Chambers, 1997) > > In these days of political correctness, it is pleasant to be able to use a > non-sexist term that does not offend the ear. "Chairperson" is a > monstrosity, "lady chairman" is little short of ridiculous, but "chair" is > a wholly acceptable substitute for either. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 17:42:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:42:15 +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 RAA11046 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:42:00 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0603446; 15 Sep 97 22:33 BST Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 22:18:11 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Re: Revoke and claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <9709151932.AA09253@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-Mailer: ANT RISCOS Marcel [ver 1.26] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon 15 Sep, Barry Wolk wrote: > I sent in something very similar about a year ago to rec.games.bridge. > Do you remember the following? > > <<< > Subject: Revoke then claim > From: Barry Wolk > Date: 1996/12/09 > Message-Id: <32AC76C6.72A0@ccm.umanitoba.ca> > Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge > > The following constructed ending is based on something similar that > happened at the club. > > North: K4 void void 863 > West: East: > 63 Q72 > 4 52 > void void > 97 void > South: AJ85 void void K > > Playing NT, S cashed the club K, and both E and W discarded hearts. > Declarer then claimed, saying "2 spades and 2 clubs" Naturally West > objected. How do you rule? > > Ruling on the revoke is easy -- it was caught in time to let it be > corrected. Then how do you rule on the claim? And would the ruling be > the same if the EW cards were > West: Q3 4 void 97 Easr: 762 52 void void After establishing the H4 as a penalty card L72B1 (1997) should be considered West *could* know that by revoking he might lead declarer into a false claim. Play continues and sure enough declarer makes a claim. It is false because of West's irregularity. The offenders have gained an advantage through the irregularity and therefore declarer is entitled to an adjusted score. Martin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 19:10:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:10:45 +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 TAA11223 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:10:39 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xAtmD-0003ze-00; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:18:33 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.47.110] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xAtfG-0002IO-00; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:11:22 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Mangling the language: (was: Dummy has a go) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:10:12 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > > David Burn wrote > >I shall now, as a leading English lawyer once said in a dispute concerning > >a will, address myself to the furniture (at which point the judge remarked > >wearily: "You have been addressing the furniture for the last three > >hours"). > > > >DWS wrote: > > > >> I have no problem with disagreeing with David, and expect to continue > >> to do so! Isn't a Chair something the Chairman or Lady Chairman sits > >> on? > > David Burn wrote: > >Not in this context. "chair, n. ...a bishop, or the person presiding over > >any meeting, the chairman..." (Chambers, 1997) > > > >In these days of political correctness, it is pleasant to be able to use a > >non-sexist term that does not offend the ear. "Chairperson" is a > >monstrosity, "lady chairman" is little short of ridiculous, but "chair" is > >a wholly acceptable substitute for either. And DWS wrote: > > I do not object to the idea, bit I do not see why we need to mangle > the language. If you want something "little short of ridiculous" then I > consider using the term "political correctness" for something that is > apolitical fits the bill. And I still believe a chair is something you > sit on. "Politically" in this case is not the adverb from "political" but the adverb from "politic" ("in accordance with good policy" - Chambers 1997). Thus, the fact that political correctness is apolitical does not matter. Of course a chair is something that you sit on, just as a cat is a feline quadruped. But a cat is also a movable penthouse, a double tripod, or a coal and timber vessel. Have you got a dictionary, David? If so, why? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 16 19:26:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:26:15 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (root@sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA11291 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:26:03 +1000 Received: from default (client8741.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.65]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA04065; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:29:39 +0100 Message-Id: <199709160929.KAA04065@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:26:57 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card > Date: 15 September 1997 17:04 > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Opinion > > ******** > > 1. Instances where there is no partnership understanding or > > agreement that an intentionally misleading call may be made. > > > > 2. Other instances where the call is based on partnership > > understanding (which may derive from explicit discussion, > > from partnership experience of earlier occasions, or from > > other information shared by the partners). > > This is a very helpful categorization, but I'm afraid it doesn't answer > all practical questions. Suppose our agreement (explicit if you like, > so there is no argument) is: > > In third seat at favorable vul, we open 1M with the normal hands and, > further, when we are dealt 0-4 points and short in M, we open 1M x% of > the time. > > If x=0, there is no problem. > > If x=100, this is case 2 above. \\\\snip//// > > What happens if x is not 0 or 100? Does it matter how big x is? > > Absent discussion (playing with a new partner), I'd expect x to be > non-zero, perhaps in the neighborhood of 1 (i.e. a 1% chance that a > player dealt a worthless hand might randomly psych). My estimate might > be different depending on the age and overall style of this partner. > Does this matter? \/ \/ \/ I believe we should read law 40A again. If you have an understanding with partner which is established explicitly or by circumstances known to you both, and it is that One Percent of the time you will commit a certain type of psyche then if once in the first hundred relevant hands partner produces such action, that action is 'based on a partnership understanding' (to quote the law which applies and which says nothing of frequency or probability). Those of us who contributed to the work of the drafting committee all enjoyed a fair understanding of English and at this stage it would be inappropriate to assume we did not understand the effect of our words. It may transpire we have not foreseen potential conflicts in what we have done but this cannot be the case here. It can be the case that you or s.o.else will not like the law, and so be it. As for a new partner with whom you have not discussed the subject of psyches, and of whose habits you have no particular knowledge, you can have no agreement to disclose. Category 1. I might think differently if you both played in the same.circle where he had a reputation as a frequent psycher. That any player may psyche, even a mamber of a partnership which says it never psyches, is general bridge knowledge and not a partnership matter. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 00:07:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:07:51 +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 AAA12132 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:07:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0608464; 16 Sep 97 10:55 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:20:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <342267d1.5359716@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote >On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:35:27 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >>Jesper Dybdal wrote >>>But if that is the case, where is the law that allows sponsoring >>>organisations to require players to fill out the box? >> >>Law 40 - Partnership Understandings >> >>E. Convention Card >> 1. Right to Prescribe >> The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on >> which partners are to list their conventions and other >> agreements, and may establish regulations for its use, including >> a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same >> system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, >> only method). >> >> One regulation for the use of the card could be: >> >>"Players are required to list on the card their frequency of psyching >>for the benfit of their opponents." > >I do not read "may establish regulations for its use" as granting >a right to establish any regulation whatsoever. The law also >tells us what the purpose of the card is: to list conventions and >other agreements. There would be no need to do that if the SO >could make any regulation whatsoever as long as it had something >to do with a card called a "convention card". > >As I read it, the regulations in question concern such things as: >* required layout of the CCs, >* required content of the CCs (i.e., which conventions and > agreements need to be mentioned on the CC and in how much > detail), >* how many copies of the CC each partnership must provide, >* where and when they must provide them, >* and, specifically mentioned, whether the two players must use > the same system. Sounds fair. My example regulation comes under the "required content of the CCs". -- 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 Sep 17 00:14:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:14:44 +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 AAA13959 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:14:24 +1000 Received: from default (ip101.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.101]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA03443; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709161414.KAA03443@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Forcing and "To Play" Passes Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:11:32 -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 > P.S. Has anyone noticed that "alerting" can be anagrammed into four other > English words? > Altering the integral subject of this thread without relating it to previous posts creates a confusing triangle of conflicting ideas and is a silly waste of bandwidth, IMHO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 01:21:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:21:16 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14702 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:21:05 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-34.innet.be [194.7.10.34]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA13179 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:45:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341D74A8.7826C594@innet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:47:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> <341f917e.3030908@pipmail.dknet.dk> <341BAE38.6CDBA710@innet.be> <341f561f.829392@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:28:24 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >I want to be honest, it is closer to 80%. > > > >However, this situation arises so seldom, that even 80% of this is once > >every six months. But I open 1H in third seat once every two > >tournaments. Surely you cannot expect partner to be aware of the > >possibility every time I open my mouth. > > No, but every time you pass third in hand (which probably happens > fairly often) he will know that there is an 80% probability that > you have at least a few points. This is close enough to a > partnership agreement that opponents should be notified (the pass > is IMO alertable). Wrong calculation : If YOU pass in third hand, any partner will know that 99% of the time, you will hold more than 3 points (that's because they have to be somewhere). If I pass in third hand, my partner can exclude 80% of the 1% and conclude that 99.8% of the time, I will have more than 3 points. Certainly not enough difference to base his next call on. (I have not yet calculated that 99% chance, but I won't be far off...) Meanwhile I have found Jesper's second message in which he also found that error in logic. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 01:39:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:39:21 +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 BAA14772 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:39:10 +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 LAA26266 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:39:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07850; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:38:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:38:57 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709161538.LAA07850@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > This raises an interesting problem. Suppose in response to your tactful but > probing questions, E and/or W tell you to stuff it, or are otherwise merely > unresponsive. Laws 81C4-7 and 82A empower (indeed require) the director to investigate. Read L81C6 "in any manner" with special care. I don't find an explicit passage requiring players to cooperate, though L72A1 could certainly be read that way. If a player refuses to give evidence to permit determination of the facts, it seems reasonable to rule that the facts are not in that player's favor. For MI cases, this is made explicit by the footnote to L75D2 ("absence of evidence to the contrary"). > The fact of UI needs to be established before we even get to > the issues of LA's and "may suggests." But you seem willing to put the cart > before the horse, attempting to establish the basis for UI by performing > the analysis first. I am not sure what you mean by "performing the analysis first." The TD's first duty is to establish whether or not UI was made available. The cards, calls, and plays may (often do) provide evidence. It is the TD's duty to consider all evidence available. (Have I really written so badly as to suggest anything else?) If you are suggesting that a UI investigation may begin only after a player has stated that UI was made available, I suggest you think again. > >I'm reluctant to mention this, but I will. In ACBL play, the director > >would quite likely simply apply the "Rule of Coincidence" and be done > >with the matter. I am quite strongly against this practice, but the > >alternative is to investigate both UI and MI when appropriate > >situations arise. > > I'm sorry, I can't seem to find that reference in the Laws. Could you > please quote the relevant passage? It seems my reluctance was well justified. Do you think ACBL play is governed by the Laws? Nevertheless, if you don't like the RoC as a matter of "law," you ought find a legal way to address the infractions it attempts to address. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 02:00:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:00:18 +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 CAA14886 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:00:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0924792; 16 Sep 97 15:52 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:01:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <199709160151.VAA17347@brickbat9.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >> > 2. Even if the case for UI were far more persuasive on its face, the >tactic >> > of questioning EW is not apt to yield useful information. >> >> This depends on the questions one asks and on how one interprets the >> answers. One would also question NS, of course. > >This raises an interesting problem. Suppose in response to your tactful but >probing questions, E and/or W tell you to stuff it, or are otherwise merely >unresponsive. ("I bid it that way because it seemed like the best call at >the time.") Do you believe that the laws impose on EW any obligation to >cooperate with your investigation, beyond frankly detailing their >agreements? Are you prepared to make an adverse ruling against an >uncooperative EW, and if so, what is the legal basis for such a ruling >other than personal pique? > >For the fact is, their unhelpful attitude is technically correct. As with >many of the formulations of the laws, L16A is written in such a way that we >need not consider the thought processes of the players in the adjudication >process. Thus EW are quite within their rights in pointing out that such >information is extraneous, and essentially none of your business. Law 81 - Duties and Powers C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: 5. Law to administer and interpret these Laws, and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. The players have no right to force their interpretation of the Laws on the Director. We have discussed before an unreasonable demand, such as a TD requiring people to play on when there is a fire, but if you take away the extreme circumstances, then players have no right not to accede to a TD's requests. What happens when the players are wrong? We have seen on RGB several times people posting that they would not do such a thing because ..., and they receive a reply that points out they were wrong. Suppose you are asked by the TD to change table: would you say "No, I believe you are wrong to tell me to, so I shall not."? Of course, you might suggest to a TD that he is making a mistake, but that is the limit. Incorrect procedure by a TD would be grounds for an appeal, and might set the grounds for an appeal to the National Authority, but does not give a player a right to refuse to do what he is told: it will be he that is wrong, not the TD, on too many occasions. -- 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 Sep 17 02:11:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:11:27 +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 CAA15145 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:11:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1520897; 16 Sep 97 10:55 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:31:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <199709152252.SAA07509@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote >I'm reluctant to mention this, but I will. In ACBL play, the director >would quite likely simply apply the "Rule of Coincidence" and be done >with the matter. I am quite strongly against this practice, but the >alternative is to investigate both UI and MI when appropriate >situations arise. It is clearly inappropriate with this level of 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 Sep 17 03:22:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 03:22:03 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA15615 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 03:21:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1221786; 16 Sep 97 15:52 BST Message-ID: <46g9KiBRkmH0Ew1D@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:10:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <199709152035.QAA19291@brickbat9.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >The post was not in response to you in particular, but to Steve Willner >who, inter alia, suggested that the EW auction was sufficiently strange to >warrant an investigation into the possibility of UI, even though no >suggestion of such had been offered by the players at the table. He >proposed questioning EW closely to uncover the relevant evidence. We may be at cross-purposes here, since I thought Steve agreed with me. His next post suggests he did not, even though he said he did. Let me answer these points. > At the >risk of rehashing the debate, I will restate my objections to this plan: > >1. The auction is not actually very suspicious at all, especially by poor >players faced with difficult alternatives. I don't endorse their actions as >good bridge (although some corrspondents have), but to characterize it in >any way as suggestive of UI, without any other basis, takes an active >imagination and a director with rather too little real work. Absolutely not. A TD has been asked to rule on a sequence because the sequence is suspicious: that was what the original request was. For him not to investigate means he is not doing his job. >2. Even if the case for UI were far more persuasive on its face, the tactic >of questioning EW is not apt to yield useful information. Bad bidders are >usually no better at explaining their poor decisions than they are at >making them in the first place, so what we probably will be left with is an >unsatisfying, incoherent, and inconsistent account of a weak >decision-making process. Completely irrelevant. I agree that the answers will often be confused, and one may not be able to glean anything. However, I personally find it very rare that a few questions do not give me a good idea of what actually happened, and not to put those few questions would be to not do my job. >3. I should have added that, from the standpoint of UI and L16A, >explanations from EW are largely irrelevant, except in so far as they can >shed light on specific agreed methods. As I probably don't need to tell >you, L16A is written in such a way as to obviate the need for an evaluation >of the thought processes and motivations of the players concerned. What a >UI investigation is properly concerned with is LA's and "might reasonably >suggests" from the standpoint of other players of comparable skill and >similar methods. The procedures that TDs follow in judgement rulings are [1] discover the facts [2] consult [3] rule I see no reason for skimping on [1]. -- 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 Sep 17 03:35:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 03:35:05 +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 DAA15666 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 03:34:58 +1000 Received: from cph41.ppp.dknet.dk (cph41.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.41]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA13111 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:34:41 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:34:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <341ec1cb.1028198@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> <341f917e.3030908@pipmail.dknet.dk> <341BAE38.6CDBA710@innet.be> <341f561f.829392@pipmail.dknet.dk> <341D74A8.7826C594@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <341D74A8.7826C594@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 Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:47:20 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >If I pass in third hand, my partner can exclude 80% of the 1% and >conclude that 99.8% of the time, I will have more than 3 points. > >Certainly not enough difference to base his next call on. Imagine that you pass third in hand. Fourth hand has a strong hand and becomes declarer in a small slam. Your partner leads an ace, and the only remaining outstanding honours are a king and a jack. In this situation, declarer has a right to know that there is a very high probability that you have both those honours, or at least the king. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 04:48:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:48:41 +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 EAA15922 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:48:31 +1000 Received: from cph25.ppp.dknet.dk (cph25.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.25]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA15258 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:48:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:48:21 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3420c46f.1704250@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 Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:20:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote >>As I read it, the regulations in question concern such things as: ... >>* required content of the CCs (i.e., which conventions and >> agreements need to be mentioned on the CC and in how much >> detail), ... > Sounds fair. My example regulation comes under the "required content >of the CCs". Nice try, David. But notice that I did remember to write the parenthesis ("i.e., which conventions and agreements ..."). Is a psyche frequency which is UI to partner a convention or an agreement? Seriously, I expect that we will continue to disagree about how wide-ranging rights an SO is given by laws such as this one. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 05:31:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 05:31:21 +1000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (punt-2b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA16045 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 05:31:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0611495; 16 Sep 97 15:52 BST Message-ID: <0qg+OmBQpmH0EwVE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:15:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <199709152252.SAA07509@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >One would also wish to question the opponents. Even though they have >not mentioned UI initially, they may have noticed something. One must >be careful not to plant ideas, of course, and I hope it's obvious that >each player should be questioned out of earshot of the others. One >needs to evaluate which statements are consistent with each other. Bring back the Spanish inquisition! I do not think this is a case where we want to adopt a high level approach, and I am not going to question the players separately. That will slow it down too much, and quite possibly upset the players, and does not seem very necessary. >> 1. The auction is not actually very suspicious at all, especially by poor >> players faced with difficult alternatives. I don't endorse their actions as >> good bridge (although some corrspondents have), > >I'm afraid our bridge judgments differ as to the suspiciousness of the >auction. I don't recall any correspondents claiming that the auction >was good bridge, but perhaps I have overlooked their messages. How suspicious it is is what we have been asked to rule on. [That must be my worst constructed sentence for some time!] That is what we are investigating. >> 2. Even if the case for UI were far more persuasive on its face, the tactic >> of questioning EW is not apt to yield useful information. > >This depends on the questions one asks and on how one interprets the >answers. One would also question NS, of course. I agree. -- 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 Sep 17 07:28:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:28:01 +1000 Received: from mail.netvision.net.il (mail.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA16391 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:24:07 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts028p6.pop3b.netvision.net.il [199.203.202.8]) by mail.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA22195 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:23:57 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:23:57 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Double chance? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Teams. (Good level, second highest Israel Teams league). Without screens Dealer South. Both vulnerable 5 A A Q 8 5 2 A K Q T 7 2 Q 8 6 4 K J 9 7 3 K 5 4 2 J 9 8 6 3 T 9 7 4 J 9 6 3 A T 2 Q T 7 K J 6 3 8 5 4 S W N E P P 1C 2D P P DBLE At this point West called TD and explained that his explanation of E's overcall was incorrect. He had explained "weak D overcall" instead of "Ghestem-like, weak with both majors." The TD decided to let the hand continue (law 21B3 TD may award adjusted score..), and explained to N that he could change his double. It was also explained that if the later bidding was be found to be materially affected by S having received misinformation at his first turn to bid then the TD would consider an assigned score. N elected to change his call from Double to Pass, and so 2D played by E became the final contract. When the smoke had cleared E had made zero tricks for 8 down, -800. NS called the TD and claimed that if S had received the correct explanation he (South) would have doubled 2D and they would have reached the D (or Club) grand slam. TD ruled that N's pass of 2D was specifically calculated to exploit West's misunderstanding and the situation, which was perfectly legitimate, but that when this failed NS could not now get a second chance by claiming that S had been injured (and in effect ensuring that the pass of 2D was risk-free - if it succeeds OK, if not MI). He could not hold both ends of the stick. N could have bid "normally" after the corrected explanation, but he didn't, and his bad result was due to his call (and his miscalculation) and not to the MI his partner had received. NS appealed. The AC found that NS should not be damaged by the fact that one of the partners had received misinformation, and in effect had not had a chance to bid after receiving the corrected information. EW gave an incorrect explanation and NS, the Non offending side, were damaged and EW should not benefit. The AC heard NS and were not convinced they would bid the grand slam and awarded them the small slam. As the other table had also bid a small slam, the board was effectively averaged or cancelled. (The AC also recommended a 3 IMP fine against EW for wrong explanation/convention disruption.) Some questions: 1. Should the TD have applied Law 21B3 (or 40C), stop play and immediately award an adjusted score.? 2. Given that the TD allowed play to continue, do you agree with the argument of double chance (or N being responsible for his own bad score, or egregious call perhaps). 3. If you disagree with the TD, do you agree with the AC decision.? 4. The board was played 12 times: 3 grands, 8 smalls, and of course one 8 down. Assume that an assigned score is in order. The grand slam is "cold". Should the AC award the grand or the small or how about a varied assigned score of 30% of 2140 and 70% of 1390 or similar. Or what about a split score of -1390 and +800 ? Your comments, please. Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 07:31:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:31:09 +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 HAA16451 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:31:03 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1415680; 16 Sep 97 22:05 BST Message-ID: <09J4oCA+jgH0Ew1M@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 05:20:14 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Furniture (was: Dummy has a go!) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Burn wrote >>I shall now, as a leading English lawyer once said in a dispute concerning >>a will, address myself to the furniture (at which point the judge remarked >>wearily: "You have been addressing the furniture for the last three >>hours"). >> >>> (CUT) >> I do not object to the idea, bit I do not see why we need to mangle >the language. If you want something "little short of ridiculous" then I >consider using the term "political correctness" for something that is >apolitical fits the bill. And I still believe a chair is something you >sit on. > Most of David B's Chairs are sat on from time to time. -- Labeo Necessitas dat legem, non ipsa accepit: Necessity gives the law, but does not acknowledge law. Syrus. acknowledge law. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 12:01:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:01:11 +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 MAA17451 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:00:59 +1000 Received: from default (ip158.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.158]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08030 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:00:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709170200.WAA08030@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:55:33 -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 Steve Willner writes: > > I am not sure what you mean by "performing the analysis first." The > TD's first duty is to establish whether or not UI was made available. > The cards, calls, and plays may (often do) provide evidence. It is the > TD's duty to consider all evidence available. (Have I really written > so badly as to suggest anything else?) > When you are called to the table, you are presented with certain facts: the hands and the bidding. Let us stipulate that the last two EW bids would be judged as very questionable by most (though not all) good players. The expert NS are unhappy that this incompetent auction by weak opponents has handed them a bottom, but have no specific complaint other than a plausible claim that had they understood the opponent's actions, they would have acted differently and more successfully. Where in this picture is there any evidence whatsoever of UI? The only way to infer it is a thought process something along these lines: At his final call, E surely had at least one LA (in this case, passing the double), and had there been UI, it could easily have suggested his actual runout. Therefore at least a prima facie case for UI. This is what I mean by doing the analysis first. This is not merely an arbitrary procedural quibble. The wording of L16A stacks the cards against the presumptive offender. Although we all understand that an adverse ruling here is not based on the player's actual motivations, the effect of the wording is to hold the player's actions up to a very strict standard and in effect to convict unless his actions are deemed virtually clear-cut. The only protection against purely arbitrary intervention is that we require some a priori basis of UI BEFORE we subject a player's actions to such scrutiny. If you believe that the laws do not support me here, then consider that L16A lists numerous fairly specific potential sources of UI before it describes the legal ramifications of UI and how subsequent actions are to be judged. Nowhere in that list do I find either the Ether, or a TD's judgement about bad bidding. > If you are suggesting that a UI investigation may begin only after > a player has stated that UI was made available, I suggest you think > again. > I have thought again, and am unmoved. If I complain to the authorities about my neighbor's good fortune, I do not expect this to result in a legal investigation of any sort. Prosecuters, police, and others empowered to enforce the laws understand that their power to investigate cannot be exercised randomly and without some foundation more solid than sour grapes and non-specific accusations of suspicious behavior. In the present case, there is simply nothing to investigate, absent more specific information from NS about how they might have been damaged. If I am called to the table in this situation, I will first try to ascertain the nature of the NS objection. If it is a MI situation, I will talk with EW to ascertain their methods and rule accordingly. If the concern is UI-related, then I will check that out. Beyond trying to elicit from the complainants the information I need to begin an investigation, I will not take any initiative to invent possible violations. I might go so far as to say the director has no need to consider either the cards or the auction until he has some idea what he should be looking for. > > >I'm reluctant to mention this, but I will. In ACBL play, the director > > >would quite likely simply apply the "Rule of Coincidence" and be done > > >with the matter. I am quite strongly against this practice, but the > > >alternative is to investigate both UI and MI when appropriate > > >situations arise. > > > > I'm sorry, I can't seem to find that reference in the Laws. Could you > > please quote the relevant passage? > > It seems my reluctance was well justified. Do you think ACBL play is > governed by the Laws? > > Nevertheless, if you don't like the RoC as a matter of "law," you ought > find a legal way to address the infractions it attempts to address. Which are? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 12:42:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:42:02 +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 MAA17687 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:41:56 +1000 Received: from default (ip158.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.158]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA03161 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:41:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709170241.WAA03161@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Fw: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:38:58 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 7:10 AM > > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote > > >The post was not in response to you in particular, but to Steve Willner > >who, inter alia, suggested that the EW auction was sufficiently strange to > >warrant an investigation into the possibility of UI, even though no > >suggestion of such had been offered by the players at the table. He > >proposed questioning EW closely to uncover the relevant evidence. > > We may be at cross-purposes here, since I thought Steve agreed with > me. His next post suggests he did not, even though he said he did. Let > me answer these points. > > > At the > >risk of rehashing the debate, I will restate my objections to this plan: > > > >1. The auction is not actually very suspicious at all, especially by poor > >players faced with difficult alternatives. I don't endorse their actions as > >good bridge (although some corrspondents have), but to characterize it in > >any way as suggestive of UI, without any other basis, takes an active > >imagination and a director with rather too little real work. > > Absolutely not. A TD has been asked to rule on a sequence because the > sequence is suspicious: that was what the original request was. For him > not to investigate means he is not doing his job. > If called upon for a ruling about a "suspicious sequence" (I would have thought it was the TD and players who were suspicious and not the sequence, but never mind), I will politely inform the complainants that the Laws neither define, nor provide guidance for, nor indeed place any restrictions upon "suspicious sequences", and advise them that unless they have an actual irregularity for me to rule upon, the matter is closed. I will do so without reference to the actual hands or bidding. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 15:29:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:29:36 +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 PAA17955 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:29:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0602536; 16 Sep 97 22:57 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:41:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <3420c46f.1704250@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote >On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 01:20:43 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >>Jesper Dybdal wrote >>>As I read it, the regulations in question concern such things as: > ... >>>* required content of the CCs (i.e., which conventions and >>> agreements need to be mentioned on the CC and in how much >>> detail), > ... >> Sounds fair. My example regulation comes under the "required content >>of the CCs". > >Nice try, David. But notice that I did remember to write the >parenthesis ("i.e., which conventions and agreements ..."). Is a >psyche frequency which is UI to partner a convention or an >agreement? No, I think you meant e.g., not i.e. >Seriously, I expect that we will continue to disagree about how >wide-ranging rights an SO is given by laws such as this one. -- 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 Sep 17 17:31:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:31:59 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA18315 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:31:52 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA26658; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma026490; Wed, 17 Sep 97 01:01:22 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA01196 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709170752.AAA01196@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 08:22:15 GMT Subject: Re: Double chance? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: >Teams. (Good level, second highest Israel Teams league). Without screens > >Dealer South. Both vulnerable > > 5 > A > A Q 8 5 2 > A K Q T 7 2 >Q 8 6 4 K J 9 7 3 >K 5 4 2 J 9 8 6 3 >T 9 7 4 >J 9 6 3 > A T 2 > Q T 7 > K J 6 3 > 8 5 4 > > S W N E > P P 1C 2D > P P DBLE > >At this point West called TD and explained that his explanation of E's >overcall was incorrect. He had explained "weak D overcall" instead of >"Ghestem-like, weak with both majors." > >The TD decided to let the hand continue (law 21B3 TD may award adjusted >score..), and explained to N that he could change his double. It was also >explained that if the later bidding was be found to be materially affected >by S having received misinformation at his first turn to bid then the TD >would consider an assigned score. N elected to change his call from Double >to Pass, and so 2D played by E became the final contract. When the smoke had >cleared E had made zero tricks for 8 down, -800. > >NS called the TD and claimed that if S had received the correct explanation >he (South) would have doubled 2D and they would have reached the D (or Club) >grand slam. >TD ruled that N's pass of 2D was specifically calculated to exploit West's >misunderstanding and the situation, which was perfectly legitimate, but that >when this failed NS could not now get a second chance by claiming that S had >been injured (and in effect ensuring that the pass of 2D was risk-free - if >it succeeds OK, if not MI). He could not hold both ends of the stick. N >could have bid "normally" after the corrected explanation, but he didn't, >and his bad result was due to his call (and his miscalculation) and not to >the MI his partner had received. NS appealed. > >The AC found that NS should not be damaged by the fact that one of the >partners had received misinformation, and in effect had not had a chance to >bid after receiving the corrected information. EW gave an incorrect >explanation and NS, the Non offending side, were damaged and EW should not >benefit. The AC heard NS and were not convinced they would bid the grand >slam and awarded them the small slam. As the other table had also bid a >small slam, the board was effectively averaged or cancelled. (The AC also >recommended a 3 IMP fine against EW for wrong explanation/convention >disruption.) > >Some questions: >1. Should the TD have applied Law 21B3 (or 40C), stop play and immediately >award an adjusted score.? Not in my opinion. I agree with the TD. I think it is much better to allow play to continue, reserving the right to award an adjusted score. >2. Given that the TD allowed play to continue, do you agree with the >argument of double chance (or N being responsible for his own bad score, or >egregious call perhaps). Not at all. S based his pass over 2D on the incorrect information provided by EW (namely the failure to alert). If NS were damaged by that, and I think they were, then they are entitled to an adjusted score. >3. If you disagree with the TD, do you agree with the AC decision.? The AC heard NS argue their case, and I am in no better a position than they to make a decision. Personally I'm surprised they decided NS would *never* bid to 7m: my inclination would have been to apply Law 12C3 to give a split score based on some percentage of my assessment of the likely outcome. Still, they heard the arguments not me. >4. The board was played 12 times: 3 grands, 8 smalls, and of course one 8 >down. Assume that an assigned score is in order. The grand slam is "cold". >Should the AC award the grand or the small or how about a varied assigned >score of 30% of 2140 and 70% of 1390 or similar. That would seem reasonable, but the actual scores at the other tables are no more than persuasive. One needs to bear in mind that the AC presumably didn't know how the auction went at the other tables: for example some NS's may have particularly suitable methods for the hands. >Or what about a split score of -1390 and +800 ? That would be nonsense IMO, unless you think that, even given a correct explanation, EW would have bought the contract in some, say, 4MX, and would have guessed well to go for only 800. Given a correct explanation, I think it most unlikely S would have passed 2D. That being so 800 is (subject to the proviso above) not a possible score. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 19:11:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:11:55 +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 TAA18560 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:11:39 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194.innet.be [194.7.10.194]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA00961 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:11:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <341F9859.234F7E35@innet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:44:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Double chance? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: > [I propose a new practice : snip the original problem - we all have it] First remark : What about 2DX-8 ? Oh no, West woke up by himself - so he would be allowed to take that out even if east would not be. > > Some questions: > 1. Should the TD have applied Law 21B3 (or 40C), stop play and immediately > award an adjusted score.? No, why ? > 2. Given that the TD allowed play to continue, do you agree with the > argument of double chance (or N being responsible for his own bad score, or > egregious call perhaps). I agree that he takes a double shot, but I do not think that this is in se forbidden by the Laws. His action is not egregious IMO. He does not know what south holds, and south is still damaged. > 3. If you disagree with the TD, do you agree with the AC decision.? That depends - see below > 4. The board was played 12 times: 3 grands, 8 smalls, and of course one 8 > down. Assume that an assigned score is in order. The grand slam is "cold". > Should the AC award the grand or the small or how about a varied assigned > score of 30% of 2140 and 70% of 1390 or similar. Or what about a split score > of -1390 and +800 ? > We are lacking ONE important info there : did the pairs that got to grand get a Ghestem interference or not ? If they did, then the grand would be a probable result for this pair too. If they didn't, then maybe the intervention proved enough to keep NS out of the grand, and the small slam is the best of all probable results. It would depend on the way that NS would give a (in their system) normal bidding sequence to get to the grand. If they can tell us how they can fi show the bare heart King, they get the grand. Even if this ends on a (small) gamble - they are allowed to get the grand. However, the suggestion to give some percentage of grand and small is out of the question. Either the grand is a probable result or it isn't. If it is, NS are entitled to that result. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 21:10:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:10:15 +1000 Received: from e4000.star.net.il. (E4000.star.net.il [195.8.195.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA18848 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:09:26 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS3-172.star.net.il [195.8.208.172]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA25742; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:08:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <341FBA7A.7FFE9AD7@artaxia.com> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:09:47 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eitan Levy CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Shalom There are two kinds of infractions when the offended side is in an impossible situation : 1) One of the offenders hesitates and the other bids. 2) One of the offenders gives a wrong explanation to a conventional bid. >From the moment such an infraction occured , the offended side becomes automatically "criminal" : a. if they act they will be cosidered "double shot" unfair contestants. b. if they will not act they punish themselves for a bad score. So I believe - very clear-cut - that in such case : A. if the tournament director is summoned at the right time HE MUST STOP BID/PLAY IMEDIATELLY and decide to write an adjusted score : 1) for offenders the worst achieved score at that board ; 2) for offended side the best achieved score by 70%+ of pairs at their level (not so simple but theTD or the AC know almost all players !) B. If the TD arrived after the offended side acted than he must adjust score in an almost same way : 1) for offenders the worst achieved score ; 2) for offended side : a) if their action was demonstrably logical - as in A b) if their action was "WILD" or "GAMBLING" the score at table. __________ Eitan Levy wrote: > Teams. (Good level, second highest Israel Teams league). Without screens > > Dealer South. Both vulnerable > > 5 > A > A Q 8 5 2 > A K Q T 7 2 > Q 8 6 4 K J 9 7 3 > K 5 4 2 J 9 8 6 3 > T 9 7 4 > J 9 6 3 > A T 2 > Q T 7 > K J 6 3 > 8 5 4 > > S W N E > P P 1C 2D > P P DBLE > > At this point West called TD and explained that his explanation of E's > overcall was incorrect. He had explained "weak D overcall" instead of > "Ghestem-like, weak with both majors." > > The TD decided to let the hand continue (law 21B3 TD may award adjusted > score..), and explained to N that he could change his double. It was also > explained that if the later bidding was be found to be materially affected > by S having received misinformation at his first turn to bid then the TD > would consider an assigned score. N elected to change his call from Double > to Pass, and so 2D played by E became the final contract. When the smoke had > cleared E had made zero tricks for 8 down, -800. > > NS called the TD and claimed that if S had received the correct explanation > he (South) would have doubled 2D and they would have reached the D (or Club) > grand slam. > TD ruled that N's pass of 2D was specifically calculated to exploit West's > misunderstanding and the situation, which was perfectly legitimate, but that > when this failed NS could not now get a second chance by claiming that S had > been injured (and in effect ensuring that the pass of 2D was risk-free - if > it succeeds OK, if not MI). He could not hold both ends of the stick. N > could have bid "normally" after the corrected explanation, but he didn't, > and his bad result was due to his call (and his miscalculation) and not to > the MI his partner had received. NS appealed. > > The AC found that NS should not be damaged by the fact that one of the > partners had received misinformation, and in effect had not had a chance to > bid after receiving the corrected information. EW gave an incorrect > explanation and NS, the Non offending side, were damaged and EW should not > benefit. The AC heard NS and were not convinced they would bid the grand > slam and awarded them the small slam. As the other table had also bid a > small slam, the board was effectively averaged or cancelled. (The AC also > recommended a 3 IMP fine against EW for wrong explanation/convention > disruption.) > > Some questions: > 1. Should the TD have applied Law 21B3 (or 40C), stop play and immediately > award an adjusted score.? > 2. Given that the TD allowed play to continue, do you agree with the > argument of double chance (or N being responsible for his own bad score, or > egregious call perhaps). > 3. If you disagree with the TD, do you agree with the AC decision.? > 4. The board was played 12 times: 3 grands, 8 smalls, and of course one 8 > down. Assume that an assigned score is in order. The grand slam is "cold". > Should the AC award the grand or the small or how about a varied assigned > score of 30% of 2140 and 70% of 1390 or similar. Or what about a split score > of -1390 and +800 ? > > Your comments, please. > > Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 22:22:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:22:52 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA19081 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:22:42 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn76.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:17:14 +0200 Message-ID: <341FCCFC.6BE5@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:28:44 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> <341FBA7A.7FFE9AD7@artaxia.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DANY HAIMOVICI wrote: > = > There are two kinds of infractions when the offended side is > in an impossible situation : > 1) One of the offenders hesitates and the other bids. > 2) One of the offenders gives a wrong explanation to a conventional bid= =2E > = > >From the moment such an infraction occured , the offended side > becomes automatically "criminal" : > = > a. if they act they will be cosidered "double shot" unfair contestants.= > b. if they will not act they punish themselves for a bad score. > = > So I believe - very clear-cut - that in such case : > = > A. if the tournament director is summoned at the right time > HE MUST STOP BID/PLAY IMEDIATELLY and decide to > write an adjusted score : Well I hope this is a misunderstanding of the rule of LAW 21 B 3. I think u can always let them play the hand to the end. = It is still possible, that NS can make a good score anyway and I still believe (even after a lot of discussion last time...) that any "natural" score is better than an adjusted score (less work for TD as well). = By the way, if u take ur view seriously u have to give always 60/40 in such cases. LAW 12 C 1 (=3DArtificial Score). LAW 12 C 2 is always possible to use if there was an actual score! = Well this might be really easy for the TD=B4s all over the world, but I have a strong feeling that this will not be appreciated by the BLML (and the commission who wrote the laws). So let them play the hand to an end and then u can give them an Assigned Score (LAW 12 C 2)! = LAW 21 B 3 says in my opinion sth different: The TD can give an adjusted score if the actual score is a result of the damaging. But no break/stop of play in any case. And it is not true, that u are "criminal" as the non-offending side. Bridge is a game of intellect (at least I thought so) and if u make mistakes u have to suffer the results of these mistakes. As sometimes the TD then have to judge if the bad result is from wtong explanation or wrong play. c u -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 22:35:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:35:13 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA19131 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:35:07 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn76.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:29:25 +0200 Message-ID: <341FCFD6.2382@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:40:54 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Eitan Levy wrote: > > Teams. (Good level, second highest Israel Teams league). Without screens > Some questions: > 1. Should the TD have applied Law 21B3 (or 40C), stop play and immediately > award an adjusted score.? No. c my other e-mail about this. > 2. Given that the TD allowed play to continue, do you agree with the > argument of double chance (or N being responsible for his own bad score, or > egregious call perhaps). I dont think sth egregious happened here. If S really would have doubled with his hand, they had a chance to get a better score. > 3. If you disagree with the TD, do you agree with the AC decision.? I personally think that there was a chance to get to the grand. They were robbed of this chance after the wrong explanation. So I think (u c I have a LAW book here now!!! :-)))) that LAW 12 C 2 is in effect here. 7D was a contract which is the most favourable contract which would have been reached had the irregularity not occurred. But I can imagine of sth splitted so e. g. 70% the would have reached 7D and 30% just 2D -8 for -800 (LAW 12 C 3 in the new book!) (AC-ruling specific) And this point is a matter of facts. The AC might have done the correct ruling ;-) Another point of facts: What is the probability that W remembered the system only after the expression in the face of his partner after his explanation and the following pass... c u -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 17 23:25:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:25:03 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19275 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:24:57 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id GAA27258; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 06:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma027001; Wed, 17 Sep 97 06:54:41 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id GAA26889 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 06:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709171345.GAA26889@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 11:31:14 GMT Subject: Re: Double chance? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL said: >However, the suggestion to give some percentage of grand and small is >out of the question. Either the grand is a probable result or it isn't. >If it is, NS are entitled to that result. I agree the TD could not have given a split score. I think the AC could, however. Surely this is a case where the AC may, under, Law 12C3, vary the assigned adjusted score to restore equity? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 02:38:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 02:38:59 +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 CAA22973 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 02:38:50 +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 MAA29841; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:38:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709171638.MAA17483@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: dh@artaxia.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <341FBA7A.7FFE9AD7@artaxia.com> (message from DANY HAIMOVICI on Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:09:47 +0200) Subject: Re: Double chance? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Eitan Shalom > There are two kinds of infractions when the offended side is > in an impossible situation : > 1) One of the offenders hesitates and the other bids. > 2) One of the offenders gives a wrong explanation to a conventional bid. > A. if the tournament director is summoned at the right time > HE MUST STOP BID/PLAY IMEDIATELLY and decide to > write an adjusted score : > 1) for offenders the worst achieved score at that board ; > 2) for offended side the best achieved score by 70%+ of pairs > at their level (not so simple but theTD or the AC know > almost all players !) I strongly disagree with this, particularly after a hesitation. If West makes a slow pass or penalty double and East bids on, you cannot tell whether East has committed an infraction without looking at East's hand (and possibly going to committee to determine whether players of East's level would consider passing a logical alternative). If it turns out that East committed an infraction, the director and committee can then make an appropriate adjustment which would be similar to your suggestion. (It shouldn't be relative to all possible scores, but relative to whatever was likely without the infraction; for example, after a pulled slow double, the adjustment would be to the doubled contract making if that was likely.) -- 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 Sep 18 02:51:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 02:51:18 +1000 Received: from mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com [149.174.64.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23017 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 02:49:21 +1000 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aagw1.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.56]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA12516.; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:02:13 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA6469; Wed, 17 Sep 97 12:48:45 -0400 Message-Id: <9709171648.AA6469@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC1256515004F5B40; Wed, 17 Sep 97 12:48:45 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 17 Sep 97 16:44:56 Subject: Re: Double chance? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> There are two kinds of infractions when the offended side is in an impossible situation : 1) One of the offenders hesitates and the other bids. 2) One of the offenders gives a wrong explanation to a conventional bid. << (...) A. if the tournament director is summoned at the right time HE MUST STOP BID/PLAY IMEDIATELLY and decide to write an adjusted score : 1) for offenders the worst achieved score at that board ; 2) for offended side the best achieved score by 70%+ of pairs at their level (not so simple but theTD or the AC know almost all players !) << The offended side has a big advantage after an infraction. If they behave (at least a bit) sensible, they cannot lose and if they play like nerds, they deserve a nerdy score. I object to the idea that a technical mistake by the opponents gives an innocent bystander an unfair advantage. Especially if the mistake has no relevance for the outcome of the board. Until now I assumed that the laws are designed to repair as many irregular situations as possible to minimize the impact of infractions to the game and the scores. It's not the task of the TD to ride into town like a raving lunatic. The fewer penalties and the fewer adjustment, the better. Mind if I call you 'Judge Dredd'? Christian From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 03:50:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 03:50:48 +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 DAA23279 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 03:49:11 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS3-182.star.net.il [195.8.208.182]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA04850; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:44:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34201749.8B5F34DF@artaxia.com> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:45:45 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> <341F9859.234F7E35@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good Evening Herman I agree with your point of view that the auction at all tables must be inspected and must have a strong influence on the concrete decision if to allow Grand or Small - in my first reply to Eitan , this action is included under the proposal "see and check what most of people at their level should get". But...... by my opinion this is the minor problem HERE , for our aims. (I know that for players the score is the most important........) Please read my reply to Richard Bley from Germany and try to reconsider your denying the cease of bidding .... If still in your position , try to give me an answer to the compulsory public definition of non-offenders as "double-shoters" (You must understand that people DO think this way no matter what you do as TD and this is why "Justice must be SEEN not only DONE " I am not afraid to tell you that there are TDs which apply their decision as a function of the player' s name and not his level, as defined by laws.....) Thanx DANY Herman De Wael wrote: > Eitan Levy wrote: > > > > [I propose a new practice : snip the original problem - we all have it] > > First remark : > > What about 2DX-8 ? > Oh no, West woke up by himself - so he would be allowed to take that out > even if east would not be. > > > > > Some questions: > > 1. Should the TD have applied Law 21B3 (or 40C), stop play and immediately > > award an adjusted score.? > > No, why ? > > > 2. Given that the TD allowed play to continue, do you agree with the > > argument of double chance (or N being responsible for his own bad score, or > > egregious call perhaps). > > I agree that he takes a double shot, but I do not think that this is in > se forbidden by the Laws. His action is not egregious IMO. He does not > know what south holds, and south is still damaged. > > > 3. If you disagree with the TD, do you agree with the AC decision.? > > That depends - see below > > > 4. The board was played 12 times: 3 grands, 8 smalls, and of course one 8 > > down. Assume that an assigned score is in order. The grand slam is "cold". > > Should the AC award the grand or the small or how about a varied assigned > > score of 30% of 2140 and 70% of 1390 or similar. Or what about a split score > > of -1390 and +800 ? > > > > We are lacking ONE important info there : did the pairs that got to > grand get a Ghestem interference or not ? > If they did, then the grand would be a probable result for this pair > too. > If they didn't, then maybe the intervention proved enough to keep NS out > of the grand, and the small slam is the best of all probable results. > It would depend on the way that NS would give a (in their system) normal > bidding sequence to get to the grand. If they can tell us how they can > fi show the bare heart King, they get the grand. > Even if this ends on a (small) gamble - they are allowed to get the > grand. > > However, the suggestion to give some percentage of grand and small is > out of the question. Either the grand is a probable result or it isn't. > If it is, NS are entitled to that result. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm > > I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP > I have lost all previous messages > If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 05:32:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:32:47 +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 FAA23643 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:32:36 +1000 Received: from default (cph59.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.59]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA09995 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:32:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199709171932.VAA09995@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:30:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Double chance? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:23:57 +0200 (IST) > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: Eitan Levy > Subject: Double chance? > Teams. (Good level, second highest Israel Teams league). Without screens > > Dealer South. Both vulnerable > > 5 > A > A Q 8 5 2 > A K Q T 7 2 > Q 8 6 4 K J 9 7 3 > K 5 4 2 J 9 8 6 3 > T 9 7 4 > J 9 6 3 > A T 2 > Q T 7 > K J 6 3 > 8 5 4 > > S W N E > P P 1C 2D > P P DBLE > > At this point West called TD and explained that his explanation of E's > overcall was incorrect. He had explained "weak D overcall" instead of > "Ghestem-like, weak with both majors." > > The TD decided to let the hand continue (law 21B3 TD may award adjusted > score..), and explained to N that he could change his double. It was also > explained that if the later bidding was be found to be materially affected > by S having received misinformation at his first turn to bid then the TD > would consider an assigned score. N elected to change his call from Double > to Pass, and so 2D played by E became the final contract. When the smoke had > cleared E had made zero tricks for 8 down, -800. > > NS called the TD and claimed that if S had received the correct explanation > he (South) would have doubled 2D and they would have reached the D (or Club) > grand slam. > TD ruled that N's pass of 2D was specifically calculated to exploit West's > misunderstanding and the situation, which was perfectly legitimate, but that > when this failed NS could not now get a second chance by claiming that S had > been injured (and in effect ensuring that the pass of 2D was risk-free - if > it succeeds OK, if not MI). He could not hold both ends of the stick. N > could have bid "normally" after the corrected explanation, but he didn't, > and his bad result was due to his call (and his miscalculation) and not to > the MI his partner had received. NS appealed. > > The AC found that NS should not be damaged by the fact that one of the > partners had received misinformation, and in effect had not had a chance to > bid after receiving the corrected information. EW gave an incorrect > explanation and NS, the Non offending side, were damaged and EW should not > benefit. The AC heard NS and were not convinced they would bid the grand > slam and awarded them the small slam. As the other table had also bid a > small slam, the board was effectively averaged or cancelled. (The AC also > recommended a 3 IMP fine against EW for wrong explanation/convention > disruption.) > > Some questions: > 1. Should the TD have applied Law 21B3 (or 40C), stop play and immediately > award an adjusted score.? No. I feel that the TD has no way of knowing whether there is damage until after the hand has been played. I cannot readily construct a scenario where it would be appropriate to stop all play because attention is drawn to misinformation. > 2. Given that the TD allowed play to continue, do you agree with the > argument of double chance (or N being responsible for his own bad score, or > egregious call perhaps). I do not agree with the TD. L21B1 allows S to take back his call, thus avoiding any damage to NS at that stage. It does not allow N to take back his call, so any damage at that stage must still be dealt with. It this gives a shrewd South a double chance, so be it. > 3. If you disagree with the TD, do you agree with the AC decision.? Yes, in principle. We can always discuss what the adjusted score should be (coming right up) ... > 4. The board was played 12 times: 3 grands, 8 smalls, and of course one 8 > down. Assume that an assigned score is in order. The grand slam is "cold". > Should the AC award the grand or the small or how about a varied assigned > score of 30% of 2140 and 70% of 1390 or similar. Or what about a split score > of -1390 and +800 ? -2140 and +1390 seems right to me. I guess the level of play is such that finding the grand slam after the Ghestemish overcall is at all probable but not likely. I would not quarrel, however, with an AC that assigned an intermediate result, from a weighted average, as the equitable score. +800 is out of the question, because I will not be ruling double shot, egregious action, or wild and gambling action. > > Your comments, please. Well, these are my comments. I trust others will disagree. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 05:55:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:55:29 +1000 Received: from e4000.star.net.il. (E4000.star.net.il [195.8.195.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA23724 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:55:09 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS3-182.star.net.il [195.8.208.182]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA04764; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:39:22 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34201604.10531971@artaxia.com> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:40:20 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> <341FBA7A.7FFE9AD7@artaxia.com> <341FCCFC.6BE5@uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by e4000.star.net.il. id TAA04764 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Richard I appreciate your answer , but I am not sure you considered the whole statement and all subsequent proposals. If the TD is summoned in time , and he understands that the case is clear as defined in my statement - HE should't be a cooperator to the so-called "double shot" action possibilities of the offended side - even if the offended pair doesn't intend to get it !!!!!!! (I din't intend to write that in any case of infractions TD should stop p= lay) So I believe that in such cases the TD compell the non-ofending side in a very "un-ethical" position - I don't like to be such a TD . I want to tell you that in international events i acted as TD I had 5 cases like those qouted - 3 hesitations & 2 bad-explanations - and I stopped the bidding ; I told the players their rights and "begged" people to appeal , just to see world class players' opinions in AC ( in one cas= e when a very low-ranked pair was afraid it should be frivolious I gave them the deposit ! - which of course was back) . Those comitee included players like :Billy Eisenberg , Christoff Martens , late Rixy Marcus , M. Hoffman, D. Berkovitz , late Giorgio Belladona etc.. and all appeals were unanimous rejected , because the comittees' member thought they can't get any "clean" bridgistic decision after such infraction ..... As concerning the result written on the score-sheet , I usually write the pairs' numbers and leave the score "Blank" until I can check the result of almost all players - commonly very close at the end of the round ....., and ask pairs which I know to be same real level, in order to be able to see what most player of the offended pair level got at table. If you are still convinced that TD always must let bidding and play continue , please try to explain me with more details why TD should compell a pair to be "double-shoters" or why TD doesn't compell, leting them play and see what havens can help....... Your opinion is important for me Thank you Dany Richard Bley wrote: > DANY HAIMOVICI wrote: > > > > > There are two kinds of infractions when the offended side is > > in an impossible situation : > > 1) One of the offenders hesitates and the other bids. > > 2) One of the offenders gives a wrong explanation to a conventional b= id. > > > > >From the moment such an infraction occured , the offended side > > becomes automatically "criminal" : > > > > a. if they act they will be cosidered "double shot" unfair contestant= s. > > b. if they will not act they punish themselves for a bad score. > > > > So I believe - very clear-cut - that in such case : > > > > A. if the tournament director is summoned at the right time > > HE MUST STOP BID/PLAY IMEDIATELLY and decide to > > write an adjusted score : > > Well I hope this is a misunderstanding of the rule of LAW 21 B 3. I > think u can always let them play the hand to the end. > > It is still possible, that NS can make a good score anyway and I still > believe (even after a lot of discussion last time...) that any "natural= " > score is better than an adjusted score (less work for TD as well). > > By the way, if u take ur view seriously u have to give always 60/40 in > such cases. LAW 12 C 1 (=3DArtificial Score). LAW 12 C 2 is always > possible to use if there was an actual score! > Well this might be really easy for the TD=B4s all over the world, but I > have a strong feeling that this will not be appreciated by the BLML (an= d > the commission who wrote the laws). > > So let them play the hand to an end and then u can give them an Assigne= d > Score (LAW 12 C 2)! > > LAW 21 B 3 says in my opinion sth different: The TD can give an adjuste= d > score if the actual score is a result of the damaging. But no break/sto= p > of play in any case. > > And it is not true, that u are "criminal" as the non-offending side. > Bridge is a game of intellect (at least I thought so) and if u make > mistakes u have to suffer the results of these mistakes. As sometimes > the TD then have to judge if the bad result is from wtong explanation o= r > wrong play. > > c u > -- > Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 08:56:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:56:54 +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 IAA24362 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:56:43 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (RG-Tornado-89.star.net.il [195.8.196.89]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA09148; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:53:53 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3420439A.8D127F61@artaxia.com> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:54:51 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <199709171638.MAA17483@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good Evening David I must agree with your opinion that not for any hesitation the TD should cease the bidding . But there are cases , especially at 5th & up level biddings , where the non-offending pair can't act anymore in a serious "clean-bridgistic" way ... Please read my reply to Richard Bley and try to present your opinion about what a TD can produce to a "pair's reputation" Please your answer is important for us - it will be discussed in our meeting this Saturday Thanks DANY David Grabiner wrote: > You write: > > > Eitan Shalom > > > There are two kinds of infractions when the offended side is > > in an impossible situation : > > 1) One of the offenders hesitates and the other bids. > > 2) One of the offenders gives a wrong explanation to a conventional bid. > > > A. if the tournament director is summoned at the right time > > HE MUST STOP BID/PLAY IMEDIATELLY and decide to > > write an adjusted score : > > 1) for offenders the worst achieved score at that board ; > > 2) for offended side the best achieved score by 70%+ of pairs > > at their level (not so simple but theTD or the AC know > > almost all players !) > > I strongly disagree with this, particularly after a hesitation. If West > makes a slow pass or penalty double and East bids on, you cannot tell > whether East has committed an infraction without looking at East's hand > (and possibly going to committee to determine whether players of East's > level would consider passing a logical alternative). > > If it turns out that East committed an infraction, the director and > committee can then make an appropriate adjustment which would be similar > to your suggestion. (It shouldn't be relative to all possible scores, > but relative to whatever was likely without the infraction; for example, > after a pulled slow double, the adjustment would be to the doubled > contract making if that was likely.) > > -- > 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 Sep 18 10:47:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:47:51 +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 KAA24789 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:47:44 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1228835; 18 Sep 97 1:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:59:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Double chance? In-Reply-To: <341FBA7A.7FFE9AD7@artaxia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DANY HAIMOVICI wrote >Eitan Shalom > > >There are two kinds of infractions when the offended side is >in an impossible situation : >1) One of the offenders hesitates and the other bids. >2) One of the offenders gives a wrong explanation to a conventional bid. > >From the moment such an infraction occured , the offended side >becomes automatically "criminal" : > >a. if they act they will be cosidered "double shot" unfair contestants. >b. if they will not act they punish themselves for a bad score. > >So I believe - very clear-cut - that in such case : > >A. if the tournament director is summoned at the right time >HE MUST STOP BID/PLAY IMEDIATELLY and decide to >write an adjusted score : This is not what the Laws require. Furthermore it seems unnecessary. The offenders do not "always" get a bad score. I really believe that in this sort of situation you should apply the Laws of the game and leave the lawmakers to consider the consequences. >If you are still convinced that TD always must let bidding and play >continue , please try to explain me with more details why TD should >compell a pair to be "double-shoters" or why TD doesn't compell, >leting them play and see what havens can help....... You must follow the Laws of the game, Dany, and please do not be so suspicious. When you are called to the table because someone wishes to reserve their rights, the Laws say that play continues. Why should you go against the Laws? You must not be so suspicious of the "double shot". People try the "double shot" about one time in 200 [say]: why should you deny players their rights to a ruling by the Law book in the other 199 times? {no net access 19/9-29/9} -- 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 Sep 18 10:52:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:52:28 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA24843 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:52:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac1014890; 18 Sep 97 1:34 BST Message-ID: <4rQ1uPCFaHI0EwdT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:32:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Contested claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I know this is obvious, and yet ... Declarer claimed 11 tricks in 5S, then he reconsidered the matter, and said "No, I haven't got 11 tricks, have I? Ok, one off." Dummy contested the claim. "How on earth do you go off?" he said. Declarer said "I have ten tricks outside hearts, so obviously I shall have to lead up to the king of hearts, and since the ace of hearts is marked offside ..." One of the defenders said "It's onside, actually." The only sensible line makes 11 tricks. Well? No, Herman, I did *not* make this up! {no net access 19/9-29/9} -- 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 Sep 18 10:55:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:55:38 +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 KAA24872 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:55:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1518497; 18 Sep 97 1:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:59:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <199709170200.WAA08030@brickbat9.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >Steve Willner writes: >> >> I am not sure what you mean by "performing the analysis first." The >> TD's first duty is to establish whether or not UI was made available. >> The cards, calls, and plays may (often do) provide evidence. It is the >> TD's duty to consider all evidence available. (Have I really written >> so badly as to suggest anything else?) >> >When you are called to the table, you are presented with certain facts: the >hands and the bidding. Let us stipulate that the last two EW bids would be >judged as very questionable by most (though not all) good players. The >expert NS are unhappy that this incompetent auction by weak opponents has >handed them a bottom, but have no specific complaint other than a plausible >claim that had they understood the opponent's actions, they would have >acted differently and more successfully. > >Where in this picture is there any evidence whatsoever of UI? The only way >to infer it is a thought process something along these lines: At his final >call, E surely had at least one LA (in this case, passing the double), and >had there been UI, it could easily have suggested his actual runout. >Therefore at least a prima facie case for UI. This is what I mean by doing >the analysis first. > >This is not merely an arbitrary procedural quibble. The wording of L16A >stacks the cards against the presumptive offender. Although we all >understand that an adverse ruling here is not based on the player's actual >motivations, the effect of the wording is to hold the player's actions up >to a very strict standard and in effect to convict unless his actions are >deemed virtually clear-cut. The only protection against purely arbitrary >intervention is that we require some a priori basis of UI BEFORE we subject >a player's actions to such scrutiny. Not at all. The TD has not been called to the table and asked to consider UI. He has been called to the table to investigate a sequence which seems suspicious to the opponents. Under L81C5 and 81C6 he is required to correct irregularities, and that means he has to seek the facts to find out what irregularities have [or may have] happened. He does not decide in advance what he is looking for. On the given hand, perhaps there is MI: perhaps the double was alertable. Perhaps there is UI: people had forgotten to mention that West looked nervous. Perhaps there is a CPU: they actually call it a penalty double but in practice take it out if they are either long or short in spades. Who knows? Investigate and find out. *But* you do not need to consider the case *before* you find out what has happened - in fact that seems a fairly pointless way of addressing the matter. I shall go further: if you decide in advance that this may be based on UI, and as a result you investigate for UI, you are likely to rule wrong if it was based on a CPU, because you are no longer looking for the right thing. Seek the facts. Consider and consult. Rule. "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >If called upon for a ruling about a "suspicious sequence" (I would have >thought it was the TD and players who were suspicious and not the sequence, >but never mind), I will politely inform the complainants that the Laws >neither define, nor provide guidance for, nor indeed place any restrictions >upon "suspicious sequences", and advise them that unless they have an >actual irregularity for me to rule upon, the matter is closed. I will do so >without reference to the actual hands or bidding. Asking the players to do your job for you does not seem the right approach for a TD. Do they know the Laws? Are they expected to know the Laws? {no net access 19/9-29/9} -- 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 Sep 18 11:52:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:52:47 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25128 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:52:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab0911111; 18 Sep 97 1:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:00:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Double chance? In-Reply-To: <34201749.8B5F34DF@artaxia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DANY HAIMOVICI wrote >Good Evening Herman > >I agree with your point of view that the auction at all tables >must be inspected and must have a strong influence on >the concrete decision if to allow Grand or Small - in my >first reply to Eitan , this action is included under the proposal >"see and check what most of people at their level should get". In my view this ruling should be given without any reference to what has happened at the other tables. Best is if you do not know what has happened at the other tables. It is not a good way to rule because the circumstances are different [systems, styles, characters, ages of players, for example]. >Herman De Wael wrote: >> We are lacking ONE important info there : did the pairs that got to >> grand get a Ghestem interference or not ? >> If they did, then the grand would be a probable result for this pair >> too. >> If they didn't, then maybe the intervention proved enough to keep NS out >> of the grand, and the small slam is the best of all probable results. >> It would depend on the way that NS would give a (in their system) normal >> bidding sequence to get to the grand. If they can tell us how they can >> fi show the bare heart King, they get the grand. >> Even if this ends on a (small) gamble - they are allowed to get the >> grand. >> However, the suggestion to give some percentage of grand and small is >> out of the question. Either the grand is a probable result or it isn't. >> If it is, NS are entitled to that result. L12C3 says otherwise. {no net access 19/9-29/9} -- 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 Sep 18 14:01:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:01:31 +1000 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA25426 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:01:25 +1000 Received: from default (ip252.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.252]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA27623 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709180401.AAA27623@brickbat8.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:55:57 -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 > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote > > >If called upon for a ruling about a "suspicious sequence" (I would have > >thought it was the TD and players who were suspicious and not the sequence, > >but never mind), I will politely inform the complainants that the Laws > >neither define, nor provide guidance for, nor indeed place any restrictions > >upon "suspicious sequences", and advise them that unless they have an > >actual irregularity for me to rule upon, the matter is closed. I will do so > >without reference to the actual hands or bidding. > > Asking the players to do your job for you does not seem the right > approach for a TD. Do they know the Laws? Are they expected to know > the Laws? > I have not asked the players to do any part of my job. As a matter of law, the only basis for summoning the TD is to deal with an irregularity, which is to say a deviation from the prescribed procedures. There is no basis to proceed until and unless someone draws attention to such a deviation. I have performed a full-text search of at least the 1987 version of the Laws, and am quite confident that nothing about "suspicious bidding" is covered. Hence, no mention of an irregularity and therefore no ruling. Simple, really. Do the players know the laws? Get serious. Are they be expected to? Well Law 72 seems clear about their obligation to obey the Laws, which would presuppose a level of familiarity greater than that possessed in the real world by most players (and perhaps most directors, too, at least on this side of the ocean). But I am not waiting for an affadavit with suitable Latin flourishes, i's dotted and all. I only want the complainants to actually have an irregularity in mind (as required by the law) before they make their complaint, and to communicate their concern to me in a manner which will provide a reasonable foundation for investigation and ruling. General grumpiness about an evident "fix" is simply not an adequate basis for a fishing expedition. Even a fairly vague complaint -- "I had no idea they played that as a take-out double" or "He sure seemed uneasy about that double" -- will serve to point me, like a hound to the scent. But "suspicious bidding" just doesn't do it for me. Anyway, I appreciate your patient exchanges with me. Thanks, Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 14:18:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:18:27 +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 OAA25479 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:18:20 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS1-57.star.net.il [195.8.208.57]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA18708; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:18:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3420ABB9.B3985E49@artaxia.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:19:05 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double chance? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello DAVID The inspection of what happened at other tables is not a question of Law rulling , but of bridgistic judgement , in order to decide what is the result assigned , both by TD and AC. As I wrote , I agreed with Herman that beside the question of what 75% of players at that level should do , the calls during the auction must be considered, to get a better idea of the non-offending pair skills to bid Grand or Small. By the way , case of bad explanation is not a "twice a day" by the same pair , but "double shot" happens almost every time bad explanation or hesitation (as defined at 4/5th + bidding level) occured , even if the non-offending pair does it "unconscious". Cordially DANY David Stevenson wrote: > DANY HAIMOVICI wrote > >Good Evening Herman > > > >I agree with your point of view that the auction at all tables > >must be inspected and must have a strong influence on > >the concrete decision if to allow Grand or Small - in my > >first reply to Eitan , this action is included under the proposal > >"see and check what most of people at their level should get". > > In my view this ruling should be given without any reference to what > has happened at the other tables. Best is if you do not know what has > happened at the other tables. It is not a good way to rule because the > circumstances are different [systems, styles, characters, ages of > players, for example]. > > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> We are lacking ONE important info there : did the pairs that got to > >> grand get a Ghestem interference or not ? > >> If they did, then the grand would be a probable result for this pair > >> too. > >> If they didn't, then maybe the intervention proved enough to keep NS out > >> of the grand, and the small slam is the best of all probable results. > >> It would depend on the way that NS would give a (in their system) normal > >> bidding sequence to get to the grand. If they can tell us how they can > >> fi show the bare heart King, they get the grand. > >> Even if this ends on a (small) gamble - they are allowed to get the > >> grand. > > >> However, the suggestion to give some percentage of grand and small is > >> out of the question. Either the grand is a probable result or it isn't. > >> If it is, NS are entitled to that result. > > L12C3 says otherwise. > > {no net access 19/9-29/9} > > -- > 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 Sep 18 22:13:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:13:23 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26733 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:13:17 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-204.innet.be [194.7.10.204]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01278 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:13:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <34211300.4DC5B201@innet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:39:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: L12C3 (was Re: Double chance?) 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: > > > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> However, the suggestion to give some percentage of grand and small is > >> out of the question. Either the grand is a probable result or it isn't. > >> If it is, NS are entitled to that result. > > L12C3 says otherwise. > So it does, in fact. And this raises a new (quite nice) problem. When would we expect AC to use their prerogative to give equitable AdjAS? To use the quoted example : Let's say the AC decides that NS are damaged and deserve a AS. Let's say they find that this particular pair could find 7D with a 30% probability. That is certainly a probable result in the sense of L12C2, so the correct AAS from the TD would be 7D made. Would we expect an AC to rule 70% of six and 30% of seven instead ? I don't think so, as this would make AC's work load far heavier. Indeed, these (relatively simple) cases come up quite often. There are a number of decisions to be made, each one subject to appeal. But it would not be a good idea to have the standard AAS depend on something that only the AC can decide upon, and not the TD. If the Lawmakers truly intend the Adj score to be something like 70% of one probable result and 30% of another probable result, then they should say so, and not leave that possibility open to AC's alone. So I conclude that L12C3 is not intended for 'easy' cases like the one from Eitan. Please remark that I use 'easy' only on its Law issues. I am not saying that the decision as to whether NS will reach 7 with any degree of probability is an easy one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 22:13:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:13:08 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26719 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:13:01 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-204.innet.be [194.7.10.204]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01173 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:12:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <342100E5.F1AD250D@innet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:22:29 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199709122244.PAA03434@cactus.tc.pw.com> <341f917e.3030908@pipmail.dknet.dk> <341BAE38.6CDBA710@innet.be> <341f561f.829392@pipmail.dknet.dk> <341D74A8.7826C594@innet.be> <341ec1cb.1028198@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (sent mistakenly to Jesper - only now to the list - thanks for pointing this out Jesper) Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:47:20 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >If I pass in third hand, my partner can exclude 80% of the 1% and > >conclude that 99.8% of the time, I will have more than 3 points. > > > >Certainly not enough difference to base his next call on. > > Imagine that you pass third in hand. Fourth hand has a strong > hand and becomes declarer in a small slam. Your partner leads an > ace, and the only remaining outstanding honours are a king and a > jack. > > In this situation, declarer has a right to know that there is a > very high probability that you have both those honours, or at > least the king. Exactly, and that is why I maintain that I should inform opponents of this. But there are still two problems here, and some people are responding their answers to one problem over people who are actually tackling another. I think the matter is settled that I am required to inform my opponents about my particular tendency to psych. The other problem remains : Am I entitled to play this way ? Some posters argue that this psych is part of my system, which has therefor become a HUM, which I am not allowed to play. I maintain that the frequency of my opening in third hand on 0-3 is so small compared to my opening 12+, that this is and always will be a psychic call. I grossly misstate my honour strenght and length, and the fact that partner has experienced me doing that before, does not make it a systemic call. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 22:13:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:13:19 +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 WAA26727 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:13:13 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-204.innet.be [194.7.10.204]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01257 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:13:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <34210B3E.1018411F@innet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:06:38 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Contested claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <4rQ1uPCFaHI0EwdT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I know this is obvious, and yet ... > > Declarer claimed 11 tricks in 5S, then he reconsidered the matter, and > said "No, I haven't got 11 tricks, have I? Ok, one off." > > Dummy contested the claim. "How on earth do you go off?" he said. > > Declarer said "I have ten tricks outside hearts, so obviously I shall > have to lead up to the king of hearts, and since the ace of hearts is > marked offside ..." > > One of the defenders said "It's onside, actually." > > The only sensible line makes 11 tricks. > > Well? > > No, Herman, I did *not* make this up! > I realize you didn't, because such a thing happened to me once. I claimed for one off in a cold contract. Then we had to go find a normal line of play that resulted in one off. Unluckily for me at the time, we found one. In this case, it seems as if there is no normal line of play that leads to 10 tricks. So,11 tricks are given. (L71C) I now notice that in the dutch translation to L71C, the word "normal" is used in both instances (long period of 79C AND shorter period of bidding in next board) Is that right ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 22:33:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:23 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA26844 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:16 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn27.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:27:07 +0200 Message-ID: <342120E0.7A9D@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:38:56 +0200 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DANY HAIMOVICI CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> <341FBA7A.7FFE9AD7@artaxia.com> <341FCCFC.6BE5@uni-duesseldorf.de> <34201604.10531971@artaxia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Dany > I appreciate your answer , but I am not sure you considered > the whole statement and all subsequent proposals. This is a matter of principle. The TD is not even allowed to stop the game in such situations. > > If the TD is summoned in time , and he understands that the case > is clear as defined in my statement - HE should't be a cooperator > to the so-called "double shot" action possibilities of the offended > side - even if the offended pair doesn't intend to get it !!!!!!! > (I din't intend to write that in any case of infractions TD should stop play) I intended to write, that the TD must not stop the play in any such case, where it is at least possible to take the given "natural" score at the table. > So I believe that in such cases the TD compell the non-ofending side in > a very "un-ethical" position - I don't like to be such a TD . I dont think so. If the non-offending side do nothing ridiculous or some sort of "ANTI"-bridge, the non-offenders are not in an unethical pos at all. > I want to tell you that in international events i acted as TD I had > 5 cases like those qouted - 3 hesitations & 2 bad-explanations - and I > stopped the bidding ; I told the players their rights and "begged" people > to appeal , just to see world class players' opinions in AC ( in one case > when a very low-ranked pair was afraid it should be frivolious I gave > them the deposit ! - which of course was back) . Those comitee included > players like :Billy Eisenberg , Christoff Martens , late Rixy Marcus , > M. Hoffman, D. Berkovitz , late Giorgio Belladona etc.. and all appeals > were unanimous rejected , because the comittees' member thought > they can't get any "clean" bridgistic decision after such infraction ..... Well none of this players u quoted are specialist in rulings; they are "only" experts at play. They belong to an AC because the TD should tell them what is possible according to the rules. > > As concerning the result written on the score-sheet , I usually write > the pairs' numbers and leave the score "Blank" until I can check the > result of almost all players - commonly very close at the end > of the round ....., and ask pairs which I know to be same real level, > in order to be able to see what most player of the offended pair > level got at table. Well this mght be only marginal, but I tell them to write in the actual happened score and that I might change it after a pause to think about it > > If you are still convinced that TD always must let bidding and play > continue , please try to explain me with more details why TD should > compell a pair to be "double-shoters" or why TD doesn't compell, > leting them play and see what havens can help....... > As u can c, I am still convinced. Perhaps a good start for this disuccion is the question: "What is a doubl shot?" I know, that there was a long discussion about that in the endicott-EBL commentary about the 1987 LAWS. I dont have it here, perhaps someone else can look in it (perhaps Grattan by himself? :-) This I think might be an interesting point. In this case however, there was no double shot. If for example 2D -8 would have been the best possible result for NS, then I didnt have to give a corrected result. After all there was after the actual ruling of TD only one wrong thing which happened here: THe pass of S. If S was not able to double anyway in this situation (because of his system for example) the score which happened at the table (here: 2D -8)doesnt have to be changed by TD. And there is still the LAW Argument (Not this LOTT...). LAW 12 C 2 allows u to give an 60/40 but not anything else if there is no actual score which happened at the table. THe TD can use LAW 12 C 1 only to change the score not to create one!!!! ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ c u -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 18 23:24:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:24:45 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA27044 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:24:17 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:23:00 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 97 14:22:55 BST Message-Id: <23682.9709181322@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@innet.be Subject: Re: Contested claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman > > I now notice that in the dutch translation to L71C, the word "normal" is > used in both instances (long period of 79C AND shorter period of bidding > in next board) Is that right ? > The online European English version of the laws I have, has the following. LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession: A. Trick Cannot Be Lost if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. B. Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, or a defender has conceded fulfilment of a contract his side had already defeated. C. Implausible Concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. I am not sure if this is the final version (my hard copy is at home). We have "normal" in both places in L71C also. It does not really make sense. We have a number of statements: A{already won}: cancel concession if trick already won, within 79C A{legally won}: cancel concession if trick can not legally be lost, within 79C B: cancel concession if already fulfilled/defeated, within 79C C{first sentence): cancel concession if trick can not normally be lost, within 79C C{second sentence}: cancel concession if trick can not normally be lost, before call on next board C{first sentence} includes both the cases where A{legally won} applies and the cases where C{second sentence} applies. I guess we should regard C{second sentence} as explaining the only circumstances in which "cancel concession if trick can not normally be lost" applies. !? Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 00:08:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:08:15 +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 AAA27239 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:08:10 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-79.ime.net [209.90.193.109]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA18288; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970918101003.3167304c@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: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:22 PM 9/18/97 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Some posters argue that this psych is part of my system, which has >therefor become a HUM, which I am not allowed to play. >I maintain that the frequency of my opening in third hand on 0-3 is so >small compared to my opening 12+, that this is and always will be a >psychic call. I grossly misstate my honour strenght and length, and the >fact that partner has experienced me doing that before, does not make it >a systemic call. While I think you should be able to continue with your style of bidding (psyching), I don't think the infrequency of opening with 0-3 rather than 12+ is what makes this a non-systemic call. Martel-Stansby once played that a 1C opening was either a standard 1C or a solid 10 card suit (or something like that). Just because the solid suit option never came up, didn't mean that 1C wasn't a systemic two-way bid. What makes it a non-systemic call is that partner does not base his bidding on the possibility that you may be light. If the opponents make a display of strength, of course responder may infer from that that someone doesn't have their bid. If he bases his guess that it was opener on past experience, that's OK with me, especially since the opponents have been properly informed. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 00:39:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:39:38 +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 AAA29617 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:39:28 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS3-183.star.net.il [195.8.208.183]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00813; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:38:27 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34213D1E.2BEDB58@artaxia.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:39:26 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "christian.farwig" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <9709171648.AA6469@notes2.compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good Evening Christian I don't mind if you call me any judge . I believe it is your opinion and your way to try to help. I also agree that TD shouldn't cease bidding (or play in relevant case ) every time such an infraction "maybe occured". But when a wrong explanation gives no chance for any more "clean' bridgistic bidding or the hesitasion is at 4/5/6th level of bidding and doesn't leave any space to try to get more information about the hands , there can't be any sporting value to bid and play. >From sporting point of view , in such cases , the offended pair has the "coin throw" as the only tool to decide what to do. >From the etiquette point of view , please read my answers to Richard Blay and Grabiner and , if not too much work for you reply me , even if your diagnosis stands. Thanx DANY christian.farwig wrote: > >> There are two kinds of infractions when the offended side is > in an impossible situation : > 1) One of the offenders hesitates and the other bids. > 2) One of the offenders gives a wrong explanation to a conventional bid. << > (...) > A. if the tournament director is summoned at the right time > HE MUST STOP BID/PLAY IMEDIATELLY and decide to > write an adjusted score : > 1) for offenders the worst achieved score at that board ; > 2) for offended side the best achieved score by 70%+ of pairs > at their level (not so simple but theTD or the AC know > almost all players !) << > > The offended side has a big advantage after an infraction. If they behave (at > least a bit) sensible, they cannot lose and if they play like nerds, they > deserve a nerdy score. I object to the idea that a technical mistake by the > opponents gives an innocent bystander an unfair advantage. Especially if the > mistake has no relevance for the outcome of the board. > > Until now I assumed that the laws are designed to repair as many irregular > situations as possible to minimize the impact of infractions to the game and > the scores. It's not the task of the TD to ride into town like a raving > lunatic. The fewer penalties and the fewer adjustment, the better. > > Mind if I call you 'Judge Dredd'? > > Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 00:42:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:42:49 +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 AAA29635 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:42:37 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS3-183.star.net.il [195.8.208.183]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00902; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:42:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34213DFC.491852BE@artaxia.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:43:08 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re:Revoke and Claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David This time "judge Dredd" rides even faster. 1.There is no doubt that the moment there was a claim , play ceases (68D). 1a. As an important fact we must remember that claim refers to tricks other than that in progress (68 header) ; = I think it is a key fact here. 2. As described in your message , the revoke was not established ; and as quoted by some other friends - no one can try to compell the dealer to ask about "any revoke" every time he claims. Apparently , by definition reminded in 1.a above , the revoke CAN BE CORRECTED in the Stevenson's case , because the play ceases only for netx tricks !!! As the laws are today - including 97 release - they let you , the TD , decide : The play ceases anycase - then the declarer should be considered to repeat his line of play : 1) If the correct card should be corrected and an Important card drops , there is no problem of finesses or other "calculations" , 2) If it shouldn't drop - TD should use his adjusting power (64C) I agree with Grabiner's approach when the 97 Laws applied. As about Herman's proposal : a) I don't like to make any change to "play ceases" after a claim or concession - it can be endless.......(no 47E new) b) The add of a new paragraph what happens when a revoke is found after a claim/concession is to be discussed (new 63A4..) I am not sure that must define this "discovered" revoke as established or not - the substantial definition should be about the penalties awarded or not , after the "great discovery "... All of you are invited to reply what should be the right decision in "b)" above , if you agree that the present laws have no clear-cut answer. DANY From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 01:59:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:59:26 +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 BAA00357 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:59:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac0617787; 18 Sep 97 16:03 BST Message-ID: <3sTe$+Aj8QI0Ews7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:23:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: COOT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Someone has asked the following. As with the last couple, I am not really suggesting there should be any disagreement, but just seeing *whether* there is. North bids 1S. South bids 2D natural. East would like his turn! West does not accept the 2D. East now doubles. 2D from South over a double is transfer! Well? {no net access 19/9-29/9} -- 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 Sep 19 04:14:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:14:32 +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 EAA01114 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:14:22 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-6.ts-7.lax.idt.net [169.132.210.6]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01719; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:14:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <34216DC0.870499D9@idt.net> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:06:56 -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: Revoke and Claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <34213DFC.491852BE@artaxia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is something I don't understand going on in this discussion. Let's say I'm declarer, LHO revokes at trick 9, and the trick is completed. I then claim at trick 10. Isn't this, IN EFFECT, a play by my side to trick 10, which establishes the revoke? Trying to say that the revoke isn't established until someone physically plays to the next trick strikes me as adhering to the letter of the law, while losing sight of the intent. Am I wrong in this? Irv DANY HAIMOVICI wrote: > David > > This time "judge Dredd" rides even faster. > > 1.There is no doubt that the moment there was a claim , > play ceases (68D). > 1a. As an important fact we must remember that claim refers > to tricks other than that in progress (68 header) ; > = I think it is a key fact here. > > 2. As described in your message , the revoke was not established ; > and as quoted by some other friends - no one can try to compell > the dealer to ask about "any revoke" every time he claims. > > Apparently , by definition reminded in 1.a above , the revoke > CAN BE CORRECTED in the Stevenson's case , because > the play ceases only for netx tricks !!! > > As the laws are today - including 97 release - they let you , the TD > , > > decide : The play ceases anycase - then the declarer should be > considered to repeat his line of play : > 1) If the correct card should be corrected and an Important > card drops , there is no problem of finesses or other > "calculations" , > 2) If it shouldn't drop - TD should use his adjusting power (64C) > > I agree with Grabiner's approach when the 97 Laws applied. > > As about Herman's proposal : > a) I don't like to make any change to "play ceases" after > a claim or concession - it can be endless.......(no 47E new) > b) The add of a new paragraph what happens when a revoke > is found after a claim/concession is to be discussed (new 63A4..) > I am not sure that must define this "discovered" revoke as > established or not - the substantial definition should be about > the penalties awarded or not , after the "great discovery "... > > All of you are invited to reply what should be the right decision > in "b)" above , if you agree that the present laws have no > clear-cut answer. > > DANY From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 04:47:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:47:25 +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 EAA01281 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:47:19 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa09979; 18 Sep 97 11:46 PDT To: Irwin J Kostal cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Revoke and Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:06:56 PDT." <34216DC0.870499D9@idt.net> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:46:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9709181146.aa09979@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > There is something I don't understand going on in this discussion. > Let's say I'm declarer, LHO revokes at trick 9, and the trick is > completed. I then claim at trick 10. Isn't this, IN EFFECT, a play by > my side to trick 10, which establishes the revoke? According to the laws, only a play (or claim) by the *offending* side establishes the revoke. LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE A. Revoke Becomes Established A revoke becomes established: 1. Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke). 2. A Member of Offending Side Indicates a Lead or Play when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick. 3. Member of Offending Side Makes a Claim or Concession when a member of the offending side makes or acquiesces in a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand (or in any other fashion). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 05:07:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:07:10 +1000 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01365 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:06:00 +1000 Received: from default (ip202.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.8.202]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA07804 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709181902.PAA07804@brickbat8.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Contested claim Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:41:39 -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 Well the hands would certainly be relevant here, but for a declarer who is wrongly convinced that RHO must hold the A over dummy's K, two "sensible" lines are possible: leading toward the K and ducking, hoping for the stiff A, or leading off the dummy hoping for a defensive error. Let us stiplulate that neither play is sensible without this incorrect assumption, but that at least one of these lines might be with the assumption. Let us further stipulate that the assumption itself is not sensible (certainly it might be, but then there would be no problem: at least one sensible but unsuccessful line can be postulated). Then we have no "objectively" sensible alternative line, but at least one "subjectively" sensible alternative (i.e., based on the foolish assumption about the location of the A). The question is whether the law's use of the word "sensible" requires us to consider only objectively sensible alternatives or whether we can legitimately consider declarer's stated but incorrect belief about the marked A in evaluating what constitutes a sensible alternative. I hope it is the latter, as this seems more consistent with the spirit of the law, but I am not completely confident. But I suspect this does not address the real subject of the post-- which I am guessing is a continuation of the discussion of dummy's rights and limitations. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 05:37:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:37:14 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA01495 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:37:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1022288; 18 Sep 97 19:11 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:15:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L12C3 (was Re: Double chance?) In-Reply-To: <34211300.4DC5B201@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >> >> However, the suggestion to give some percentage of grand and small is >> >> out of the question. Either the grand is a probable result or it isn't. >> >> If it is, NS are entitled to that result. >> >> L12C3 says otherwise. >> > >So it does, in fact. > >And this raises a new (quite nice) problem. > >When would we expect AC to use their prerogative to give equitable >AdjAS? > >To use the quoted example : > >Let's say the AC decides that NS are damaged and deserve a AS. >Let's say they find that this particular pair could find 7D with a 30% >probability. >That is certainly a probable result in the sense of L12C2, so the >correct AAS from the TD would be 7D made. >Would we expect an AC to rule 70% of six and 30% of seven instead ? > >I don't think so, as this would make AC's work load far heavier. Such rulings have been given by British ACs for years. We thought that TDs were to be allowed to give such rulings in 1997 and were very disappointed when the pendulum swung so that we could not. >Indeed, these (relatively simple) cases come up quite often. >There are a number of decisions to be made, each one subject to appeal. >But it would not be a good idea to have the standard AAS depend on >something that only the AC can decide upon, and not the TD. >If the Lawmakers truly intend the Adj score to be something like 70% of >one probable result and 30% of another probable result, then they should >say so, and not leave that possibility open to AC's alone. The way that L12C2 footnote [1987] and L12C3 [1997] are worded they allow the AC to do something that TDs are not. That is clear from the wording. I can see no reason therefore to suggest that this is not what the lawmakers meant. In this particular case we also know it was what they meant because certain people were pushing for L12C3 to apply to TDs as well specifically so that we could give split scores, which are more equitable and acceptable to the players. >So I conclude that L12C3 is not intended for 'easy' cases like the one >from Eitan. >Please remark that I use 'easy' only on its Law issues. I am not saying >that the decision as to whether NS will reach 7 with any degree of >probability is an easy one. That is what L12C2 footnote has been used for in Britain and at World level for some time. {no net access 19/9-29/9} -- 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 Sep 19 07:21:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:21:08 +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 HAA01843 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:21:00 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-124.star.net.il [195.8.208.124]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA11234; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:20:35 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34219B59.1841748B@artaxia.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:21:29 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double chance? References: <199709162123.XAA22195@mail.netvision.net.il> <341FBA7A.7FFE9AD7@artaxia.com> <341FCCFC.6BE5@uni-duesseldorf.de> <34201604.10531971@artaxia.com> <342120E0.7A9D@uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard good evening Thank you for your reply . I think we"ll be able to arrive at some agreed situations , when TD ^^MUST^^ stop bidding. I hope we"ll be able to define when "the coin" is the only tool for the non-offending side to decide what to do. I have somewhere Grattan's comments and if you will give me a fax number I"ll send you the relevant chapter. I"ll try to prepair some examples and then trying to discuss There are some more remarks inside your message . Cordially DANY Richard Bley wrote: > Dear Dany > > > I appreciate your answer , but I am not sure you considered > > the whole statement and all subsequent proposals. > > This is a matter of principle. The TD is not even allowed to stop the > game in such situations. > > > > If the TD is summoned in time , and he understands that the case > > is clear as defined in my statement - HE should't be a cooperator > > to the so-called "double shot" action possibilities of the offended > > side - even if the offended pair doesn't intend to get it !!!!!!! > > (I din't intend to write that in any case of infractions TD should stop play) > > I intended to write, that the TD must not stop the play in any such > case, where it is at least possible to take the given "natural" score at > the table. > > > So I believe that in such cases the TD compell the non-ofending side in > > a very "un-ethical" position - I don't like to be such a TD . > > I dont think so. If the non-offending side do nothing ridiculous or some > sort of "ANTI"-bridge, the non-offenders are not in an unethical pos at > all. > I was myself in such position as a player - you"ll see the casebecause I have the papers - and told exactly TD who compelled me to go on what will happen and very unpleasant to win the tourney because "HE gives me the cup" . > > I want to tell you that in international events i acted as TD I had > > 5 cases like those qouted - 3 hesitations & 2 bad-explanations - and I > > stopped the bidding ; I told the players their rights and "begged" people > > to appeal , just to see world class players' opinions in AC ( in one case > > when a very low-ranked pair was afraid it should be frivolious I gave > > them the deposit ! - which of course was back) . Those comitee included > > players like :Billy Eisenberg , Christoff Martens , late Rixy Marcus , > > M. Hoffman, D. Berkovitz , late Giorgio Belladona etc.. and all appeals > > were unanimous rejected , because the comittees' member thought > > they can't get any "clean" bridgistic decision after such infraction ..... > > Well none of this players u quoted are specialist in rulings; they are > "only" experts at play. They belong to an AC because the TD should tell > them what is possible according to the rules. > Yes , they are/were world top players and the main problem theyhad to decide was offended player question "what should I do now , do I have any non-gambling way to a winning call ??" The chief TD (I was only in 2 cases , van Staveren in1 and Kooijman in 2 - I was one of their TD who stopped bidding) explained the AC what happened and the rules , so all involved people agreed that the appeal was because bridgistic action only. > > > > As concerning the result written on the score-sheet , I usually write > > the pairs' numbers and leave the score "Blank" until I can check the > > result of almost all players - commonly very close at the end > > of the round ....., and ask pairs which I know to be same real level, > > in order to be able to see what most player of the offended pair > > level got at table. > > Well this mght be only marginal, but I tell them to write in the actual > happened score and that I might change it after a pause to think about > it > I agree - it is a "technical style" .... > > > > If you are still convinced that TD always must let bidding and play > > continue , please try to explain me with more details why TD should > > compell a pair to be "double-shoters" or why TD doesn't compell, > > leting them play and see what havens can help....... > > > > As u can c, I am still convinced. > Perhaps a good start for this disuccion is the question: "What is a > doubl shot?" > I know, that there was a long discussion about that in the endicott-EBL > commentary about the 1987 LAWS. I dont have it here, perhaps someone > else can look in it (perhaps Grattan by himself? :-) > This I think might be an interesting point. > In this case however, there was no double shot. If for example 2D -8 > would have been the best possible result for NS, then I didnt have to > give a corrected result. After all there was after the actual ruling of > TD only one wrong thing which happened here: THe pass of S. If S was not > able to double anyway in this situation (because of his system for > example) the score which happened at the table (here: 2D -8)doesnt have > to be changed by TD. > In this case I believe for 101% South has no chance to understandwhat' s going on after the infraction and any action is gambling - I shouldn't like to be in his position . > And there is still the LAW Argument (Not this LOTT...). LAW 12 C 2 > allows u to give an 60/40 but not anything else if there is no actual > score which happened at the table. THe TD can use LAW 12 C 1 only to > change the score not to create one!!!! As much as I remember - and for sure 97 Laws - 40% AT MOST pour"les mechants " and 60% AT LEAST for "good ladies". > ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ > > c u > -- > Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 19:11:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:11:17 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA03928 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:10:49 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:10:13 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 10:10:12 BST Message-Id: <23808.9709190910@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: reasonably/demonstrably suggested Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was a problem I faced as a player last night, but it may be a relevant to interpretation of L16. W N E S 1C* 2S 1C = clubs or 15+ balanced X* P 3H 3S X = negative 4H P P 4S P P ? Before East called, West attempted to lead (face down). Is there unauthorised information for East? If so, what does the UI reasonably suggest? demonstrably suggest? [ I was East with a 1-4-2-6 12 count, and thought (rightly or wrongly) that P, 5C, 5H were logical alternatives. ] Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 20:52:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:52:15 +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 UAA04043 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:52:09 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-211.innet.be [194.7.10.211]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11343 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:52:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <34224BC9.C157B80D@innet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:54:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19970918101003.3167304c@ime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 12:22 PM 9/18/97 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Some posters argue that this psych is part of my system, which has > >therefor become a HUM, which I am not allowed to play. > >I maintain that the frequency of my opening in third hand on 0-3 is so > >small compared to my opening 12+, that this is and always will be a > >psychic call. I grossly misstate my honour strenght and length, and the > >fact that partner has experienced me doing that before, does not make it > >a systemic call. > > While I think you should be able to continue with your style of bidding > (psyching), I don't think the infrequency of opening with 0-3 rather than > 12+ is what makes this a non-systemic call. Martel-Stansby once played that > a 1C opening was either a standard 1C or a solid 10 card suit (or something > like that). Just because the solid suit option never came up, didn't mean > that 1C wasn't a systemic two-way bid. This is the first argument that makes me doubt. Indeed the fact that 32+ 'never arises' does not make the inclusion of this type of hand into the 2D opening (as opposed to 29-31 with which we open 2C) non-systemic. However there is a big difference. The 32+ is described further on by a jump to 4NT, so the system deals with this. But I will never be able to show my 0-3 in any different way than I would an ordinary 12 count. That is what makes the bid non-systemic. > What makes it a non-systemic call is > that partner does not base his bidding on the possibility that you may be > light. If the opponents make a display of strength, of course responder may > infer from that that someone doesn't have their bid. If he bases his guess > that it was opener on past experience, that's OK with me, especially since > the opponents have been properly informed. > > Tim Exactly. Another argument that makes this call non-systemic is the fact that I have an alternative way of showing the hand I have. I can in fact pass without breaking the systematic agreement. Indeed the simple fact of holding 0-3 will not suffice me to open the hand. Table athmosphere and state of the match is as much a deciding factor as to whether I will or will not open the hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 21:18:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:18:42 +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 VAA04139 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:18:36 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA15590 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:18:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <34224BC9.C157B80D@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > > > What makes it a non-systemic call is > > that partner does not base his bidding on the possibility that you may be > > light. If the opponents make a display of strength, of course responder may > > infer from that that someone doesn't have their bid. If he bases his guess > > that it was opener on past experience, that's OK with me, especially since > > the opponents have been properly informed. > > > > Tim > > Exactly. > > Another argument that makes this call non-systemic is the fact that I > have an alternative way of showing the hand I have. I can in fact pass > without breaking the systematic agreement. Indeed the simple fact of > holding 0-3 will not suffice me to open the hand. Table athmosphere and > state of the match is as much a deciding factor as to whether I will or > will not open the hand. > And that's what makes it non-systemic. In the days when there was an area on the ACBL convention card for "Psyching Tendencies" (it vanished a couple of years ago) you were supposed to put the situations in which you tended to psych (NOTE SPELLING!!!). If anyone ever did, it was not someone who ever played against me. There was a celebrated case where Kit Woolsey alerted Steve Robinson's 1NT because Woolsey knew Robinson occasionally ("once in ten sessions") psyched with a long minor and little else. The matter went to apeal, and the committee said they must never psych that way again. Edgar Kaplan thought the ruling was insane and illegal. -- Richard Lighton | People must not do things for fun. We are not here for (lighton@idt.net) | fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. Wood-Ridge NJ | A. P. Herbert USA | --Uncommon Law From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 21:22:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:22:27 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA04165 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:21:15 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:20:33 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 12:20:30 BST Message-Id: <23862.9709191120@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: COOT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > North bids 1S. > South bids 2D natural. > East would like his turn! > West does not accept the 2D. > East now doubles. > 2D from South over a double is transfer! > Well? Law 31 speaks only of repeating or not repeating the denomination (not specifying suits, as for example in Law 26). So South can bid 2D, 3D, etc. and North must pass once (L31A2a) or South can make another call and North must pass throughout (L31A2b). South's original 2D is UI to North (L16C) but if he bids diamonds when North must pass, IMO it is AI to North that this shows diamonds; and for the purposes of L26 South's bid of diamonds over the double specifies diamonds. So if South bids diamonds, L26 does not apply and North may play South for diamonds later in the auction (having passed once) and in the play. If South does not bid diamonds, L26 does apply and South's original 2D is UI to North. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 22:14:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:14:24 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04368 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:14:19 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA11028 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970919081436.006b1240@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:14:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <199709161538.LAA07850@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:38 AM 9/16/97 -0400, Steve wrote: >> >I'm reluctant to mention this, but I will. In ACBL play, the director >> >would quite likely simply apply the "Rule of Coincidence" and be done >> >with the matter. I am quite strongly against this practice, but the >> >alternative is to investigate both UI and MI when appropriate >> >situations arise. >> >> I'm sorry, I can't seem to find that reference in the Laws. Could you >> please quote the relevant passage? > >It seems my reluctance was well justified. Do you think ACBL play is >governed by the Laws? > >Nevertheless, if you don't like the RoC as a matter of "law," you ought >find a legal way to address the infractions it attempts to address. We need to be careful with our language here. The RoC does not address "infractions"; they are addressed by the Laws. The RoC is, from the perspective of the Laws, a rule for determining whether that which it does address, namely "coincidences", are to be considered infractions. To talk about "a legal way to address the infractions [the RoC] attempts to address" is to, in effect, stipulate that violations of the RoC ARE infractions, and thus to make the RoC self-justifying. 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 Sep 19 23:26:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:26:04 +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 XAA04614 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:25:36 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-93.star.net.il [195.8.208.93]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02975; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:24:25 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34227D43.7680722E@artaxia.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:25:24 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Irwin J Kostal CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke and Claim References: <34213DFC.491852BE@artaxia.com> <34216DC0.870499D9@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Irwin There two very "accurate" definitions : 1- The revoke is estsblished when the ^^offending^^ side plays to next trick (63A2) - if one of the offending partners played at trick 10 then the revoke at trick 9 is established (as much as I understood not that was the case presented by Stevenson). 2- The claim refers to tricks other than one currently in progress (68-header). The "catch" is that the very moment there was a claim , play ceases so you can't correct the revoke even if by the laws is still not established and you MAY and MUST correct it if you got that fact in time ................... Dany Irwin J Kostal wrote: > There is something I don't understand going on in this discussion. > Let's say I'm declarer, LHO revokes at trick 9, and the trick is > completed. I then claim at trick 10. Isn't this, IN EFFECT, a play by > my side to trick 10, which establishes the revoke? Trying to say that > the revoke isn't established until someone physically plays to the next > trick strikes me as adhering to the letter of the law, while losing > sight of the intent. Am I wrong in this? > > Irv > > DANY HAIMOVICI wrote: > > > David > > > > This time "judge Dredd" rides even faster. > > > > 1.There is no doubt that the moment there was a claim , > > play ceases (68D). > > 1a. As an important fact we must remember that claim refers > > to tricks other than that in progress (68 header) ; > > = I think it is a key fact here. > > > > 2. As described in your message , the revoke was not established ; > > and as quoted by some other friends - no one can try to compell > > the dealer to ask about "any revoke" every time he claims. > > > > Apparently , by definition reminded in 1.a above , the revoke > > CAN BE CORRECTED in the Stevenson's case , because > > the play ceases only for netx tricks !!! > > > > As the laws are today - including 97 release - they let you , the TD > > , > > > > decide : The play ceases anycase - then the declarer should be > > considered to repeat his line of play : > > 1) If the correct card should be corrected and an Important > > card drops , there is no problem of finesses or other > > "calculations" , > > 2) If it shouldn't drop - TD should use his adjusting power (64C) > > > > I agree with Grabiner's approach when the 97 Laws applied. > > > > As about Herman's proposal : > > a) I don't like to make any change to "play ceases" after > > a claim or concession - it can be endless.......(no 47E new) > > b) The add of a new paragraph what happens when a revoke > > is found after a claim/concession is to be discussed (new 63A4..) > > I am not sure that must define this "discovered" revoke as > > established or not - the substantial definition should be about > > the penalties awarded or not , after the "great discovery "... > > > > All of you are invited to reply what should be the right decision > > in "b)" above , if you agree that the present laws have no > > clear-cut answer. > > > > DANY From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 19 23:52:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:52:26 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA04709 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:52:20 +1000 Received: from mail.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:52:04 +0100 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk [137.222.80.59]) by mail.bris.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA13085; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:50:37 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard To: Robin Barker cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: reasonably/demonstrably suggested Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:44:50 +0100 (BST) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.0.9 X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Sep 97 10:10:12 BST Robin Barker wrote: > This was a problem I faced as a player last night, > but it may be a relevant to interpretation of L16. > > > W N E S > 1C* 2S 1C = clubs or 15+ balanced > X* P 3H 3S X = negative > 4H P P 4S > P P ? > > Before East called, West attempted to lead (face down). > > Is there unauthorised information for East? Yes. > If so, what does the UI reasonably suggest? demonstrably suggest? > > [ I was East with a 1-4-2-6 12 count, and thought (rightly or wrongly) > that P, 5C, 5H were logical alternatives. ] If you'll let an amateur hazard an opinion ... It demonstrably suggests that West thinks that you passed. It reasonably (and, I think, even demonstrably) suggests that he is not surprised by this, since if he were expecting some other action then he would pay more attention. Since you list pass as a logical alternative, you clearly don't have an agreement that West's pass is forcing. If it is clear in your partnership that it is *not* forcing, then I can't see that the UI suggests (either reasonably or demonstrably) any of the LAs over the others. If there is any possibility in your partnership that West might mean the pass to be forcing, then the UI reasonably (and, I think, even demonstrably) suggests that he did *not* in fact intend it to be forcing, and so suggests passing. Jeremy. ------------------------------------- J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel :- 0117 9287989 Fax :- 0117 9287999 ------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 20 01:41:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:41:42 +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 BAA07504 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:41:30 +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 LAA27723 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09537; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:41:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:41:26 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709191541.LAA09537@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote (badly): > >Nevertheless, if you don't like the RoC as a matter of "law," you ought > >find a legal way to address the infractions it attempts to address. The infractions I had in mind were MI and UI. > From: Eric Landau > We need to be careful with our language here. The RoC does not address > "infractions"; they are addressed by the Laws. I agree (and hope we all do) that the RoC cannot create a new type of infraction. (In practice, it is sometimes interpreted as doing so.) > The RoC is, from the > perspective of the Laws, a rule for determining whether that which it does > address, namely "coincidences", are to be considered infractions. I would describe the RoC as a rule of evidence, used in determining whether or not an infraction has occurred. > To talk > about "a legal way to address the infractions [the RoC] attempts to > address" is to, in effect, stipulate that violations of the RoC ARE > infractions, and thus to make the RoC self-justifying. This isn't what I meant, though I can see how my language might be taken that way. As I understand the ACBL's position, it is that a sufficiently strange coincidence creates *conclusive* evidence of MI or UI. I don't think that is reasonable. I do, however, think a strange coincidence creates _prima facie_ evidence of UI or MI. It is then the TD's job to investigate further. In the case that started all this, there are at least three reasonable explanations of events: 1) The "at least suggestion of penalty" double was really takeout oriented (MI). 2) Responder's facial expression or tone of voice indicated that this time the double was takeout (UI). 3a) The pair were clueless, or 3b) the bidding was really unsurprising given the methods in use (no infraction). The TD should investigate, and it would be wrong to ignore any of the three possibilities. Is this really so controversial? (Yes, I know at least one person disagrees, but I hope he is in a very small minority.) What may be controversial, and rightly so, is my *impression,* based on the facts presented, that 2) is in fact the most likely explanation in this case. The pair were reported to be a long-time, if unskillful, partnership, and it is at least possible that they have a finely graded range of intonations or expressions to indicate the "penalty-ness" of a double. While I would not want to assert that this explanation is true, it is at least consistent with all the facts. I am not troubled if others disagree with this impression of mine. I certainly was not present at the event and am in no position to decide. What would trouble me is for a competent TD not to investigate. I'm sorry if my discussion of what I perceive as a relatively non- controversial discussion of general principles and procedures got mixed up with what might well be a dubious interpretation of the facts of this particular case. I hope the above is clear. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 20 02:02:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:02:51 +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 CAA07888 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:02:42 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-98.star.net.il [195.8.208.98]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA07659; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:02:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3422A244.B083860@artaxia.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:03:16 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: COOT References: <3sTe$+Aj8QI0Ews7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David There is no new problem !!!!! As in 1987 laws , there is no ^^law^^ problem if the new bid is a convention after a call out of rotation - law 31A2 wasn't revised it applies and the offender's partner must pass once if the denomination is repeated and "for ever" if the new bid is different. The offender must decide what to do , knowing that partner MUST pass at least once (and all other provisions of 31 and 16 stands...) The change in 97 Laws is in 27=Insuficient bid ; there are troubles if the sufficient bid becomes now a "conventional" by offenders CC. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > Someone has asked the following. As with the last couple, I am not > really suggesting there should be any disagreement, but just seeing > *whether* there is. > > North bids 1S. > South bids 2D natural. > East would like his turn! > West does not accept the 2D. > East now doubles. > 2D from South over a double is transfer! > Well? > > {no net access 19/9-29/9} > > -- > 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 Sep 20 04:13:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:13:40 +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 EAA08188 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:13:34 +1000 Received: from default (ip104.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.104]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA18801 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709191813.OAA18801@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "BLML" Subject: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:14:24 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson and I have been wrangling over the following issue: the TD is called to the table to rule upon a claim by N/S of "suspicious bidding" by E/W, a complaint they are making at the end of a hand after receiving a poor score. David's position is that the TD's responsibility in this as in any director call is to gather the facts, consult, and issue a ruling. I have made the somewhat esoteric argument that because the complainants have not actually "drawn attention to an irregularity" as the requisite basis for calling the director in the first place, there is no legal basis for the TD to investigate, and the matter should be dropped until and unless N/S are prepared to offer at least a general suggestion of an irregularity to investigate. Upon reflection, I think I have not been completely forthcoming in stating my case here. Although I believe the legal guff about "requisite basis" is true enough, it is also true that I would not stand on such legal hair-splitting in a variety of other situations. Thus my reliance on this particular fig-leaf is really meant to hide a deeper concern. The non-specific claim of "suspicious bidding", especially at the end of a hand resulting in a poor score for experts playing weak opponents, is offensive and unsporting. It manages to convey both a disdain for the ability of the opponents and an insinuation about their ethics. It as much as says, "This bidding was so ridiculously incompetent that its ultimate success points to something underhanded." It is a tactic of intimidation. Regardless of the outcome, if the TD plays along by conducting an "investigation", N/S are rewarded at the least with official participation in the humiliation of their opponents. I believe that the procedural requirements in the Laws pertaining to a director call provide at least some ground for refusing to participate in this process, and am happy to stand on that ground in such a case. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 20 04:13:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:13:32 +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 EAA08181 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:13:25 +1000 Received: from default (ip104.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.104]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA18780 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709191813.OAA18780@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: reasonably/demonstrably suggested Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:30:03 -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=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Strange bidding, certainly by South. My tendency would be to treat West's pass as forcing (your side has bid a game contract you evidently expected to make, and South is presumably sacrificing), so that Pass is not actually an LA but Double is, but that is not apparently your method. So I would say your are right in describing P, 5C, and 5H as the LA's. The premature detaching of a card to lead by your partner clearly suggests his expectation of defending 4S, and whether "reasonably", "demonstrably", or "pointedly", has the effect of discouraging a continuation to the 5-level. As a legal matter, I think you must therefore choose one of the 5-level alternatives. As a matter of law, I am agnostic in choosing between them, though as a matter of bridge, 5C seems the clear favorite. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 20 04:39:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:39:28 +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 EAA08394 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 04:39:20 +1000 Received: from default (ip104.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.104]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA01955 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709191839.OAA01955@brickbat9.mindspring.com> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:36:24 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In the case that started all this, there are at least three reasonable > explanations of events: > 1) The "at least suggestion of penalty" double was really takeout > oriented (MI). > 2) Responder's facial expression or tone of voice indicated that this > time the double was takeout (UI). > 3a) The pair were clueless, or > 3b) the bidding was really unsurprising given the methods in use (no > infraction). > > The TD should investigate, and it would be wrong to ignore any of > the three possibilities. Is this really so controversial? (Yes, > I know at least one person disagrees, but I hope he is in a very > small minority.) > > What may be controversial, and rightly so, is my *impression,* based on > the facts presented, that 2) is in fact the most likely explanation in > this case. The pair were reported to be a long-time, if unskillful, > partnership, and it is at least possible that they have a finely graded > range of intonations or expressions to indicate the "penalty-ness" of a > double. While I would not want to assert that this explanation is > true, it is at least consistent with all the facts. I am not troubled > if others disagree with this impression of mine. I certainly was not > present at the event and am in no position to decide. What would > trouble me is for a competent TD not to investigate. Steve, suppose you are summoned to the table, and North (who rang), says, "We disapprove of the way our opponents bid this last hand, and we are appalled by our score. Would you help us look for an irregularity which might form the basis for a favorable score adjustment?" Will you go fishing with these folks, or will you demur? For that is the sum and substance of an otherwise unspecified claim of "suspicious bidding". Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 20 05:08:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 05:08:52 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (root@sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08539 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 05:08:44 +1000 Received: from default (client87b8.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.184]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA05544; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:12:42 +0100 Message-Id: <199709191912.UAA05544@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:09:18 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ---------- > From: Tim Goodwin > To: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card > Date: 18 September 1997 15:07 > > At 12:22 PM 9/18/97 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Some posters argue that this psych is part of my system, etc. Tim Goodwin comments:- > While I think you should be able to continue with your style of bidding > (psyching), I don't think the infrequency of opening with 0-3 rather than > 12+ is what makes this a non-systemic call. Martel-Stansby once played that > a 1C opening was either a standard 1C or a solid 10 card suit (or something > like that). Just because the solid suit option never came up, didn't mean > that 1C wasn't a systemic two-way bid. What makes it a non-systemic call is > that partner does not base his bidding on the possibility that you may be > light. If the opponents make a display of strength, of course responder may > infer from that that someone doesn't have their bid. If he bases his guess > that it was opener on past experience, that's OK with me, especially since > the opponents have been properly informed. Herman quite clearly has an arrangement with partner, not only that he will make this kind of call but also that partner will not adjust his bidding to cater for the possibility. Even if they had only partnership experience before, they have now put it on record publicly. This is without question a partnership understanding to be disclosed and as such it is subject to regulation under 40D - also as a convention if the named suit may not be present. Could we add that the disclosure of any partnership practice in the auction or play is required so that opponents may be in an informed position to cater for it, however rarely it is said to happen; infrequency is not an excuse for failing to disclose what opponents are fully entitled to know, and disclosure announces systemic understanding. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 20 05:10:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 05:10:20 +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 FAA08559 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 05:10:03 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa17187; 19 Sep 97 12:09 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: reasonably/demonstrably suggested In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:44:50 PDT." Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:09:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9709191209.aa17187@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Sep 97 10:10:12 BST Robin Barker wrote: > This was a problem I faced as a player last night, > but it may be a relevant to interpretation of L16. > > > W N E S > 1C* 2S 1C = clubs or 15+ balanced > X* P 3H 3S X = negative > 4H P P 4S > P P ? > > Before East called, West attempted to lead (face down). > > Is there unauthorised information for East? > > If so, what does the UI reasonably suggest? demonstrably suggest? Although the arguments that others have made make sense, I don't think this question can be answered without being at the table. Some additional information would be helpful: How soon after North's pass did West try to lead? Were bidding boxes in use? (If not, we have to consider the possibility that West might have heard something elsewhere in the room and thought East passed.) Basically, if West was aware that East hadn't called, but assumed that the auction was going to be passed out because it sounds like the kind of auction that "always gets passed out", there may well be a UI problem depending on East-West's agreements about forcing passes. However, if West somehow thought East had passed, I'm not convinced that any inference at all can be drawn, even if East-West were playing forcing passes. Even if we can conclude that West wasn't paying attention, or momentarily lost concentration, I don't think I can draw any inference from that in the absence of other evidence. Players momentarily lose concentration for any number of reasons, and some players have more difficulty keeping concentration than others. In my case, no matter how the auction was progressing, if I happened to catch sight of a young blonde with great legs, I'd still be able to concentrate because I'm happily married and am not allowed to notice such things. (YEAH RIGHT.) But there might be other things that might distract me. So as a player, unless I knew my partner well and knew that an infraction like this would be significantly more likely with a certain type of hand, or unless there were other evidence suggesting a reason for West's mistake, I would not take the UI as reasonably or demonstrably suggesting anything besides random brain failure. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 20 08:55:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:55:04 +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 IAA09205 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:54:52 +1000 Received: from artaxia.com (HZ-pri-AS2-103.star.net.il [195.8.208.103]) by e4000.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA17312; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 00:14:50 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3422F995.4C0815AC@artaxia.com> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 00:15:49 +0200 From: DANY HAIMOVICI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Dennis" CC: BLML Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) References: <199709191813.OAA18801@brickbat9.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good Evening Mike I read this message and I understand you arrived at the cruel but right conclusion that being called to the table and hearing the complains as described by Reissman , you should first think to penalize "the poor offended experts" . I think you arrived to the only reasonable conclusion . Please read my reply to Reissman some 50 years ago....... maybe only some days..... I always acted very cruely when called to such events and in last 4 years no good and up level player deared to request my help without a concrete (at least apparently) reason. Keep on this way - on the long range the big fellows will behave seriously and reasonably and all the participants will enjoy and respect this style , when sporting and equity are the main scope. Dany Michael S. Dennis wrote: > David Stevenson and I have been wrangling over the following issue: the TD > is called to the table to rule upon a claim by N/S of "suspicious bidding" > by E/W, a complaint they are making at the end of a hand after receiving a > poor score. David's position is that the TD's responsibility in this as in > any director call is to gather the facts, consult, and issue a ruling. I > have made the somewhat esoteric argument that because the complainants have > not actually "drawn attention to an irregularity" as the requisite basis > for calling the director in the first place, there is no legal basis for > the TD to investigate, and the matter should be dropped until and unless > N/S are prepared to offer at least a general suggestion of an irregularity > to investigate. > > Upon reflection, I think I have not been completely forthcoming in stating > my case here. Although I believe the legal guff about "requisite basis" is > true enough, it is also true that I would not stand on such legal > hair-splitting in a variety of other situations. Thus my reliance on this > particular fig-leaf is really meant to hide a deeper concern. > > The non-specific claim of "suspicious bidding", especially at the end of a > hand resulting in a poor score for experts playing weak opponents, is > offensive and unsporting. It manages to convey both a disdain for the > ability of the opponents and an insinuation about their ethics. It as much > as says, "This bidding was so ridiculously incompetent that its ultimate > success points to something underhanded." It is a tactic of intimidation. > Regardless of the outcome, if the TD plays along by conducting an > "investigation", N/S are rewarded at the least with official participation > in the humiliation of their opponents. > > I believe that the procedural requirements in the Laws pertaining to a > director call provide at least some ground for refusing to participate in > this process, and am happy to stand on that ground in such a case. > > Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 21 00:03:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:03:58 +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 AAA10671 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:03:50 +1000 Received: from default (cph12.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.12]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA17250 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:03:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199709201403.QAA17250@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:05:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: COOT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote > > North bids 1S. > > South bids 2D natural. > > East would like his turn! > > West does not accept the 2D. > > East now doubles. > > 2D from South over a double is transfer! > > Well? > > Law 31 speaks only of repeating or not repeating the denomination > (not specifying suits, as for example in Law 26). Read Law 29C! Having read that, I trust that you take back this posting. Assuming that, I invite you to join the following appeal to all owners of a copy of the 1997 laws: 1. Put an asterisk next to every occurence of "denomination" in laws 30-32. 2. Write yourself a footnote to remember to consult L29C. Now if only I had had the foresight to have this built into the Danish translation ... > > So South can bid 2D, 3D, etc. and North must pass once (L31A2a) > or South can make another call and North must pass throughout (L31A2b). (the rest is snippage) -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 21 07:22:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 07:22:15 +1000 Received: from borg.star.net.il (borg.star.net.il [195.8.195.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14456 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 07:22:08 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-43.star.net.il [195.8.208.43]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA24370; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:20:11 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <34243E4C.C2A060E@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:21:17 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Willey CC: "'bridge-laws'" Subject: Re: FW: Call OOT References: <1997Sep14.210300.1189.132610@azure-tech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard There are two different laws which restrict offender's partner to bid : Law 27=Insufficient bid - this one was changed and explains what to do when the sufficient bid becones a "conventional" by the CC. Law 31=Bid out of rotation - this law didn't change . David 's case presents a case for law 31 ... Nothing new for 97 laws. The "criminal" ( well not so hard because the offender put himself in the worst possible situation) must decide what to call knowing that a) his partner must pass at least once (usually for the whole bidding) b) partner is forbidden to use *any* UI got by the first bid out of rotation c) all the provisions of laws 31 and 16 stands DANY Richard Willey wrote: > ---------- > From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 1997 10:40 PM > To: bridge-laws > Subject: Call OOT > > >I have now received a rather fetching small book, called The Laws of > >Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, so I thought I would use it. > > >East opens 2S showing both minors and 7-12 HCP. North looks fairly > >pointedly at the Dealer mark opposite him, and the TD is called. South > >does not accept the 2S, North opens 1NT, and East overcalls. His > >conventional defence to 1NT is that 2C shows the minors, 11-15 HCP, 2D > >shows diamonds, 11-15 HCP, 2S shows spades plus a red suit, 11-15 HCP. > > >What happens if East > > >[a] overcalls 2C? > >[b] overcalls 2D? > >[c] overcalls 2S? > > To me, one of the most important points about this posting of David's is > that the initial 2S opening shows a point range which is significantly > different from that promised by the 2C overcall. Even if East were to > substitute a new bid which accurately describes his distribution, he can > not help but to have given partner Unauthorized Information. > I feel that partner be banned from bidding regardless of what call East > chose. > If East were to have an overcall which showed the same hand type, I think > the problem becomes more difficult. > > Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 21 07:27:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 07:27:33 +1000 Received: from borg.star.net.il (borg.star.net.il [195.8.195.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14491 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 07:27:17 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-43.star.net.il [195.8.208.43]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA24421; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:26:25 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <34243FC3.21CC6D34@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:27:31 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: "Curtis A. Hastings" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card References: <199709151512.QAA13889@tycho.global.net.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all fellows I think that Mr. Endicott 's message below must stop any dispute. It presents very clear definitions and rulling. It should be obvious that a well defined psych becomes a convention (what is a difference between precision 2Cl - maybe 6card Cl maybe 5card Cl & 4card MAJ 1H maybe 3cards & weakness maybe 5card & 11+ p ?) This particular "conventional-psych" should be included under HUM and the question if SO may forbid it or not is a good one and must be solved . DANY Grattan Endicott wrote: > gester@globalnet.co.uk > Grattan Endicott > Liverpool L18 8DJ : > > > From: Curtis A. Hastings > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card > > Date: 11 September 1997 20:08 > > > > > > >> > > I now realize that I have a habit : when holding 0-3(4) points in third > > position, I will often open my shorter major. (...) > > So when compiling my convention card for next season, I decided to add > > in the space 'psychic openings' (international model) the following > > phrase : 'When holding 0-3 HCP in third pos, non-vul vs vul, HDW may > > well open his shorter major'. > > > > \\\\\snip///// > > > > > > This area does not appear to be well handled by the Laws. > > > > Opinion > ******** > > The subject of psyches is misunderstood, I would say, almost universally. > A psychic call is a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength > or suit length. This definition is in the laws. Such calls divide into two > categories: > 1. Instances where there is no partnership understanding or > agreement that an intentionally misleading call may be > made. > > 2. Other instances where the call is based on partnership > understanding (which may derive from explicit discussion, > from partnership experience of earlier occasions, or from > other information shared by the partners). > > Law 40A provides that Cat 1 psyches may be made without disclosure. > Since they are not the subject of partnership agreement there is in any > case nothing to disclose. > > Category 2 psyches require to be disclosed. They form part of the > partnership's systemic arrangements. They constitute conventional > arrangements EITHER because the meaning otherwise of the call, if > it were not designed to mislead, would be conventional, OR if the > partnership understanding allows that the call may be made on a > holding that does not reflect a willingness to play in the denomination > named (or in the last denomination named) and may not alternatively > show high card strength or length (3+ cards) in that denomination. > Such agreements are subject to regulation as conventions and may > be prohibited. [This is where the majority of would-be psychers > fails to grasp the effects of the law, and a high proportion of what are > termed psyches these days can be attributed to this category. The > exemption from control created in law 40A is available only to a > psyche not based on partnership understanding.] > > Category 2 psyches which avoid being tagged as conventional, > because they specify that the named suit is to be present, will > still be subject to regulation if the understanding relates to an initial > action that may be made on less than eight HCP - see law 40D. > > Finally, yes, I am aware that some people question whether an SO > has power to ban psyching of a convention. On behalf of the European > Bridge League I took this question to the WBF Laws Committee > some years ago; the answer was that the Committee would not dispute > such action by an SO. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 21 08:14:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 08:14:12 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14698 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 08:14:07 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA10362 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA10029; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:14:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 18:14:08 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199709202214.SAA10029@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Steve, Oh dear. I have written too much on this subject already. Could anyone who wants further comments from me please consider private email? I think most of the list must be bored with this by now. > suppose you are summoned to the table, and North (who rang), says, > "We disapprove of the way our opponents bid this last hand, and we are > appalled by our score. Would you help us look for an irregularity which > might form the basis for a favorable score adjustment?" For score adjustments, players' motivations are almost never relevant. In most cases, regardless of the stated reason for the call, a TD should treat it as "I believe there may have been an irregularity. Could you please investigate?" It is not up to the players to decide what is to be investigated. > Will you go fishing with these folks, or will you demur? I think the proper procedure is to determine the facts, consider or consult as necessary, and provide a ruling. If the facts are "We have no particular reason to believe an irregularity occurred." the investigation and consideration will not take long! A possible ruling is a procedural penalty for violation of L74B5. For a PP, the player's motivation and whether or not he ought to have known proper conduct would be relevant. If, instead, the facts are "We have _prima facie_ evidence of an infraction, but we are not familiar with the Laws and can't say exactly what the violation is or even be certain that there is one." the investigation will take longer. A score adjustment is definitely possible. I consider the case that started this thread to be in the second category. If you see why I think so and disagree, that's fine with me. My bridge judgment can be wrong. (My partners are certain of that!) If you can't see why I think so and are certain this case must be in the first category, you really need to rethink the evidence. And by the way, I share the concern about protecting beginners from bridge lawyers. I don't have the original query, but weren't the EW pair reported to be a longtime (if unskillful) partnership? If so, they could hardly have been beginners. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that NS were bridge lawyers, unless the EW auction was a lot less bizarre in Poland than it would have been here (North America). All this is not to say that there definitely was an infraction, but a TD would be remiss not to investigate. I confess I wouldn't have thought there was anything controversial in the above (except perhaps for bridge judgment in the specific case). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 21 23:37:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:37:40 +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 XAA16182 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:37:32 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-110.innet.be [194.7.10.110]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA25609 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:37:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3424FAF9.869525FE@innet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:46:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199709191912.UAA05544@sand.global.net.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Herman quite clearly has an arrangement with partner, not only that > he will make this kind of call but also that partner will not adjust his > bidding to cater for the possibility. Even if they had only partnership > experience before, they have now put it on record publicly. It has already been stated again and again that the question of disclosure has been settled. > This is without question a partnership understanding to be disclosed > and as such it is subject to regulation under 40D - also as a > convention if the named suit may not be present. I agree that the full force of L40 is of application. ZO and SO can regulate the use hereof and can require this to be put on CC. > Could we add that the disclosure of any partnership practice in > the auction or play is required so that opponents may be in > an informed position to cater for it, however rarely it is said to happen; > infrequency is not an excuse for failing to disclose what > opponents are fully entitled to know, and disclosure announces > systemic understanding. And this is where I start to differ in opinion. Systems policy is not a matter for the Laws. L40 offers certain organisations the right to make up supplementary regulations. Without going into the quagmire of determining whether or not a particular organisation has the right to produce a particular piece of regulation, I suggest that we take the WBF systems policy. I'm reading the World Bridge News (official WBF publication) of march 1996 and I read the report on WBF Systems Policy. The Belgian regulations are a near complete translation of that document. I read the definition of a HUM : "any system that exhibits one or more of the following features, as matter of partnership agreement: .. 3-By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or below average strength. .." Now I notice a discrepance between L40 and this regulation : In L40, the words "partnership understanding" are used. In the regulation, they speak of "partnership agreement". I do not believe the use of two different words is unimportant. My agreement is to play 1H as 5c,12+. The understanding in my partnership may be that I sometimes open 1H on other values. L40A tells me I cannot open 1H on lesser values because I (may) have a partnership understanding. L40B tells me that I can open 1H on anything, if I disclose this understanding to my opponents, which I do. L40D gives (...) the authority to regulate. My club might forbid me (and others) to regularly psych in the same way. (they have not) The BBF might do the same. (they have not, IMO) The regulation in force tells me I cannot make an agreement of this nature. I fail to see that the understanding that I might break an agreement MUST in itself be an agreement. I have intentionally put MUST in capitals. I have in the past often ruled that people should not hide behind the words of L40A and explain their minor bidding variance as a psychic bid. I have ruled in such cases that the understanding IS part of the agreement. But I do not wish to make that an iron clad thing. I think that the director (and whoever) should have the authority to declare a particular bid, even when it could be considered within the partnership understanding, still outside the partnership agreement. How to decide that ? call it gut feeling. Several posters have told me they think I should be allowed to continue to psych (or call it bid) in this manner. Some of you may disagree. But I do not think the actual wording of the Laws and Regulations tells us we should rule in that manner. And do say : who am I hurting ? I am taking a gamble. It is not the same as opening on 8 points when partner expects you to go as low as 9, and caters for that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 21 23:38:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:38:12 +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 XAA16189 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:38:04 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-110.innet.be [194.7.10.110]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA25679 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:37:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3425007E.B040CE8@innet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:09:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199709151512.QAA13889@tycho.global.net.uk> <34243FC3.21CC6D34@star.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I thought I had said enough on this subject, but Dany Haimovici posed this question: > > It should be obvious that a well defined psych becomes a convention should it ? > (what is a difference between precision 2Cl - maybe 6card Cl > maybe 5card Cl & 4card MAJ 1H maybe 3cards & weakness > maybe 5card & 11+ p ?) > 2CL : 6c or 5c&4cM = both possibilities are catered for by partner 1H : 5c12+ or 2c0-3 = only one of the possibilities is catered for by partner As I said at length in my other post: understanding NEED NOT IMPLY agreement !! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 21 23:58:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:58:39 +1000 Received: from borg.star.net.il (borg.star.net.il [195.8.195.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA16238; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:58:06 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS2-119.star.net.il [195.8.208.119]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA29398; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 16:56:40 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <342527DC.14F96011@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:57:49 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , majordomo-owner@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: New Adress Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My new adress dh@star.net.il ( in stead of dh@artaxia.com) Please resend all e-mails since 18.8.97 Thanx Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 22 01:18:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:18:51 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA18767 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:18:15 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA01148 for Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970921111418_-162751148@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Instant Matchpoint ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint game. West S KQ74 H AQ D T842 C J64 East S T83 H T9763 D AQ9 C A2 North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East bid 2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S protested on failure to alert 2C as Drury. The director reverted the auction to 2C, down 200, 99 matchpoints to N-S. E-W protest the director's ruling. How do you sort out the ruling if you are on the committee? E-W acknowledged 2C was Drury and that West forgot it applied to 4th seat openers. The actual committee ruled there were two infractions by E-W. The first was failure to alert the Drury call. The second was East's use of UI when West failed to alert the 2C call. It does seem that the latter infraction was inconsequential, since 2D doubled is E-W's best spot. Nevertheless, the director's ruling was upheld. Your views will be appreciated. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 22 02:23:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 02:23:13 +1000 Received: from emout20.mail.aol.com (emout20.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19287 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 02:19:12 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout20.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA04626 for Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970921121752_1042845609@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: RCraigH@aol.com, Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Instant Matchpoint ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-09-21 11:26:52 EDT, RCraigH@aol.com writes: << protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint game. West S KQ74 H AQ D T842 C J64 East S T83 H T9763 D AQ9 C A2 North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East bid 2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S protested on failure to alert 2C as Drury. The director reverted the auction to 2C, down 200, 99 matchpoints to N-S. E-W protest the director's ruling. How do you sort out the ruling if you are on the committee? E-W acknowledged 2C was Drury and that West forgot it applied to 4th seat openers. The actual committee ruled there were two infractions by E-W. The first was failure to alert the Drury call. The second was East's use of UI when West failed to alert the 2C call. It does seem that the latter infraction was inconsequential, since 2D doubled is E-W's best spot. Nevertheless, the director's ruling was upheld. Your views will be appreciated.>> As so often, the "screen principle" easily solves this situation. If East and North had been screenmates, East would have Alerted North that 2C was Drury, and North would have happily passed 2C. The TDs decision was correct: The contract is 2C. East did not need the UI from West's failure to Alert in order to know that West had forgotten Drury; he knew it from his pass of 2C. No UI from that, and East did nothing wrong. Nor did West, since forgetting an agreement is not an infraction. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 22 03:12:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:12:15 +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 DAA19383 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:12:09 +1000 Received: from goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.62]) by null.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21454; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:12:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709211712.NAA20629@goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: RCraigH@aol.com CC: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <970921111418_-162751148@emout10.mail.aol.com> (RCraigH@aol.com) Subject: Re: Instant Matchpoint ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > A protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint game. > West S KQ74 > H AQ > D T842 > C J64 > East S T83 > H T9763 > D AQ9 > C A2 > North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed > again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East bid > 2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S protested on > failure to alert 2C as Drury. North's hand is important to this decision; he has 965 54 K7653 KQ5. I don't like that balance after a passed-out natural 2C (which is what North thinks the bid is), but I don't think it's either an egregious error (nobody is vulnerable, so -100 against -110 will still be good) or a double shot. I don't think North has a special obligation to protect himself, since the auction is normal without the alert and strange with it. Thus, based on misinformation, I rule the contract back to 2C, and that would be -200 to E-W. > The actual committee ruled there were two infractions by E-W. The first was > failure to alert the Drury call. The second was East's use of UI when West > failed to alert the 2C call. This is not an infraction, because East has the AI that West misunderstood the call from West's pass of a conventional bid. -- 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 Mon Sep 22 03:15:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:15:39 +1000 Received: from apm12.star.net.il. (apm12.star.net.il [195.8.194.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA19406 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:15:28 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-165.star.net.il [195.8.208.165]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA15175; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:14:56 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3425565F.C0BB07B6@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:16:16 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RCraigH@aol.com CC: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Instant Matchpoint ruling References: <970921111418_-162751148@emout10.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good morning There are 3 questions I ask myself when summoned to this table : 1. did an irregularity occurred ? 2. had the offended side been hurt ?? 3. was a connection between the irregularity and the "hurt" ??? The answer to the first is very clear - Yes (no alert !) I can't answer the other two questions wuthout having ALL hands. But the general approach - both by TD and AC - should be that only if both other answers will be YES - then the real TD's decision will be upheld. RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > A protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint game. > > West S KQ74 > H AQ > D T842 > C J64 > > East S T83 > H T9763 > D AQ9 > C A2 > > North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed > again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East bid > 2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S protested on > failure to alert 2C as Drury. > > The director reverted the auction to 2C, down 200, 99 matchpoints to N-S. > E-W protest the director's ruling. How do you sort out the ruling if you are > on the committee? E-W acknowledged 2C was Drury and that West forgot it > applied to 4th seat openers. > > The actual committee ruled there were two infractions by E-W. The first was > failure to alert the Drury call. The second was East's use of UI when West > failed to alert the 2C call. It does seem that the latter infraction was > inconsequential, since 2D doubled is E-W's best spot. Nevertheless, the > director's ruling was upheld. > > Your views will be appreciated. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 22 16:34:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA21302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:34:14 +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 QAA21297 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:34:09 +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 QAA13727; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:34:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port16.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.66]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA06608; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:33:43 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:33:43 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199709220633.QAA06608@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: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cut..cut..cut >And do say : who am I hurting ? I am taking a gamble. >It is not the same as opening on 8 points when partner expects you to go >as low as 9, and caters for that. I intend to try this psychic bid at the very first opportunity, but having waited for two weeks, it doesn't seem to come up very often. The main reason is that Herman, when he first advertised it, promised that it "always leads to a good result" (or words to that effect). I have a scientific interest in finding out how the good result comes about. My theory is that the psychic bid is so extreme (understating values by 3+ tricks, and bidding the weakest suit) that it is bound to disturb the normal table ambience. The demeanour of the 4th in hand, or perhaps the resulting bidding sequence may allow partner to infer quite legally that something is not quite as it seems. (I am sure we have all received table "vibes" when we have innocently bid LHO's suit). I can guarantee that my psych will surprise him as I have never made such an extreme psych before. However, having done it to him once, I would expect him to remember it for the rest of our playing partnership...however brief. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 22 23:17:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 23:17:56 +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 XAA22354 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 23:17:50 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA18054 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970922091831.006b9a00@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:18:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: COOT In-Reply-To: <199709201403.QAA17250@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:05 PM 9/20/97 +0200, Jens wrote: >Robin Barker wrote > >> > North bids 1S. >> > South bids 2D natural. >> > East would like his turn! >> > West does not accept the 2D. >> > East now doubles. >> > 2D from South over a double is transfer! >> > Well? >> >> Law 31 speaks only of repeating or not repeating the denomination >> (not specifying suits, as for example in Law 26). > >Read Law 29C! Having read that, I trust that you take back this >posting. Assuming that, I invite you to join the following appeal to >all owners of a copy of the 1997 laws: > >1. Put an asterisk next to every occurence of "denomination" in laws >30-32. > >2. Write yourself a footnote to remember to consult L29C. Sound advice about hand-writing footnotes, but not relevant here. L29C: "If a call out of rotation is conventional..." Here there was no call out of rotation which was conventional, so L29C has no bearing. My reading is that if South bids 2D, L31A2(a) applies, and it is AI to North that South intended 2D as natural rather than as a transfer. Now let's consider the issues that arise when L29C does apply. Even though L29C refers to "Laws 30, 31 and 32", "denomination" appears only in L31A2, and only in the phrase "repeat(s) the denomination". So suppose the original 2D BOOT showed hearts. L29C tells us that we must read L31A2(a) and L31A2(b) as "repeats 'hearts'..." and "does not repeat 'hearts'..." respectively. Now suppose that, after RHO's call, offender's methods are such that heart bids are all conventional, and some other conventional call is used to show hearts. Does L31A2(1) apply when (a) offender bids hearts, which, presumably, partner may then permissably interpret as natural even though it's normally conventional, (b) offender makes a conventional bid that shows hearts, or (c) neither, L31A2(1) never applies when the BOOT was conventional? I'd vote for (b). L29C again: "...shall apply to the denomination specified, rather than the denomination named." Thus "repeats the denomination" in L31A2 means "repeats the denomination specified (rather than the denomination named)", which I interpret to mean "re-specifies (rather than re-names) the denomination previously specified. If you agree, try this: Suppose that after RHO calls, offender no longer has a bid available to show hearts immediately, but must use a two-step sequence. He makes the first bid in the two-step sequence (willing to have it passed out undoubled), and the opponents bid while his partner, perforce, passes. He is now completes the two-step, thus re-specifying "the denomination specified" by the original BOOT. May his partner now come back into the bidding? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 23 00:29:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA24919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:29:51 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24912 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:29:44 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA02706 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:29:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970922103026.006bcfa8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:30:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Instant Matchpoint ruling In-Reply-To: <970921111418_-162751148@emout10.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:17 AM 9/21/97 -0400, RCraigH wrote: >A protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint game. > >West S KQ74 > H AQ > D T842 > C J64 > >East S T83 > H T9763 > D AQ9 > C A2 > >North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed >again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East bid >2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S protested on >failure to alert 2C as Drury. > >The director reverted the auction to 2C, down 200, 99 matchpoints to N-S. >E-W protest the director's ruling. How do you sort out the ruling if you are >on the committee? E-W acknowledged 2C was Drury and that West forgot it >applied to 4th seat openers. > >The actual committee ruled there were two infractions by E-W. The first was >failure to alert the Drury call. The second was East's use of UI when West >failed to alert the 2C call. It does seem that the latter infraction was >inconsequential, since 2D doubled is E-W's best spot. Nevertheless, the >director's ruling was upheld. > >Your views will be appreciated. I think that the correct ruling depends on North's hand. To determine damage and equity, we need to determine how the auction might have gone absent any irregularity. So consider P-P-P-1S-P-2C(alerted as Drury)-P-P-? Bear in mind that North is NOT entitled by the disclosure rules to know that West forgot Drury (as opposed to just forgot to alert), only that 2C was Drury and that West passed it. Is it at all likely that North would have passed? If so, the ruling (N-S +200) was correct. If not, then North wasn't damaged by the MI, and we go on. East is more strongly constrained. He isn't allowed to work out from his hand that West forgot Drury; he MUST assume that West forgot to alert. IMO, therefore, he was not entitled to his 2S bid, which caters specifically to West's having forgotten Drury (neither East's hand nor his spades were particularly better than, presumably, his 2C bid announced), and therefore was suggested by the UI. His LAs were pass and double, neither of which was suggested over the other by the UI. But here, it seems, pass would have gotten N-S a better score than defending 2S (so N-S would have been damaged by the infraction), while double would have gotten N-S a worse score (so no damage from the infraction). That clouds the waters, and I'm not sure how an AC should rule. Do we say that North stepped out for -300 (which E-W could have gotten without committing any irregularity), and therefore were not damaged by getting only -140 -- no adjustment -- or do we say that N-S might have gone for -100 absent the infraction, and therefore may have been damaged -- adjust the score to N-S -100 (assuming, of course, that we agree with the analysis of the LAs and their likely results). I lean towards the latter on "benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders" grounds, but would like to hear what others think. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 23 01:05:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 01:05:43 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25097 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 01:05:34 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id LAA05104 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:05:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970922110616.006929d0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:06:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Instant Matchpoint ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Earlier today I wrote: >East is more strongly constrained. He isn't allowed to work out from his hand that West forgot Drury; he MUST assume that West forgot to alert. IMO, therefore, he was not entitled to his 2S bid, which caters specifically to West's having forgotten Drury (neither East's hand nor his spades were particularly better than, presumably, his 2C bid announced), and therefore was suggested by the UI. His LAs were pass and double, neither of which was suggested over the other by the UI. But here, it seems, pass would have gotten N-S a better score than defending 2S (so N-S would have been damaged by the infraction), while double would have gotten N-S a worse score (so no damage from the infraction). That clouds the waters, and I'm not sure how an AC should rule. Do we say that North stepped out for -300 (which E-W could have gotten without committing any irregularity), and therefore were not damaged by getting only -140 -- no adjustment -- or do we say that N-S might have gone for -100 absent the infraction, and therefore may have been damaged -- adjust the score to N-S -100 (assuming, of course, that we agree with the analysis of the LAs and their likely results). I lean towards the latter on "benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders" grounds, but would like to hear what others think. > Several posters have suggested that there is no UI here, as East is permitted to infer that West has forgotten Drury, not from his failure to alert, but from his pass. I hadn't considered this, and concede the point. So to make my question meaningful, assume that North hadn't passed originally. Now the auction without the MI is P-P-1S-P-2C(alerted as Drury)-P-P. Is that auction impossible? Certainly not; any East who has been reading the concurrent thread on psychs vs. HUMs would expect Herman, were he West, to hold something like xx/xxx/xxxx/Qxxx for his 1S opening and subsequent pass of 2C. Someone else, looking for a swing, might have bid this way with something like AJ10x/x/xx/KQxxxx. This may not be the best example to take as a starting point, but I would like to see the issue discussed; L16 doesn't seem to offer guidance. Has "an infraction of law... resulted in damage" under L16 when the offender's non-suggested LAs include both LAs which, if chosen, would have given the non-offending side a better score and ones which would have given them a worse score? Does it matter whether, in the AC's opinion, one or the other would clearly have been the more likely choice absent offender's infraction of taking the suggested alternative? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 23 04:58:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 04:58:59 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA26376 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 04:58:40 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id MAA03035; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma002848; Mon, 22 Sep 97 12:29:36 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id MAA22074 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709221920.MAA22074@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 22 Sep 97 17:56:09 GMT Subject: Re: COOT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk *Introduction* In England we use the 1987 code until 1 October 1997. Thus I've not followed the debates on the new laws as closely as I perhaps should. My understanding was that the new laws were designed to permit the "lesser" (31A2(a)) penalty (partner passes at *first* turn) if the denomination shown after RHO "acts" was the same as the denomination shown by the BOOT. The "greater" (31A2(b)) penalty (partner passes throughout) would apply in other circumstances. I now see that I appear to have been under a misapprehension. *End of Introduction* Eric Landau wrote > >>Robin Barker wrote >> >>> > North bids 1S. >>> > South bids 2D natural. >>> > East would like his turn! >>> > West does not accept the 2D. >>> > East now doubles. >>> > 2D from South over a double is transfer! >>> > Well? >>> >>> Law 31 speaks only of repeating or not repeating the denomination >>> (not specifying suits, as for example in Law 26). >> >>Read Law 29C! Having read that, I trust that you take back this >>posting. Assuming that, I invite you to join the following appeal to >>all owners of a copy of the 1997 laws: >> >>1. Put an asterisk next to every occurence of "denomination" in laws >>30-32. >> >>2. Write yourself a footnote to remember to consult L29C. > >Sound advice about hand-writing footnotes, but not relevant here. L29C: >"If a call out of rotation is conventional..." Here there was no call out >of rotation which was conventional, so L29C has no bearing. > >My reading is that if South bids 2D, L31A2(a) applies, and it is AI to >North that South intended 2D as natural rather than as a transfer. But isn't the first 2D a "withdrawn action" from which information arising is UI (Law 16C2)? Or is your argument that it is not a "withdrawn action" because it repeats the level and denomination of the original action? >Now let's consider the issues that arise when L29C does apply. > >Even though L29C refers to "Laws 30, 31 and 32", "denomination" appears >only in L31A2, and only in the phrase "repeat(s) the denomination". So >suppose the original 2D BOOT showed hearts. L29C tells us that we must >read L31A2(a) and L31A2(b) as "repeats 'hearts'..." and "does not repeat >'hearts'..." respectively. Now suppose that, after RHO's call, offender's >methods are such that heart bids are all conventional, and some other >conventional call is used to show hearts. Does L31A2(1) apply when (a) >offender bids hearts, which, presumably, partner may then permissably >interpret as natural even though it's normally conventional, (b) offender >makes a conventional bid that shows hearts, or (c) neither, L31A2(1) never >applies when the BOOT was conventional? > >I'd vote for (b). L29C again: "...shall apply to the denomination >specified, rather than the denomination named." Thus "repeats the >denomination" in L31A2 means "repeats the denomination specified (rather >than the denomination named)", which I interpret to mean "re-specifies >(rather than re-names) the denomination previously specified. I agree. >If you agree, try this: Suppose that after RHO calls, offender no longer >has a bid available to show hearts immediately, but must use a two-step >sequence. He makes the first bid in the two-step sequence (willing to have >it passed out undoubled), and the opponents bid while his partner, >perforce, passes. He is now completes the two-step, thus re-specifying >"the denomination specified" by the original BOOT. May his partner now >come back into the bidding? I'm not sure what you mean by a "two-step". Do you mean that e.g. 1S X 2C=unspecified single-suiter? And the offender specifies the suit on the next round. If so then I don't agree, because I think Law 31A2(b) applies even if the offender calls as you hypothesise. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 23 06:55:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:55:15 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26751 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:55:08 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA23382 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970922165543.0068fbe4@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:55:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: COOT In-Reply-To: <199709221920.MAA22074@cactus.tc.pw.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:56 PM 9/22/97 GMT, Stephen_Barnfield wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>My reading is that if South bids 2D, L31A2(a) applies, and it is AI to >>North that South intended 2D as natural rather than as a transfer. > >But isn't the first 2D a "withdrawn action" from which information arising is >UI (Law 16C2)? Or is your argument that it is not a "withdrawn action" because >it repeats the level and denomination of the original action? Not exactly. The first 2D bid is a "withdrawn action", and North may not use the information conveyed. But information from the second (re-stated) 2D bid is AI, and that includes the fact that South bid 2D (the second time) KNOWING THAT NORTH WAS REQUIRED TO PASS. Using this information only, North can, and is permitted to, "deduce" that South was willing to play in 2D, making it a "natural" call. Information that would not have been available from the circumstances of the second 2D bid (e.g. the agreed strength shown by the original natural BOOT) is UI to North. >>Now let's consider the issues that arise when L29C does apply. >> >>Even though L29C refers to "Laws 30, 31 and 32", "denomination" appears >>only in L31A2, and only in the phrase "repeat(s) the denomination". So >>suppose the original 2D BOOT showed hearts. L29C tells us that we must >>read L31A2(a) and L31A2(b) as "repeats 'hearts'..." and "does not repeat >>'hearts'..." respectively. Now suppose that, after RHO's call, offender's >>methods are such that heart bids are all conventional, and some other >>conventional call is used to show hearts. Does L31A2(1) apply when (a) >>offender bids hearts, which, presumably, partner may then permissably >>interpret as natural even though it's normally conventional, (b) offender >>makes a conventional bid that shows hearts, or (c) neither, L31A2(1) never >>applies when the BOOT was conventional? >> >>I'd vote for (b). L29C again: "...shall apply to the denomination >>specified, rather than the denomination named." Thus "repeats the >>denomination" in L31A2 means "repeats the denomination specified (rather >>than the denomination named)", which I interpret to mean "re-specifies >>(rather than re-names) the denomination previously specified. > >I agree. > >>If you agree, try this: Suppose that after RHO calls, offender no longer >>has a bid available to show hearts immediately, but must use a two-step >>sequence. He makes the first bid in the two-step sequence (willing to have >>it passed out undoubled), and the opponents bid while his partner, >>perforce, passes. He is now completes the two-step, thus re-specifying >>"the denomination specified" by the original BOOT. May his partner now >>come back into the bidding? > >I'm not sure what you mean by a "two-step". Do you mean that e.g. > >1S X 2C=unspecified single-suiter? And the offender specifies the suit on the >next round. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. >If so then I don't agree, because I think Law 31A2(b) applies even if the >offender calls as you hypothesise. I agree with Steve here, and would vote "no" on my question above, but not with a great deal of confidence (which is why I put it to the List). I'd reason as follows: L31A2: "...offender may make any legal call; when this call..." I read "this call" as referring to the substitute call only. Unless South has a call available at his proper turn that, on its own, "repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation", L31A2(a) cannot apply, and he is out of luck. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 23 13:52:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA28436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:52:43 +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 NAA28431 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:52:36 +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 WAA01004 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 22:52:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0W39104X Mon, 22 Sep 97 22:50:34 Message-ID: <9709222250.0W39104@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 97 22:50:34 Subject: INSTANT MATCH To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk O>Subject: Instant Matchpoint ruling O>A protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint game. O> O>West S KQ74 O> H AQ O> D T842 O> C J64 O> O>East S T83 O> H T9763 O> D AQ9 O> C A2 O> O>North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed O>again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East bid O>2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S protested on O>failure to alert 2C as Drury. O> O>The director reverted the auction to 2C, down 200, 99 matchpoints to N-S. O>E-W protest the director's ruling. How do you sort out the ruling if you are O>on the committee? E-W acknowledged 2C was Drury and that West forgot it O>applied to 4th seat openers. O> O>The actual committee ruled there were two infractions by E-W. The first was O>failure to alert the Drury call. The second was East's use of UI when West O>failed to alert the 2C call. It does seem that the latter infraction was O>inconsequential, since 2D doubled is E-W's best spot. Nevertheless, the O>director's ruling was upheld. O> O>Your views will be appreciated. I presume that EW were advised of the failure to alert before the opening lead. 1. The failure to alert was MI and UI. 2. Were NS damaged by the MI? IMO, no. 2C shows a strong hand, albeit, limited, whether or not it was Drury. To balance on north’s poor collection is the equivalent of laying one’s neck on the chopping block, it may be optimal to do so but the odds are heavily against you. Just because opener claimed [he passed] to have a substandard hand and forgets Drury does not give NS a risk free overcall. Was north lured into the auction by the failure to alert? I would not think so. Would north have definitely passed with the alert? Well, if either yes or no, he bid into two strong opponents did he not [it would make sense to pass knowing it was Drury, it makes even better sense to pass if it was not]. I am inclined to think that it is more likely that north knew about the Drury agreement AND took his bid BECAUSE 2C was not alerted and if this is the case I can have no sympathy for north-south. In ten years I don't recall balancing on such a weak hand against such a strong auction. The NS score, IMO a normal result, was if anything a result of bad playing and bad matchpointing by the sponser. The misinformation was not a deciding factor. 3. NS could have passed 2C for a good score. It is unimaginable that west would have passed 2C had he remembered. 4. Did east use UI? Hardly. He intended to settle in 2S when he got the ‘bad’ news. When partner passed 2C, he got the bad news. He was given the chance to do so with the overcall and he did it, passing up a potentially juicy penalty. 5. IMO, NS were after something for nothing, first with bad bridge and second via a poor adjudication. The table result should stand and EW should be reminded of their duty to know their agreements. I find it intriguing that neither the director nor the AC could find 6 tricks for EW in a club contract. Just because the contract is not bridge, does not mean that it has to be played just as badly. R Pewick Houston, Tx r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 23 19:27:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:27:11 +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 TAA29189 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:27:04 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-31.innet.be [194.7.10.31]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA27833 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 11:26:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <342679C7.ADFEB9D2@innet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:59:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: COOT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19970922091831.006b9a00@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 04:05 PM 9/20/97 +0200, Jens wrote: > > >Robin Barker wrote > > > >> > North bids 1S. > >> > South bids 2D natural. > >> > East would like his turn! > >> > West does not accept the 2D. > >> > East now doubles. > >> > 2D from South over a double is transfer! > >> > Well? > >> > >> Law 31 speaks only of repeating or not repeating the denomination > >> (not specifying suits, as for example in Law 26). > > > >Read Law 29C! Having read that, I trust that you take back this > >posting. Assuming that, I invite you to join the following appeal to > >all owners of a copy of the 1997 laws: > > > >1. Put an asterisk next to every occurence of "denomination" in laws > >30-32. > > > >2. Write yourself a footnote to remember to consult L29C. > > Sound advice about hand-writing footnotes, but not relevant here. L29C: > "If a call out of rotation is conventional..." Here there was no call out > of rotation which was conventional, so L29C has no bearing. > > My reading is that if South bids 2D, L31A2(a) applies, and it is AI to > North that South intended 2D as natural rather than as a transfer. > > Now let's consider the issues that arise when L29C does apply. > > Even though L29C refers to "Laws 30, 31 and 32", "denomination" appears > only in L31A2, and only in the phrase "repeat(s) the denomination". So > suppose the original 2D BOOT showed hearts. L29C tells us that we must > read L31A2(a) and L31A2(b) as "repeats 'hearts'..." and "does not repeat > 'hearts'..." respectively. Now suppose that, after RHO's call, offender's > methods are such that heart bids are all conventional, and some other > conventional call is used to show hearts. Does L31A2(1) apply when (a) > offender bids hearts, which, presumably, partner may then permissably > interpret as natural even though it's normally conventional, (b) offender > makes a conventional bid that shows hearts, or (c) neither, L31A2(1) never > applies when the BOOT was conventional? > > I'd vote for (b). L29C again: "...shall apply to the denomination > specified, rather than the denomination named." Thus "repeats the > denomination" in L31A2 means "repeats the denomination specified (rather > than the denomination named)", which I interpret to mean "re-specifies > (rather than re-names) the denomination previously specified. > > If you agree, try this: Suppose that after RHO calls, offender no longer > has a bid available to show hearts immediately, but must use a two-step > sequence. He makes the first bid in the two-step sequence (willing to have > it passed out undoubled), and the opponents bid while his partner, > perforce, passes. He is now completes the two-step, thus re-specifying > "the denomination specified" by the original BOOT. May his partner now > come back into the bidding? > I do not think it is this difficult. I suppose the fact that I am going to be obliged to pass (either once or for all time) is AI both for me and for my partner. It therefor follows through normal bridge judgment that any call that partner now makes will per force be 'natural', no matter what the system says about the same call in a situation where I can talk again. So I would always rule that the BOOTer may now bid the 'denomination specified' with a natural meaning. There is a more interesting new problem. What if the BOOT shows two suits ? Since THE denomination cannot be repeated, partner will always be barred for the duration. What if the BOOT does not show any suit ? I also would say that partner is always barred for the duration. Hey, a nice one : Does Stayman show suits ? This can be important for L26 ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 23 19:36:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:36:22 +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 TAA29212 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:35:40 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:33:55 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: INSTANT MATCH Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:35:40 +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 ---- From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > >O>Subject: Instant Matchpoint ruling > >O>A protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint game. >O> >O>West S KQ74 >O> H AQ >O> D T842 >O> C J64 >O> >O>East S T83 >O> H T9763 >O> D AQ9 >O> C A2 >O> >O>North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed >O>again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East bid >O>2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S protested on >O>failure to alert 2C as Drury. >O> >O>The director reverted the auction to 2C, down 200, 99 matchpoints to N-S. >O>E-W protest the director's ruling. How do you sort out the ruling if you are >O>on the committee? E-W acknowledged 2C was Drury and that West forgot it >O>applied to 4th seat openers. >O> >O>The actual committee ruled there were two infractions by E-W. The first was >O>failure to alert the Drury call. The second was East's use of UI when West >O>failed to alert the 2C call. It does seem that the latter infraction was >O>inconsequential, since 2D doubled is E-W's best spot. Nevertheless, the >O>director's ruling was upheld. >O> >O>Your views will be appreciated. > > I presume that EW were advised of the failure to alert before the >opening lead. > >1. The failure to alert was MI and UI. Of course >2. Were NS damaged by the MI? IMO, no. 2C shows a strong hand, >albeit, limited, whether or not it was Drury. To balance on north-s >poor collection is the equivalent of laying one-s neck on the chopping >block, it may be optimal to do so but the odds are heavily against you. >Just because opener claimed [he passed] to have a substandard hand and >forgets Drury does not give NS a risk free overcall. Was north lured >into the auction by the failure to alert? I would not think so. Would >north have definitely passed with the alert? Well, if either yes or no, >he bid into two strong opponents did he not [it would make sense to pass >knowing it was Drury, it makes even better sense to pass if it was not]. > I am inclined to think that it is more likely that north knew about the >Drury agreement AND took his bid BECAUSE 2C was not alerted and if this >is the case I can have no sympathy for north-south. In ten >years I don't recall balancing on such a weak hand against such a strong >auction. The NS score, IMO a normal result, was if anything a result of >bad playing and bad matchpointing by the sponser. The misinformation >was not a deciding factor. Is 2d bid bridge mistake or not? That is difficult question. Some players says that it is good bid, but other says that it is crazy bid. AC must answer to this question, not TD. Playing level of AC have big since. But TD must decide this problem according to Law 84D at favour of the non-offending side. 2c +200 to NS and EW is correct ruling. If AC will decide that 2d is a bad bid, +200 to EW must stand and only NS result changes. N bid 2d and what about E bid 2s? He has UI and must arrive at a decision that haven't more winning LA without UI. Is pass a LA or not? I think 2s is automatically bid with this hand. So, AC must adjust -140 to NS and +200 to EW in this case. IMO (advantage playing level, 3 finals of Russian pair championships at last 5 years), 2d is very aggressive but correct balance bid, not mistake. I would vote to adjust +200 for both sides in AC. >3. NS could have passed 2C for a good score. It is unimaginable that >west would have passed 2C had he remembered. >4. Did east use UI? Hardly. He intended to settle in 2S when he got >the -bad- news. When partner passed 2C, he got the bad news. He was >given the chance to do so with the overcall and he did it, passing up a >potentially juicy penalty. >5. IMO, NS were after something for nothing, first with bad bridge and >second via a poor adjudication. The table result should stand and EW >should be reminded of their duty to know their agreements. > > I find it intriguing that neither the director nor the AC could find >6 tricks for EW in a club contract. Just because the contract is not >bridge, does not mean that it has to be played just as badly. > > > > >R Pewick >Houston, Tx >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > >__ > >___ >* UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 23 22:52:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA29776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:52:14 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA29771 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:52:07 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id GAA23955; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma023761; Tue, 23 Sep 97 06:23:18 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id GAA10907 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 06:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709231314.GAA10907@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 23 Sep 97 08:44:49 GMT Subject: Re: COOT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote >>>My reading is that if South bids 2D, L31A2(a) applies, and it is AI to >>>North that South intended 2D as natural rather than as a transfer. >> >>But isn't the first 2D a "withdrawn action" from which information arising >>is UI (Law 16C2)? Or is your argument that it is not a "withdrawn action" >>because it repeats the level and denomination of the original action? > >Not exactly. The first 2D bid is a "withdrawn action", and North may not >use the information conveyed. But information from the second (re-stated) >2D bid is AI, and that includes the fact that South bid 2D (the second >time) KNOWING THAT NORTH WAS REQUIRED TO PASS. Using this information >only, North can, and is permitted to, "deduce" that South was willing to >play in 2D, making it a "natural" call. So long as we are agreed that the information from the BOOT in unauthorised, I am happy. I think there was an earlier thread on what was authorised information following new Law16C2. Certainly it seems sensible that it is authorised information that when partner makes a bid that one must pass means he actually has the suit. >Information that would not have been available from the circumstances of >the second 2D bid (e.g. the agreed strength shown by the original natural >BOOT) is UI to North. Agreed. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 24 01:24:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:24:53 +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 BAA02828 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:24:45 +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 KAA21380 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:24:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EK9G00I Tue, 23 Sep 97 10:21:58 Message-ID: <9709231021.0EK9G00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 97 10:21:58 Subject: Instant Matchpoint ru To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alexey Gerasimov wrote: O>>O>A protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint O>>O>game. O>>O> O>>O>West S KQ74 O>>O> H AQ O>>O> D T842 O>>O> C J64 O>>O> O>>O>East S T83 O>>O> H T9763 O>>O> D AQ9 O>>O> C A2 O>>O> O>>O>North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed O>>O>again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East O>>O> bid 2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S O>>O> protested on failure to alert 2C as Drury. O>>1. The failure to alert was MI and UI. O> O>Of course O> O>>2. Were NS damaged by the MI? IMO, no. 2C shows a strong hand, O>>albeit, limited, whether or not it was Drury. To balance on north-s O>>poor collection is the equivalent of laying one-s neck on the chopping O>>block, it may be optimal to do so but the odds are heavily against you. O>>Just because opener claimed [he passed] to have a substandard hand and O>>forgets Drury does not give NS a risk free overcall. Was north lured O>>into the auction by the failure to alert? I would not think so. Would O>>north have definitely passed with the alert? Well, if either yes or no, O>>he bid into two strong opponents did he not [it would make sense to pass O>>knowing it was Drury, it makes even better sense to pass if it was not]. O>> I am inclined to think that it is more likely that north knew about the O>>Drury agreement AND took his bid BECAUSE 2C was not alerted and if this O>>is the case I can have no sympathy for north-south. In ten O>>years I don't recall balancing on such a weak hand against such a strong O>>auction. The NS score, IMO a normal result, was if anything a result of O>>bad playing and bad matchpointing by the sponsor. The misinformation O>>was not a deciding factor. O> O>Is 2d bid bridge mistake or not? That is difficult question. Some players O>says that it is good bid, but other says that it is crazy bid. AC must answer O> O>to this question, not TD. Playing level of AC have big since. But TD must O>decide this problem according to Law 84D at favour of the non-offending side. O> O>2c +200 to NS and EW is correct ruling. L84D deals with restoring equity. Is it easy to see the Drury check box on the convention card? Yes. Did EW unlawfully deprive NS of something they were entitled? I do not see connection between MI and damage. Was the result normal? IMO, yes. Did EW save NS from a poorer result? IMO, yes…. Therefore, what equity is there to restore? Aside: Even if 2C is ruled to be the contract, I see normal and careful play yielding 6 tricks not four. O>If AC will decide that 2d is a bad bid, +200 to EW must stand and only O>NS result changes. N bid 2d and what about E bid 2s? He has UI and O>must arrive at a decision that haven't more winning LA without UI. Is O>pass a LA or not? I think 2s is automatically bid with this hand. So, O>AC must adjust -140 to NS and +200 to EW in this case. Just for clarity, I believe that the above section refers to EW +140 and NS +100 [I believe that EW are entitled to 6 tricks at clubs as opposed to four]. [ I still do not see the connection between the MI and damage.] O>IMO (advantage playing level, 3 finals of Russian pair championships O>at last 5 years), 2d is very aggressive but correct balance bid, not O>mistake. I would vote to adjust +200 for both sides in AC. At the Ft Worth Nationals Garozzo bounced in with 2D on a better but similar hand for 1100 against me when I had responded only 1NT, not a strong 2C like this occasion. Garozzo knew the risk of overcalling with lousy cards and he got his neck chopped off. Are there situations I WOULD roll back the auction? Certainly. When the MI could reasonably have talked a non offender into a bad call or out of a good one. For instance, 1S-2C- P-3H*- P-4C**- P-4H- X-P- P- P where the double was explained as preemptive but the agreement was strong [*= long hesitation and slow alert; **= hesitation with pained grimace]. Here the MI and deportment lured opener into a sucker double. In all my years of playing, I have NEVER received equity as a result of the opponent’s MI from the hundred times I have called the director and the thousands of times I did not call. Here I am being told that a very low percentage bid gets a free ride? The 2D bidder knew from the auction that he was likely to run into a buzz saw, that he would likely be limited to one club trick and a couple of diamond tricks plus whatever partner could provide realizing of course that partner’s honors are lying in front of opener. Just because some players may choose to overcall 2D as a normal action does not relieve them of the consequences of egregiously bad bridge. The MI did not sucker the north who IMO was after an unjustified double shot. I can’t come up with a set of EW agreements that would not make the 2D call one of extreme peril to north for which I could indemnify north from the failure to alert. For instance, what if EW’s agreement was 2C= drop dead, that is alertable. Would that not make the 2D call more likely to be profitable. Would north be damaged if he made his 2D call [IMO there are possibilities that south was talked out of a profitable call]? I do not think so. I would more easily find damage if north or south were talked out of a favorable call by the strong sound of 2C. I cannot escape the fact that, whether 2C was Drury or not, it is a strong bid and north chose to overcall knowing this. He made his overcall knowing he was subjecting himself to grave peril and by doing so he was willing to take the consequences. There is not enough distinction between 2C natural and 2C Drury for there to be a connection between the MI and damage. Hence, I let the table result stand. I believe that this is justice as well since west saved north by not doubling. R Pewick Houston, Tx r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 24 15:23:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA05922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:23:45 +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 PAA05915 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:22:40 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:58:23 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Instant Matchpoint ru Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:00:22 +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 Dear Mr. R. Pewick (sorry, don't know your name) ---- From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >Alexey Gerasimov wrote: >O>>O>A protest arose from board 17 of last week's ACBL Instant Matchpoint >O>>O>game. >O>>O> >O>>O>West S KQ74 >O>>O> H AQ >O>>O> D T842 >O>>O> C J64 >O>>O> >O>>O>East S T83 >O>>O> H T9763 >O>>O> D AQ9 >O>>O> C A2 >O>>O> >O>>O>North Dealt, none vul. After three passes, West opened 1S. North passed >O>>O>again and East bid 2C. Pass, pass to North, who balanced with 2D. East >O>>O> bid 2S, passed out, making 3, for 80 matchpoints out of 100. N-S >O>>O> protested on failure to alert 2C as Drury. > >O>>1. The failure to alert was MI and UI. >O> >O>Of course >O> >O>>2. Were NS damaged by the MI? IMO, no. 2C shows a strong hand, >O>>albeit, limited, whether or not it was Drury. To balance on north-s >O>>poor collection is the equivalent of laying one-s neck on the chopping >O>>block, it may be optimal to do so but the odds are heavily against you. >O>>Just because opener claimed [he passed] to have a substandard hand and >O>>forgets Drury does not give NS a risk free overcall. Was north lured >O>>into the auction by the failure to alert? I would not think so. Would >O>>north have definitely passed with the alert? Well, if either yes or no, >O>>he bid into two strong opponents did he not [it would make sense to pass >O>>knowing it was Drury, it makes even better sense to pass if it was not]. >O>> I am inclined to think that it is more likely that north knew about the >O>>Drury agreement AND took his bid BECAUSE 2C was not alerted and if this >O>>is the case I can have no sympathy for north-south. In ten >O>>years I don't recall balancing on such a weak hand against such a strong >O>>auction. The NS score, IMO a normal result, was if anything a result of >O>>bad playing and bad matchpointing by the sponsor. The misinformation >O>>was not a deciding factor. >O> >O>Is 2d bid bridge mistake or not? That is difficult question. Some players >O>says that it is good bid, but other says that it is crazy bid. AC must answer >O> >O>to this question, not TD. Playing level of AC have big since. But TD must >O>decide this problem according to Law 84D at favour of the non-offending side. >O> >O>2c +200 to NS and EW is correct ruling. > >L84D deals with restoring equity. Is it easy to see the Drury check box >on the convention card? Yes. Did EW unlawfully deprive NS of something >they were entitled? I do not see connection between MI and damage. Was >the result normal? IMO, yes. Did EW save NS from a poorer result? >IMO, yes-. Therefore, what equity is there to restore? Question about connection between MI and damage is equivalent to 2 next questions: 1) Is 2d bid less winning after alert (I suppose that N thought that 2c is natural, maximum of first pass)? 2) If 1) is true is 2d stays a bad bridge action? I repeat that AC as a rule must answers this questions and my answers is a player answers. First answer, IMO, yes. I have more comfortabely pass with club KQx if I know that W passed to Drury: I suppose that W have 5+ - 5+ in black suits with weak opening at 4d hand and diamond allocation not good for me potentially. Second answer more difficult for me (see previous message). I don't bid 2d with this card (it is not my style) but I disagree that it is irrational bid. But AC can rule that 2d is a egregious mistake and I am understanding this ruling: this is common opinion of players. > >Aside: Even if 2C is ruled to be the contract, I see normal and careful >play yielding 6 tricks not four. N hand (from David Grabiner message): 965 54 K7653 KQ5. Play: 10c, small, small, Ac. Heart finesse (or spade to Q), diamond finesse to 9 and J (after 2d more probably that N have KJ). Next play is very simple: club to Q, diamond ruff, club to K, diamond ruff, heart to A (or Q). E must play from dummy and have only 1c, 1s and 2h tricks. Is it irrational play? > >O>If AC will decide that 2d is a bad bid, +200 to EW must stand and only >O>NS result changes. N bid 2d and what about E bid 2s? He has UI and >O>must arrive at a decision that haven't more winning LA without UI. Is >O>pass a LA or not? I think 2s is automatically bid with this hand. So, >O>AC must adjust -140 to NS and +200 to EW in this case. > >Just for clarity, I believe that the above section refers to EW +140 and >NS +100 [I believe that EW are entitled to 6 tricks at clubs as opposed >to four]. [ I still do not see the connection between the MI and damage.] See above. > >O>IMO (advantage playing level, 3 finals of Russian pair championships >O>at last 5 years), 2d is very aggressive but correct balance bid, not >O>mistake. I would vote to adjust +200 for both sides in AC. > > At the Ft Worth Nationals Garozzo bounced in with 2D on a better but >similar hand for 1100 against me when I had responded only 1NT, not a >strong 2C like this occasion. Garozzo knew the risk of overcalling with >lousy cards and he got his neck chopped off. Are there situations I >WOULD roll back the auction? Certainly. When the MI could reasonably >have talked a non offender into a bad call or out of a good one. For >instance, 1S-2C- P-3H*- P-4C**- P-4H- X-P- P- P where the double was >explained as preemptive but the agreement was strong [*= long hesitation >and slow alert; **= hesitation with pained grimace]. Here the MI and >deportment lured opener into a sucker double. > >In all my years of playing, I have NEVER received equity as a result of >the opponent-s MI from the hundred times I have called the director and >the thousands of times I did not call. Here I am being told that a very >low percentage bid gets a free ride? The 2D bidder knew from the >auction that he was likely to run into a buzz saw, that he would likely >be limited to one club trick and a couple of diamond tricks plus >whatever partner could provide realizing of course that partner-s honors >are lying in front of opener. Just because some players may choose to >overcall 2D as a normal action does not relieve them of the consequences >of egregiously bad bridge. The MI did not sucker the north who IMO was >after an unjustified double shot. I can-t come up with a set of EW >agreements that would not make the 2D call one of extreme peril to north >for which I could indemnify north from the failure to alert. > > For instance, what if EW-s agreement was 2C= drop dead, that is >alertable. Would that not make the 2D call more likely to be >profitable. Would north be damaged if he made his 2D call [IMO there >are possibilities that south was talked out of a profitable call]? I do >not think so. I would more easily find damage if north or south were >talked out of a favorable call by the strong sound of 2C. > >I cannot escape the fact that, whether 2C was Drury or not, it is a >strong bid and north chose to overcall knowing this. He made his >overcall knowing he was subjecting himself to grave peril and by doing >so he was willing to take the consequences. There is not enough >distinction between 2C natural and 2C Drury for there to be a connection >between the MI and damage. Hence, I let the table result stand. I >believe that this is justice as well since west saved north by not doubling. > > > >R Pewick >Houston, Tx >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >___ >* UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 24 21:09:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 21:09:14 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA06718 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 21:08:53 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:08:08 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 12:08:07 BST Message-Id: <24718.9709241108@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law71C was Re: Contested claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another go at trying to understand Law 71C (1997), which I have reproduced below. Example 2 card ending, W on lead, everyone has diamonds. x x K x x x A Q South (declarer) shows DA and claims one more trick (thinking East is on lead perhaps). EW acquiese (thinking declarer does not have DQ). The board is scored, round is called, players move, NS play their next board. Now North asks South what his hand was when he claimed and then NS ask the director to cancel the concession. The TD gets the same facts from both pairs and reads the preamble to L71 and the first sentence of L71C. The TD considers it not normal to win a small diamond return from West with DA and therefore cancels the concession. Last two tricks to NS. Is this right? What is the rest of L71C for? Under 1987 laws we would use (what is now) L71A and since it is legal to win a small diamond return from West with DA we would not cancel. Robin **** LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession: A. Trick Cannot Be Lost if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. B. Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, or a defender has conceded fulfilment of a contract his side had already defeated. C. Implausible Concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. **** Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 24 23:11:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:11:45 +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 XAA07153 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:11:38 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1127180; 24 Sep 97 13:37 BST Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:36:50 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim To: Robin Barker Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <24718.9709241108@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-Mailer: ANT RISCOS Marcel [ver 1.26] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed 24 Sep, Robin Barker wrote: > Another go at trying to understand Law 71C (1997), which I have reproduced below. > > Example 2 card ending, W on lead, everyone has diamonds. > > x x > K x x x > A Q > > South (declarer) shows DA and claims one more trick (thinking East is on lead > perhaps). EW acquiese (thinking declarer does not have DQ). > > The board is scored, round is called, players move, NS play their next board. > Now North asks South what his hand was when he claimed and then NS ask the > director to cancel the concession. > > The TD gets the same facts from both pairs and reads the preamble to L71 > and the first sentence of L71C. The TD considers it not normal to win a small > diamond return from West with DA and therefore cancels the concession. > Last two tricks to NS. > > Is this right? What is the rest of L71C for? > > Under 1987 laws we would use (what is now) L71A and since it is legal > to win a small diamond return from West with DA we would not cancel. > Swings and rounabouts. IMHO L71C applies, so you win back your conceeded trick as in normal play you would not have lost it. Then of course you lose it again because you left things too late to change. This does leave one wondering why under L71A,B you have lots of time (L79C) but in this case under L71C you have to be quick. Martin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 24 23:25:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:25:54 +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 XAA07228 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:25:48 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA12532 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970924092643.006bfae0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:26:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: COOT In-Reply-To: <342679C7.ADFEB9D2@innet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19970922091831.006b9a00@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:59 PM 9/22/97 +0200, Herman wrote: >What if the BOOT shows two suits ? Since THE denomination cannot be >repeated, partner will always be barred for the duration. Interesting question. My initial reaction is that we shouldn't put too much weight on the fact that the language of L31 is cast in the singular. I'd be inclined to interpret L31A2(a) as applying when the BOOT showed two specific suits and the subsequent legal bid showed the same two suits. Not being able to decide definitively from the language, I think this gets to the intent. >What if the BOOT does not show any suit ? I also would say that partner >is always barred for the duration. I agree. I'm willing to let "the denomination" refer to something like "hearts and spades", but it's got to refer to something before L31A2(a) can possibly apply. >Hey, a nice one : >Does Stayman show suits ? This can be important for L26 ? No. Stayman is an asking bid; it doesn't really "show" anything. I suppose that as some people play it, it does "show" either hearts or spades, but that's the best case; even then, albeit I'm willing to allow "hearts and spades" as "the denomination", or, similarly, as "that suit" in L26, "hearts or spades" is a whole different kettle of fish, and doesn't qualify as a suit (or suits) having been "specified". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 24 23:34:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:34:54 +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 XAA07272 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:34:48 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA18590 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970924093546.0068b8c4@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:35:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: INSTANT MATCH In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:35 PM 9/23/97 +0400, Alexey wrote: >Is 2d bid bridge mistake or not? That is difficult question. Some players >says that it is good bid, but other says that it is crazy bid. AC must answer > >to this question, not TD. Playing level of AC have big since. But TD must >decide this problem according to Law 84D at favour of the non-offending side. Be careful here. Even if you accept the Kaplan doctrine, which is not Law, but interpretation -- and if you don't choose to accept it, the merit of the 2D call has no relevance at all -- for its merit (or lack thereof) to be relevant to the ruling, the bid must be more than just a "bridge mistake". It must be not merely a bad bid, but an "egregious error", i.e. a ridiculously bad bid. So bad, according to some, that most of the bidder's peers would NOT consider it a "logical alternative" were that the issue. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 01:47:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:47:12 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA10027 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:46:56 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:46:18 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 16:46:16 BST Message-Id: <24786.9709241546@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl, martin.pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk, Mlfrench@aol.com Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl Wed Sep 24 16:27:34 1997 remote from > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > In my opinion because of law 71C it is too late to correct. This also is > bridge. South could even play his Ace in trick nr. 12 and then ? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From martin.pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk Wed Sep 24 14:11:34 1997 remote from > Swings and rounabouts. > > IMHO L71C applies, so you win back your conceeded trick as in normal > play you would not have lost it. Then of course you lose it again because > you left things too late to change. > > This does leave one wondering why under L71A,B you have lots of time (L79C) > but in this case under L71C you have to be quick. > > Martin > From Mlfrench@aol.com Wed Sep 24 16:36:30 1997 remote from > > Robin, > > 71C says it's too late to change if the trick COULD be lost by a silly play. > I don't see why you have any question on this. Is there something I'm not > interpreting correctly? From here it looks elementary. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) > Thanks for the replies. It is all a question of when L71C can be applied. Martin and Evert think it is too late after the end of the round. Marv does not address this point (so -- understandably -- asks WTP). Following the form of other laws, the preamble to L71 "A concession must stand ..." applies to all the parts. In particular it applies to the first sentence of L71C "if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." As this sentence of L71C is not qualified in any other way, I can (perhaps perversely) interpret this sentence to mean that: a trick conceded which can only be lost by play which is not normal can be corrected within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. Perhaps no one else sees it like that. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 02:58:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:58:31 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10589 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:58:24 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id KAA26632; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma026595; Wed, 24 Sep 97 10:30:13 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id KAA17453 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709241720.KAA17453@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 14:16:45 GMT Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker said (and I have omitted his repetition of Law71) >Another go at trying to understand Law 71C (1997), which I have reproduced below. > >Example 2 card ending, W on lead, everyone has diamonds. > > x x >K x x x > A Q > >South (declarer) shows DA and claims one more trick (thinking East is on lead >perhaps). EW acquiese (thinking declarer does not have DQ). > >The board is scored, round is called, players move, NS play their next board. >Now North asks South what his hand was when he claimed and then NS ask the >director to cancel the concession. > >The TD gets the same facts from both pairs and reads the preamble to L71 >and the first sentence of L71C. The TD considers it not normal to win a small >diamond return from West with DA and therefore cancels the concession. >Last two tricks to NS. > >Is this right? What is the rest of L71C for? As far as I can see you are right and "the rest of L71C" (i.e. the final sentence) serves no purpose. Given that this is the case it would perhaps have been more natural to bring L71C into L71A, since L71A's "or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards" now seems superfluous in the light of L71C. Some BLML readers may be able to explain either: (i) where we are wrong, or (ii) what the drafting committee were trying to do. To me it does seem that the new L71 is rather longer than it need be, and indeed rather misleading in part. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 03:54:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:54:03 +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 DAA11370 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:53:55 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29646; 24 Sep 97 10:53 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:46:16 PDT." <24786.9709241546@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:53:18 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9709241053.aa29646@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Following the form of other laws, the preamble to L71 "A concession must > stand ..." applies to all the parts. In particular it applies to the > first sentence of L71C "if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be > lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." As this sentence of > L71C is not qualified in any other way, I can (perhaps perversely) > interpret this sentence to mean that: > a trick conceded which can only be lost by play which is not > normal can be corrected within the correction period established > in accordance with Law 79C. > > Perhaps no one else sees it like that. Well, I sure don't. The form of Law 71 in the 1997 laws is not the best, and I don't know why they changed it (the form of L71 in the 1987 laws was better). Still, the intention of the authors is clear, that implausible concessions can't be canceled after the end of the round or after the conceding side calls on the next board. There's no way to argue reasonably that the faulty form of the Law indicates that the authors intended something different. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 06:12:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 06:12:52 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11941 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 06:12:45 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id NAA11448; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma011295; Wed, 24 Sep 97 13:44:23 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id NAA17512 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709242035.NAA17512@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 15:34:06 GMT Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Second thoughts. >Robin Barker said (and I have omitted his repetition of Law71) > >>Another go at trying to understand Law 71C (1997), which I have reproduced below. >> >>Example 2 card ending, W on lead, everyone has diamonds. >> >> x x >>K x x x >> A Q >> >>South (declarer) shows DA and claims one more trick (thinking East is on lead >>perhaps). EW acquiese (thinking declarer does not have DQ). >> >>The board is scored, round is called, players move, NS play their next board. >>Now North asks South what his hand was when he claimed and then NS ask the >>director to cancel the concession. >> >>The TD gets the same facts from both pairs and reads the preamble to L71 >>and the first sentence of L71C. The TD considers it not normal to win a small >>diamond return from West with DA and therefore cancels the concession. >>Last two tricks to NS. >> >>Is this right? What is the rest of L71C for? > >As far as I can see you are right and "the rest of L71C" (i.e. the final sentence) serves no purpose. Given that this >is the case it would perhaps have been more natural to bring L71C into L71A, since L71A's "or a trick his >side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards" now seems superfluous in the light of L71C. I now think that they can't possibly have meant such a drastic change. Thus, however strange it may seem, the sentence which follows the fragment which starts L71C qualifies it. Thus even if the condition set out in the L71C fragment is satisfied, the additional test referred to the in the sentence which follows the fragment also has to be satisfied before the TD cancels the concession. If my previous para is correct, then the 1997 change has done nothing to L71 except, to me at least, make it less clear. >Some BLML readers may be able to explain either: (i) where we are wrong, or (ii) what the drafting committee were >trying to do. To me it does seem that the new L71 is rather longer than it need be, and indeed rather misleading in >part. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 07:42:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:42:28 +1000 Received: from emin16.mail.aol.com (emout31.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA12239 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:42:22 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emin16.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA10711 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970924171325_1856362248@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen Barnfield writes: < As far as I can see you are right and "the rest of L71C" (i.e. the final sentence) serves no purpose. Given that this is the case it would perhaps have been more natural to bring L71C into L71A, since L71A's "or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards" now seems superfluous in the light of L71C. Some BLML readers may be able to explain either: (i) where we are wrong, or (ii) what the drafting committee were trying to do. To me it does seem that the new L71 is rather longer than it need be, and indeed rather misleading in part.< What is the problem here? 71A covers illegal plays and false statements, 71B contract concessions, and 71C implausible trick concessions. These are separate subjects, why should they be combined? 71C starts off with a sentence fragment that is obviously a false start, the writer started over, somebody goofed. Cross it out, it means nothing, it's not even a sentence. The remainder of 71C states than an implausible concession cannot be corrected after the conceding side makes a call on the next board or after the round has ended. Isn't that clear? The concession did not require an illegal play, so 71A does not apply. The claim was implausible, 71C applies, the claim came too late, the concession stands. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 16:37:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:37:33 +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 QAA13387 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:36:36 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:34:31 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Law 69B (What is "normal play") Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:32:40 +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 My discussion with R.Perwick and E. Landau reminded me next problem: Final of Russia team Championship 6 AQJ2 E,EW KJT653 - 863 63 754 A2 Q98 9862 KQJT3 AKQ72 54 KT98 74 A754 JT9 N E S W - pass pass 1c 1h 1nt pass pass Dbl pass... Four round of spades finished by S, W discard diamond and club from dummy and club from himself. 4d, 8d, discard heart. Declarer show cards and say "Play diamond while A not get a trick. 8 tricks", +380 Defenders put cards to box without any words to declarer or counting a tricks. The next deal started, W made his first call establishing asquiescence according to L69A. After that EW called a TD with a claim to one more trick (duck next diamond round). L69B required here include conception "normal play". Is the play Ad at next trick a "normal play" for advanced player (but not expert) in this case or it is irrationall? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 18:40:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:40:17 +1000 Received: from apm12.star.net.il. (apm12.star.net.il [195.8.194.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA13615 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:40:11 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-180.star.net.il [195.8.208.180]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22771; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:38:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <342A2346.B5498083@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:39:35 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Gerasimov CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 69B (What is "normal play") References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alexey Read please the footnote to theese laws : ..."for purposes of Laws 69,70,71 "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational " ... In this case even if Chaagas sitting south - he may play inferior to his level and mistakenly cache A imediately - the fact is that he even thought .......... I should like to know what is Litvak's opinion Friendly Dany Alexey Gerasimov wrote: > My discussion with R.Perwick and E. Landau reminded me next problem: > > Final of Russia team Championship > > 6 AQJ2 > E,EW KJT653 > - > 863 > 63 754 > A2 Q98 > 9862 KQJT3 > AKQ72 54 > KT98 > 74 > A754 > JT9 > > N E S W > - pass pass 1c > 1h 1nt pass pass > Dbl pass... > > Four round of spades finished by S, W discard diamond and club from dummy and > club from himself. 4d, 8d, discard heart. Declarer show cards and say "Play > diamond while A not get a trick. 8 tricks", +380 > > Defenders put cards to box without any words to declarer or counting a > tricks. The next deal started, W made his first call establishing > asquiescence according to L69A. After that EW called a TD with a claim to one > more trick (duck next diamond round). > > L69B required here include conception "normal play". Is the play Ad at next > trick a "normal play" for advanced player (but not expert) in this case or it > is irrationall? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 19:23:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 19:23:15 +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 TAA13694 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 19:22:04 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:19:26 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Law 69B (What is "normal play") Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:21:55 +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 The part of my first message >Defenders put cards to box without any words to declarer or counting a >tricks. The next deal started, W made his first call establishing >asquiescence according to L69A. After that EW called a TD with a claim >to one more trick (duck next diamond round). Sorry! N made his first call of course, and NS called a TD!!! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 20:10:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:10:24 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA13832 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:10:13 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:28:28 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 97 09:28:26 BST Message-Id: <24863.9709250828@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Mlfrench@aol.com Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 71C starts off with a sentence fragment that is obviously a false start, the > writer started over, somebody goofed. Cross it out, it means nothing, it's > not even a sentence. The remainder of 71C states than an implausible > concession cannot be corrected after the conceding side makes a call on the > next board or after the round has ended. Isn't that clear? > This is fine, especially is EBU, EBF, WBF can tell me to cross out the first sentence fragment. But L71 was deliberately rearranged 1987->1997, moving the preamble text to before part A, and adding the sentence fragment: these were the only changes. What was the point, if only to have the text before part A apply to the sentence fragment at the start of part C? Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 20:27:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:27:36 +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 UAA13912 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:23:34 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:21:34 +0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: Subject: Re: Law 69B (What is "normal play") Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:23:58 +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 Dany! ---- From: Dany Haimovici Subject: Re: Law 69B (What is "normal play") >Alexey > >Read please the footnote to theese laws : >..."for purposes of Laws 69,70,71 "normal" includes play that would be careless >or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational " ... I read this define of course. > >In this case even if Chaagas sitting south - he may play inferior >to his level and mistakenly cache A imediately - the fact is >that he even thought .......... > Bridge is a play for thinking peoples. IMO, TD must suppose ALWAYS that player would be think. This thinks may be bad, wrong, but they must be. If TD allowed that this thinks can have mistake - he ruling based on this possibility. "Class of player" from define of normal play maked no sence otherwise. I think that this situation more difficult than you think. It is my understanding of "normal play" and my question is more than result of this deal. "Normal play" is difficult concept for TD. What is understandings of BLML members about it? >I should like to know what is Litvak's opinion Wait... > >Friendly >Dany > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 21:12:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:12:20 +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 VAA13997 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:12:12 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-239.innet.be [194.7.10.239]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA24571 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:12:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <342A466B.EDD5D566@innet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:09:31 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: 31st october X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My bridge club wants to do something special on the last friday of each month. I want to do something special on the 31st of october, which is the date that the Finland reached the Panama Canal in 1925. I consider that the birthday of Contract Bridge and I think it should be celebrated. This year, 31/10 is a friday. I'm thinking of organizing a Simultaneous tournament on that evening. Care to join me ? I'm thinking of the following : I let a program deal some, say 32, deals. I e-mail you these. I also make a file that the Jannersten duplicator can read - so we can have machine duplication if you can reach such a machine. You play in your club (your regular movement) and calculate your tournament. On saturday you e-mail me the results for all the boards. I put them into my program and I recalculate all boards. I mail complete frequencies and a total ranking. No prizes - just honour. Who'll join me ? I'll await your suggestions or comments on a name for this tournament as well. Some suggestions : Balboa Panama Finland Vanderbilt Internet blml -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 21:44:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:44:05 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (root@sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA14063 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:43:55 +1000 Received: from default (client8437.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.55]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA20886; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:47:49 +0100 Message-Id: <199709251147.MAA20886@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:55:13 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : 1. Nothing sets aside the supremacy of the laws. 2. Regulations must be made under the authority of the laws. 3. The WBF Systems Policy is a set of regulations and it is based for its authority upon Law 40, and in relation to the subject of ultra-weak openings on Law 40D. 4. It is the intention of the WBF Laws Committee that 40D shall give authority to Zones, and those to whom they delegate it, to make regulations in relation to partnership understandings that allow of ultra-weak openings (such as Herman's) if they so wish. The European Bridge League has delegated the authority, as I understand, to NBOs. 5. Note that the words used in 40A, 40B, and 40D are 'partnership understandings'. 6. In his desperation to defend the indefensible Herman makes a silly statement that 'systems policy is not a matter for the laws'. The laws provide the authority on which the policy may be laid. No need to labour this. 7. Whether Herman is allowed to continue with his method is a matter for the regulating authority where he is playing. If he and his partner both understand that he will make the kind of bid he is seeking to put outside of the scope of regulation it constitutes an agreement. > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card > Date: 21 September 1997 11:46 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > Herman quite clearly has an arrangement with partner, \\snip// > > Herman then wrote: > > This is without question a partnership understanding to be disclosed > > and as such it is subject to regulation under 40D - also as a > > convention if the named suit may not be present. > \\snip//> > > Could we add that the disclosure of any partnership practice in > > the auction or play is required so that opponents may be in > > an informed position to cater for it, however rarely it is said to happen; > > infrequency is not an excuse for failing to disclose what > > opponents are fully entitled to know, and disclosure announces > > systemic understanding. > > And this is where I start to differ in opinion. > > Systems policy is not a matter for the Laws. L40 offers certain > organisations the right to make up supplementary regulations. \\snip// > I'm reading the World Bridge News (official WBF publication) of march > 1996 and I read the report on WBF Systems Policy. The Belgian > regulations are a near complete translation of that document. > > I read the definition of a HUM : > > Now I notice a discrepance between L40 and this regulation : > > In L40, the words "partnership understanding" are used. > In the regulation, they speak of "partnership agreement". > \\snip// > I fail to see that the understanding that I might break an agreement > MUST in itself be an agreement. > \\snip// > Several posters have told me they think I should be allowed to continue > to psych (or call it bid) in this manner. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 21:48:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:48:48 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (root@sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA14060 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:43:33 +1000 Received: from default (client8437.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.55]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA20889; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:47:52 +0100 Message-Id: <199709251147.MAA20889@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Double chance? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:15:15 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : In drafting wording for Law 12C3 the WBF Laws Committee intended to give to Zonal Authorities power to decide whether or no within their zones an AC shall have extended powers beyond those of TDs to enable it to produce equity if it does not believe the TD's adjustment does so. In doing so the AC is NOT bound by the terms of Law 12C2. There was a conscious decision that did not extend these powers to TDs. Some Zones did not believe it desirable to do so when the matter was first discussed in settling the footnote in the 1987 laws and in 1997 it was thought right to leave the power to be given to ACs if the Zone wished, but not to TDs. > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Double chance? > Date: 17 September 1997 12:31 > > Herman DE WAEL said: > > >However, the suggestion to give some percentage of grand and small is > >out of the question. Either the grand is a probable result or it isn't. > >If it is, NS are entitled to that result. and S. Barnfield: > > I agree the TD could not have given a split score. I think the AC could, > however. Surely this is a case where the AC may, under, Law 12C3, vary the > assigned adjusted score to restore equity? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 25 21:54:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:54:57 +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 VAA14121 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:54:31 +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 PAA19546 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:50:27 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199709251150.PAA19546@adm.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Law 69B (What is "normal play") Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:47:41 +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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- Alexey Gerasimov wrote: > My discussion with R.Perwick and E. Landau reminded me next problem: > > Final of Russia team Championship > > 6 AQJ2 > E,EW KJT653 > - > 863 > 63 754 > A2 Q98 > 9862 KQJT3 > AKQ72 54 > KT98 > 74 > A754 > JT9 > > N E S W > - pass pass 1c > 1h 1nt pass pass > Dbl pass... > > Four round of spades finished by S, W discard diamond and club from dummy and > club from himself. 4d, 8d, discard heart. Declarer show cards and say "Play > diamond while A not get a trick. 8 tricks", +380 > > Defenders put cards to box without any words to declarer or counting a > tricks. The next deal started, S made his first call establishing > asquiescence according to L69A. After that NS called a TD with a claim to one > more trick (duck next diamond round). >>(Corrected by Alexey)<< > L69B required here include conception "normal play". Is the play Ad at next > trick a "normal play" for advanced player (but not expert) in this case or it > is irrationall? L69B says that nomal play includes "careless or inferrior play but not irrational". Not ducking is careless on my opinion to player at any level so TD don't need to change the result. Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 26 02:14:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 02:14:37 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17765 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 02:14:30 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-195.innet.be [194.7.10.195]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA26995 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:14:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <342A86CF.2FF192B8@innet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:44:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Double chance? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199709251147.MAA20889@sand.global.net.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > gester@globalnet.co.uk > Grattan Endicott > Liverpool L18 8DJ : > In drafting wording for Law 12C3 the WBF Laws > Committee intended to give to Zonal Authorities power > to decide whether or no within their zones an AC shall > have extended powers beyond those of TDs to enable it > to produce equity if it does not believe the TD's adjustment > does so. In doing so the AC is NOT bound by the terms > of Law 12C2. > There was a conscious decision that did not extend > these powers to TDs. Some Zones did not believe it > desirable to do so when the matter was first discussed > in settling the footnote in the 1987 laws and in 1997 it was > thought right to leave the power to be given to ACs if > the Zone wished, but not to TDs. > Now does all this not imply that the WBF thinks that AC's can produce better (more equitable) results than L12C2 imposes. If these results are indeed better, then why let a complete continent struggle with worse scores. Why indeed not let the option open to everyone, including directors ? Why not give guidelines as to how these more equitable scores are to be obtained ? Why Oh Why ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 26 07:25:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:25:59 +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 HAA18914 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:25:52 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0519993; 25 Sep 97 21:16 BST Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:57:36 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim To: Robin Barker Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <24863.9709250828@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-Mailer: ANT RISCOS Marcel [ver 1.26] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu 25 Sep, Robin Barker wrote: > > 71C starts off with a sentence fragment that is obviously a false start, the > > writer started over, somebody goofed. Cross it out, it means nothing, it's > > not even a sentence. The remainder of 71C states than an implausible > > concession cannot be corrected after the conceding side makes a call on the > > next board or after the round has ended. Isn't that clear? > > > > This is fine, especially is EBU, EBF, WBF can tell me to cross out the first > sentence fragment. > > But L71 was deliberately rearranged 1987->1997, moving the preamble text to > before part A, and adding the sentence fragment: these were the only changes. > What was the point, if only to have the text before part A apply to the > sentence fragment at the start of part C? I don't know the point. Perhaps we should ask whoever wrote it. However I guess that the beginning of new L71C is intended to be consistant with the beginnings of L71A/B. In applying the law: if A,B or C apply then the preamble is actioned. Martin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 26 21:54:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:54:58 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (root@sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA21043 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 21:54:46 +1000 Received: from default (client85e5.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.229]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA15861; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:59:09 +0100 Message-Id: <199709261159.MAA15861@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Curtis A. Hastings" Subject: Psyche mentioned on CC Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:53:50 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : Psychic calls - further opinion. ------------------------------------- This relates to an opinion expressed in correspondence with Curtis A. Hastings 15 Sep 1997. To my own astonishment I have extended my opinion on the announcement of psyches to embrace recognition that Law 40 would allow Zonal Organizations and their licensees to establish a regulation to read something like this:- "A partnership which has an understanding explicitly or implicitly agreed that in the auction they may breach their announced methods from time to time by making a call that grossly misstates honour strength or suit length shall give plain notice of this on its convention cards. No alert or other disclosure is appropriate in respect of such agreement but it shall be a condition of the use of such calls that a player shall make no allowance in the auction for the possibility of a psychic call by his/her partner until the auction allows of no other reasonable explanation (as, for example, that an opponent may have psyched) for a distortion or discrepancy that is apparent to him/her." - - - Such a regulation would return players legally to the practice which many advocate and which may be prevalent in some bridge cultures; in its absence the general regulation of systems and disclosure would usually deny permission to have such an understanding. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 26 22:24:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:24:37 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (root@sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA21200 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:24:30 +1000 Received: from default (client87a2.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.162]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA17386; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:28:56 +0100 Message-Id: <199709261228.NAA17386@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Double chance? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:25:19 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : Herman, you do not allow for the difficulties in a negotiation of universal laws between representatives of widely differing bridge cultures. Ton Kooijman and I argue first to have the scope for ACs to do this and not be bound in hoops of steel, secondly to extend greater discretion to Tournament Directors in the European mould. But our liberal and progressive attitudes (as we would say!) do not persuade everyone at the table and a wider consensus is still needed to achieve it in the book of world-wide law. The 'why, oh why?' question is bound up with compromise and concession amongst the range of attitudes around the table. > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Double chance? > Date: 25 September 1997 16:44 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > gester@globalnet.co.uk > > Grattan Endicott > > Liverpool L18 8DJ : > > In drafting wording for Law 12C3 the WBF Laws > > Committee intended to give to Zonal Authorities power > > to decide whether or no within their zones an AC shall > > have extended powers beyond those of TDs \\SNIP// Herman De Wael responded: > If these results are indeed better, then why let a complete continent > struggle with worse scores. > Why indeed not let the option open to everyone, including directors ? > Why not give guidelines as to how these more equitable scores are to be > obtained ? > > Why Oh Why ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 27 00:20:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:20:29 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23846 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:20:23 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA15642 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:20:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970926102135.006bcbe0@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:21:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <199709251147.MAA20886@sand.global.net.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:55 PM 9/21/97 +0100, Grattan wrote: >1. Nothing sets aside the supremacy of the laws. >2. Regulations must be made under the authority of the laws. >3. The WBF Systems Policy is a set of regulations and it is >based for its authority upon Law 40, and in relation to the >subject of ultra-weak openings on Law 40D. >4. It is the intention of the WBF Laws Committee that >40D shall give authority to Zones, and those to whom they >delegate it, to make regulations in relation to partnership >understandings that allow of ultra-weak openings (such as >Herman's) if they so wish. The European Bridge League >has delegated the authority, as I understand, to NBOs. >5. Note that the words used in 40A, 40B, and 40D are >'partnership understandings'. The heart of the debate is what the authors of L40 intended by those words. The traditional and straightforward common-sense interpretation of L40A is that the phrase "provided that such a call or play is not based on a partnership understanding" can be read as "provided partner cannot be expected to understand the meaning of the call or play". The ACBL, with which Grattan seems to be in agreement, takes a rather less straightforward view, justifying it with a legalistic (and, IMO, somewhat sophistic) series of interpretations that goes something like this: (1) The key is in the language of the parenthesized clause of L75B, which says in part that "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements". (2) What consitutes "habitual" is not specified, and thus falls under the purview of the SO. (3) When a player psychs, he creates an expectation on his partner's part that he may psych again. (4) Since his action was sufficient to create such an expectation, it qualifies as a "habitual violation [which] may create [an] implicit agreement". (5) Since the implicit agreement thus created "permit[s] initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength" it is subject to the SO's power to regulate under L40D, and is not subject to L40A because it doesn't meet the requirement that "such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding". Therefore, it is within the power of the SO to make a regulation limiting the number of psychs a partnership is permitted to one per lifetime, regardless of whether the outlawed second psych is or isn't one which the psycher's partner can be expected to understand. To believe that this is what the authors of L40 intended strikes me as rather a bit of a stretch. 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 Sep 27 03:42:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 03:42:28 +1000 Received: from borg.star.net.il (borg.star.net.il [195.8.195.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA24886 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 03:42:17 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-176.star.net.il [195.8.208.176]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA26602; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:41:46 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <342BF41C.2D1F8964@star.net.il> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:42:52 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card References: <3.0.1.32.19970926102135.006bcbe0@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good evening all I met some situations where top level player "psyched" (by "top player " I mean people knowing exactly what they do , not novices which try to "steel" some strength or length....). My way to deal with , when called after the board was finished was : a) took the "crazy" 's partner away from table. b) asked him if partner "committed the crime" sometime ago. c) what was his hand , if he committed it . I always got sincere answers ( only once , 7 years ago someone who answered a lie and was very unlucky because I remembered a former case with that "famous" pair and proved his "bad conduct" , was out of tourneys for a whole year ). If the second time the "psych" was with a hand total similar to the first , I checked for adjusted score ( many times , at top level against novices the psycher lost ....). My proposal is : "If a psyche call was the second time in life with same partner , and hands were similar (doesn't matter if done with Heart or Spade or NT , but the same meaning,) check for adjusted score and put the pairs' conduct as "CPU"......." I should like to know forum's opinion about the way to deal with this cases , described in the flow-chart above and the proposal for this kind of CPU. Cordially Dany Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:55 PM 9/21/97 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > >1. Nothing sets aside the supremacy of the laws. > >2. Regulations must be made under the authority of the laws. > >3. The WBF Systems Policy is a set of regulations and it is > >based for its authority upon Law 40, and in relation to the > >subject of ultra-weak openings on Law 40D. > >4. It is the intention of the WBF Laws Committee that > >40D shall give authority to Zones, and those to whom they > >delegate it, to make regulations in relation to partnership > >understandings that allow of ultra-weak openings (such as > >Herman's) if they so wish. The European Bridge League > >has delegated the authority, as I understand, to NBOs. > >5. Note that the words used in 40A, 40B, and 40D are > >'partnership understandings'. > > The heart of the debate is what the authors of L40 intended by those words. > The traditional and straightforward common-sense interpretation of L40A is > that the phrase "provided that such a call or play is not based on a > partnership understanding" can be read as "provided partner cannot be > expected to understand the meaning of the call or play". > > The ACBL, with which Grattan seems to be in agreement, takes a rather less > straightforward view, justifying it with a legalistic (and, IMO, somewhat > sophistic) series of interpretations that goes something like this: > > (1) The key is in the language of the parenthesized clause of L75B, which > says in part that "habitual violations within a partnership may create > implicit agreements". > > (2) What consitutes "habitual" is not specified, and thus falls under the > purview of the SO. > > (3) When a player psychs, he creates an expectation on his partner's part > that he may psych again. > > (4) Since his action was sufficient to create such an expectation, it > qualifies as a "habitual violation [which] may create [an] implicit > agreement". > > (5) Since the implicit agreement thus created "permit[s] initial actions at > the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average > strength" it is subject to the SO's power to regulate under L40D, and is > not subject to L40A because it doesn't meet the requirement that "such call > or play is not based on a partnership understanding". > > Therefore, it is within the power of the SO to make a regulation limiting > the number of psychs a partnership is permitted to one per lifetime, > regardless of whether the outlawed second psych is or isn't one which the > psycher's partner can be expected to understand. > > To believe that this is what the authors of L40 intended strikes me as > rather a bit of a stretch. > > 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 Sep 27 04:41:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 04:41:30 +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 EAA25099 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 04:41:23 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24178 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:41:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <342BF41C.2D1F8964@star.net.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Dany Haimovici wrote: > Good evening all > > I met some situations where top level player "psyched" > (by "top player " I mean people knowing exactly what they do , > not novices which try to "steel" some strength or length....). > > My way to deal with , when called after the board was finished was : > a) took the "crazy" 's partner away from table. > b) asked him if partner "committed the crime" sometime ago. > c) what was his hand , if he committed it . > > I always got sincere answers ( only once , 7 years ago someone > who answered a lie and was very unlucky because I remembered > a former case with that "famous" pair and proved his > "bad conduct" , was out of tourneys for a whole year ). > > If the second time the "psych" was with a hand total similar > to the first , I checked for adjusted score ( many times , at top > level against novices the psycher lost ....). > > My proposal is : > "If a psyche call was the second time in life with same partner , > and hands were similar (doesn't matter if done with Heart or > Spade or NT , but the same meaning,) check for adjusted score > and put the pairs' conduct as "CPU"......." > > I should like to know forum's opinion about the way to deal > with this cases , described in the flow-chart above and > the proposal for this kind of CPU. I think there is a considerable difference between knowing that partner might psych with a certain type of hand and knowing that _if_ partner has psyched, he probably has hand type X. Three times in the last three years, my most regular partner has psyched opposite me (or at least, three times that I have noticed :-) ) Each time he has been in third seat, not vulnerable against vulnerable, and has opened a 3-card major suit on a balanced 10 or 11 count playing a 4-card major system. Twice he got away with it even though I promptly raised him to four. The third time it did not matter, but I did not catch the psych until somebody produced one too many cards in that suit. I think he should be allowed to do it again. I will never allow for it, even though I have done the same thing myself (not in the same partnership). It does not happen often--we play together over a hundred times a year--and it will always take me by surprise. Herman's original question was more of the type "I psych often enough in this sort of situation for it to be something opponents might want to be aware of." My view is still that this is not a concealed partnership understanding if partner never allows for it, but a voice from Liverpool may be weakening this view. Is Herman's case any different from mine? -- Richard Lighton | People must not do things for fun. We are not here for (lighton@idt.net) | fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. Wood-Ridge NJ | A. P. Herbert USA | --Uncommon Law From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 27 06:45:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:45:48 +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 GAA25468 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:45:42 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-44.ime.net [209.90.193.74]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA24822; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:45:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970926164808.346777fe@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: Dany Haimovici From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:42 PM 9/26/97 +0200, Dany Haimovici wrote: >I met some situations where top level player "psyched" >(by "top player " I mean people knowing exactly what they do , >not novices which try to "steel" some strength or length....). > >My way to deal with , when called after the board was finished was : >a) took the "crazy" 's partner away from table. >b) asked him if partner "committed the crime" sometime ago. >c) what was his hand , if he committed it . Contrary to what some believe, psyching is not a crime. >My proposal is : >"If a psyche call was the second time in life with same partner , >and hands were similar (doesn't matter if done with Heart or >Spade or NT , but the same meaning,) check for adjusted score >and put the pairs' conduct as "CPU"......." Hands were similar? Had a five card suit? Had 3-6 HCPs? Had 13 cards? More seriously, you say "the same meaning," but by definition a psych is a misdescription -- a psych is a bid made in violation of systemic understanding. Actually, most of my psychs do have the same meaning: It's my turn to bid and I choose 1S. >I should like to know forum's opinion about the way to deal >with this cases , described in the flow-chart above and >the proposal for this kind of CPU. I would not play in an event that used the above methods of dealing with a psych. Even ACBL (hater-of-all-psychs-and-wishes-it-could-ban-them) does not take such a nerrow view of psychs. If they did, I would not be a member. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 27 06:50:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:50:18 +1000 Received: from apm12.star.net.il. (apm12.star.net.il [195.8.194.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA25500 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 06:50:09 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-33.star.net.il [195.8.208.33]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14977; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:49:16 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <342C2025.907DDFAE@star.net.il> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:50:45 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Lighton CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good Evening Richard As I wrote (at least I tried ) my opinion is that if you psyche more than once in about 240 boards (based on : playing everyday - once in two weeks) you should put it in your CC I agree that you can't know when partner opens or overcals(first call) AT THAT VERY MOMENT but as the auction develops there is a moment you know "something stinks" ; then you may find that there was a psyche and implicitly what is the real hand , if that happened often enough - second and up time same hand. I enhanced Herman's question and proposed "how & what" we , as TD should proceed at table , when a pair summons and complains there was a CPU psych. I believe it is a very delicate and controversial job... I hope I'll hear / read your opinion. DANY Richard Lighton wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > Good evening all > > > > I met some situations where top level player "psyched" > > (by "top player " I mean people knowing exactly what they do , > > not novices which try to "steel" some strength or length....). > > > > My way to deal with , when called after the board was finished was : > > a) took the "crazy" 's partner away from table. > > b) asked him if partner "committed the crime" sometime ago. > > c) what was his hand , if he committed it . > > > > I always got sincere answers ( only once , 7 years ago someone > > who answered a lie and was very unlucky because I remembered > > a former case with that "famous" pair and proved his > > "bad conduct" , was out of tourneys for a whole year ). > > > > If the second time the "psych" was with a hand total similar > > to the first , I checked for adjusted score ( many times , at top > > level against novices the psycher lost ....). > > > > My proposal is : > > "If a psyche call was the second time in life with same partner , > > and hands were similar (doesn't matter if done with Heart or > > Spade or NT , but the same meaning,) check for adjusted score > > and put the pairs' conduct as "CPU"......." > > > > I should like to know forum's opinion about the way to deal > > with this cases , described in the flow-chart above and > > the proposal for this kind of CPU. > > I think there is a considerable difference between knowing > that partner might psych with a certain type of hand and knowing > that _if_ partner has psyched, he probably has hand type X. > > Three times in the last three years, my most regular partner has > psyched opposite me (or at least, three times that I have noticed :-) ) > Each time he has been in third seat, not vulnerable against vulnerable, > and has opened a 3-card major suit on a balanced 10 or 11 count playing > a 4-card major system. Twice he got away with it even though I promptly > raised him to four. The third time it did not matter, but I did not > catch the psych until somebody produced one too many cards in that suit. > > I think he should be allowed to do it again. I will never allow for it, > even though I have done the same thing myself (not in the same > partnership). It does not happen often--we play together over a hundred > times a year--and it will always take me by surprise. > > Herman's original question was more of the type "I psych often enough > in this sort of situation for it to be something opponents might want > to be aware of." My view is still that this is not a concealed partnership > understanding if partner never allows for it, but a voice from Liverpool > may be weakening this view. > > Is Herman's case any different from mine? > > -- > Richard Lighton | People must not do things for fun. We are not here for > (lighton@idt.net) | fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. > Wood-Ridge NJ | A. P. Herbert > USA | --Uncommon Law From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 27 20:07:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:07:24 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27040 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:07:17 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-119.innet.be [194.7.10.119]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA27955 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:07:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <342CCD90.E7E67D27@innet.be> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 11:10:40 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19970926102135.006bcbe0@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We may be getting somewhere : Eric Landau wrote: > > >5. Note that the words used in 40A, 40B, and 40D are > >'partnership understandings'. > > The heart of the debate is what the authors of L40 intended by those words. > The traditional and straightforward common-sense interpretation of L40A is > that the phrase "provided that such a call or play is not based on a > partnership understanding" can be read as "provided partner cannot be > expected to understand the meaning of the call or play". > > The ACBL, with which Grattan seems to be in agreement, takes a rather less > straightforward view, justifying it with a legalistic (and, IMO, somewhat > sophistic) series of interpretations that goes something like this: > > (1) The key is in the language of the parenthesized clause of L75B, which > says in part that "habitual violations within a partnership may create > implicit agreements". > > (2) What consitutes "habitual" is not specified, and thus falls under the > purview of the SO. > > (3) When a player psychs, he creates an expectation on his partner's part > that he may psych again. > > (4) Since his action was sufficient to create such an expectation, it > qualifies as a "habitual violation [which] may create [an] implicit > agreement". > > (5) Since the implicit agreement thus created "permit[s] initial actions at > the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average > strength" it is subject to the SO's power to regulate under L40D, and is > not subject to L40A because it doesn't meet the requirement that "such call > or play is not based on a partnership understanding". > > Therefore, it is within the power of the SO to make a regulation limiting > the number of psychs a partnership is permitted to one per lifetime, > regardless of whether the outlawed second psych is or isn't one which the > psycher's partner can be expected to understand. > I think we can safely say that the list agrees that the Laws permit the SO to regulate psyches that have become more regular and hence "partnership understanding". The question is whether they have done so. Whether it should be right to do so. > To believe that this is what the authors of L40 intended strikes me as > rather a bit of a stretch. > I am even prepared to admit that the wording of L40 would include this right. --------------------------------------------------- Grattan Endicott also wrote: > Psychic calls - further opinion. > ------------------------------------- > > To my own astonishment I have extended my opinion > on the announcement of psyches to embrace > recognition that Law 40 would allow Zonal Organizations > and their licensees to establish a regulation to read > something like this:- > > "A partnership which has an understanding explicitly or > implicitly agreed that in the auction they may breach their > announced methods from time to time by making a call > that grossly misstates honour strength or suit length shall > give plain notice of this on its convention cards. No alert > or other disclosure is appropriate in respect of such > agreement but it shall be a condition of the use of such > calls that a player shall make no allowance in the auction > for the possibility of a psychic call by his/her partner until > the auction allows of no other reasonable explanation (as, > for example, that an opponent may have psyched) for a > distortion or discrepancy that is apparent to him/her." > - - - > Such a regulation would return players legally to > the practice which many advocate and which may be > prevalent in some bridge cultures; in its absence the > general regulation of systems and disclosure would usually > deny permission to have such an understanding. > If we grant that SO have the right to regulate "more frequent psyches" then indeed a regulation such as the one described above could be possible. I do believe no SO would want to go as far as forming a regulation banning these "more frequent psyches". Doing so would only make them harder to catch. If such a regulation existed, what would stop me from keeping quiet about it, keep on doing it about once every year and not inform opponents of something they have a right to know. This would indeed lead to practices such as Dany described. So the regulation above seems to be something we could live with. Now my last question to Grattan and the list remains : Where in the regulations (let's keep the WBF example) does it state anything else than what is mentioned here above ? Keep in mind the difference I explained between partnership understanding and partnership agreement. Would we not be right in saying that given the proviso in Grattan's text above, such a psych should be authorized ? I see in his last paragraph that Mr Endicott would not agree with me. That is the dilemma we have come up with before : If something is not expressly dealt with in the rules, would that mean that it is permitted or prohibited. I go for permitted, others for prohibited. We shall never agree. For the benefit of Mr Endicott I repeat an example I have given some months ago : The rules or regulations say nothing about sneezing. Is sneezing at the bridge table permitted or not ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm I have been off-line due to hard disk failure from 25 AUG to 08 SEP I have lost all previous messages If you were expecting a reply - do mail me again From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 28 06:02:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 06:02:07 +1000 Received: from borg.star.net.il (borg.star.net.il [195.8.195.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA01017 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 06:01:59 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS2-99.star.net.il [195.8.208.99]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08970 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 22:01:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <342D666F.7228DEF3@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 22:02:55 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Double-chance and uniform rulling Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I  present again the problem of "sporting less" continuation
of the bidding after an hesitation and partner's bid at 4th+ level :
 
I"ll give an example :
Suit            North............Est...............South..............West
none vul
Spade........2..................1076.............K3...................AQJ9854
Heart..........AQ543........J....................K108762........9
Diamond...A865...........QJ97432........ -....................K10
Club...........QJ9.............32..................K10754............A86

The bidding was:

N        E        S        W
            Pa    Pa       4S
5H    *Pa    Pa        5S
Pa     Pa     6H^^    Pa
Pa    Pa
 
 * Hesitation agreed by all     ^^Mailstone to go on

Now put yourselves in south' s position:
1) North bid  5H when Partner  is passed hand.
2) South passed this 5H because he doesn't know
if North has 1 or 2 cards Sp - but this is a very
personal decision.
3) After 5 SP by West south thinks there is high probability
North is singleton or void SP .

Now he will always win :-

a) if he passes - he should "loose" the Slam ....when b)

b) So -  if he bids 6H - it shouldn't be a "wild" or "non-bridgistic"
bid and  no-one will condemn him ;  the score will be adjusted
if the contract fails.

In any case , I don't believe you"ll gather 24 AC members and
find less than 25 opinions ....!

In such a case I don't see any reason to let people going on
to bid and play , because the score will be decided by
TD or AC according to the hands' distributions and what
other players achieved   .

{$$$}  Which is the sporting value to bid and play ???  {$$$}

I felt many times , when let them play (because TD is
appointed to make all possible to let tournament going on)
and adjusted scores , that players started  rumor and
even both pairs "joining" against any TD's or AC's decision.

I conclude my opinion and feelings:
"No sporting value and only unpleasant situations"

I should like to see what is the forum answer  to question {$$$},
and try to do it even as "devil's advocate" .
 
Thank you
Dany

  From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 28 12:21:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 12:21:01 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1b.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02099 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 12:20:51 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0912388; 28 Sep 97 3:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 02:16:14 +0100 To: Tim Goodwin Cc: Dany Haimovici , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970926164808.346777fe@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.16.19970926164808.346777fe@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 07:42 PM 9/26/97 +0200, Dany Haimovici wrote: > >>I met some situations where top level player "psyched" >>(by "top player " I mean people knowing exactly what they do , >>not novices which try to "steel" some strength or length....). >> >>My way to deal with , when called after the board was finished was : >>a) took the "crazy" 's partner away from table. >>b) asked him if partner "committed the crime" sometime ago. >>c) what was his hand , if he committed it . > Tim Goodwin: >Contrary to what some believe, psyching is not a crime. > .....(cut)..... Labeo: True. It is not. However it is a crime to develop an understanding with partner about psyching and not disclose it to opponents. It seems unlikely that an understanding can arise from a single occasion *unless* the partnership subsequently discusses it. I wonder if the ACBL assumes such discussion is more or less inevitable? It is possibly becoming much more frequent now that we have the means for instant world-wide discussion. -- Labeo "Quot homines tot sententiae; suo quoque mos." - As many opinions as there are men, each a law to himself. (P. Terentius Afer) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 28 13:22:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:22:44 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA02345 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:22:38 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-92.ime.net [209.90.193.122]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA22716 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970927232513.3fef4ace@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: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:16 AM 9/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >In message <1.5.4.16.19970926164808.346777fe@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin > writes >>At 07:42 PM 9/26/97 +0200, Dany Haimovici wrote: >> >>>I met some situations where top level player "psyched" >>>(by "top player " I mean people knowing exactly what they do , >>>not novices which try to "steel" some strength or length....). >>> >>>My way to deal with , when called after the board was finished was : >>>a) took the "crazy" 's partner away from table. >>>b) asked him if partner "committed the crime" sometime ago. >>>c) what was his hand , if he committed it . >> >Tim Goodwin: > >>Contrary to what some believe, psyching is not a crime. >> > .....(cut)..... > >Labeo: True. It is not. However it is a crime to develop an >understanding with partner about psyching and not disclose >it to opponents. It seems unlikely that an understanding can >arise from a single occasion *unless* the partnership >subsequently discusses it. Does a partnership understanding concerning psychs constitute a convention? If I know my partner might psych 1S after 1H-X, is 1S a conventional bid? I don't believe so and you would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who think the 1S bid is conventional and I don't imagine I could convince them otherwise, either. In the case of understandings concerning psychs, proper discloser will mean the use of an illegal convention in the eyes of many. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 28 15:42:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:42:47 +1000 Received: from apm12.star.net.il. (apm12.star.net.il [195.8.194.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA02587 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:42:40 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-135.star.net.il [195.8.208.135]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA04530; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 07:27:58 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <342DEB38.779C58A6@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 07:29:28 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Labeo CC: Tim Goodwin , Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo You put the finger in the very exact spot - psych IS NOT a "crime" but repeating it in similar situations without disclosure to opponents IS. (As much as I know the human soul , can't believe that a regular pair didn't discuss such an event many times ....) Dany Labeo wrote: > In message <1.5.4.16.19970926164808.346777fe@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin > writes > >At 07:42 PM 9/26/97 +0200, Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > >>I met some situations where top level player "psyched" > >>(by "top player " I mean people knowing exactly what they do , > >>not novices which try to "steel" some strength or length....). > >> > >>My way to deal with , when called after the board was finished was : > >>a) took the "crazy" 's partner away from table. > >>b) asked him if partner "committed the crime" sometime ago. > >>c) what was his hand , if he committed it . > > > Tim Goodwin: > > >Contrary to what some believe, psyching is not a crime. > > > .....(cut)..... > > Labeo: True. It is not. However it is a crime to develop an > understanding with partner about psyching and not disclose > it to opponents. It seems unlikely that an understanding can > arise from a single occasion *unless* the partnership > subsequently discusses it. > I wonder if the ACBL assumes such discussion is more > or less inevitable? It is possibly becoming much more frequent > now that we have the means for instant world-wide discussion. > > -- Labeo "Quot homines tot sententiae; suo quoque mos." > - As many opinions as there are men, each a law > to himself. (P. Terentius Afer) > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 28 15:50:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:50:48 +1000 Received: from apm12.star.net.il. (apm12.star.net.il [195.8.194.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA02615 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:50:42 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-135.star.net.il [195.8.208.135]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA04755; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 07:50:03 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <342DF065.F46EF52A@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 07:51:34 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Goodwin CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card References: <1.5.4.16.19970927232513.3fef4ace@ime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear TIM I read very carefully and seriously many paragraphs in many messages and start to believe that the Majority agrees on Principle defined in law 40B - "translated" by myself as : "every information that COULD BE KNOWN to partners MUST be known to opponents". ( I don't mean the cards seen in hand ....... it shows it is not so simple to define things exactly and comprehensively ...) I understood that it is is your opinion too. Maybe the definitions of "convention" , "understanding" , "psych" etc.. should be described more detailed and appear in ch. 1 - as much as I remember only "psych call" is defined there - and I suggest the forum to try to define them - comprehensively and accurately- for laws purpose . Dany Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 02:16 AM 9/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: > >In message <1.5.4.16.19970926164808.346777fe@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin > > writes > >>At 07:42 PM 9/26/97 +0200, Dany Haimovici wrote: > >> > >>>I met some situations where top level player "psyched" > >>>(by "top player " I mean people knowing exactly what they do , > >>>not novices which try to "steel" some strength or length....). > >>> > >>>My way to deal with , when called after the board was finished was : > >>>a) took the "crazy" 's partner away from table. > >>>b) asked him if partner "committed the crime" sometime ago. > >>>c) what was his hand , if he committed it . > >> > >Tim Goodwin: > > > >>Contrary to what some believe, psyching is not a crime. > >> > > .....(cut)..... > > > >Labeo: True. It is not. However it is a crime to develop an > >understanding with partner about psyching and not disclose > >it to opponents. It seems unlikely that an understanding can > >arise from a single occasion *unless* the partnership > >subsequently discusses it. > > Does a partnership understanding concerning psychs constitute a convention? > If I know my partner might psych 1S after 1H-X, is 1S a conventional bid? I > don't believe so and you would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. > I'm sure there are a number of people out there who think the 1S bid is > conventional and I don't imagine I could convince them otherwise, either. > > In the case of understandings concerning psychs, proper discloser will mean > the use of an illegal convention in the eyes of many. > > Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 28 23:26:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 23:26:47 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA03558 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 23:26:38 +1000 Received: from default (client85df.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.223]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA17077; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 14:30:40 +0100 Message-Id: <199709281330.OAA17077@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , , Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 14:27:27 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : In Law 71C as currently written the statement beginning 'Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent....' is included within the first statement in 71C. There is tautology but no conflict as to what the Director shall do at any time up to the end of the period established in accordance with Law79C.There is no doubt in my mind that the intention was to delete everything in 71C after the first occasion that '... normal play of the remaining cards.' appears. My evidence for this is circumstantial but strong. In a memorandum dated 15th June 1994 Edgar Kaplan, as Chairman of the drafting committee, circulated some suggestions for matters to be revised in the 1997 code. Of Law 71 he wrote that he had received a suggestion to 'delete the colon after "that"; delete the headings, both A and B; start the word "within" with a small w, right after the word "that"; change heading 1 to A, and 2 to B; add, as C, # Implausible Concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards # He continued with a clarification and an opinion : "This changes the time period for cancel(l)ing the implausible concession from the start of the next board to the usual protest period. Why not?" This supports a view that only inefficiency has allowed the final sentence of 71C toremain. It should have been deleted. All of us on the drafting committee had ample opportunities to correct Edgar's master copy. It has to be addedthat it was one of the early decisions and I do not recall that we went back to it at all. Howeverit seems to me that, at least until a further printing is issued (when the amendment should perhaps be made) there is in fact no conflict as regards the meaning of the law but only a confusing way of saying it. ---------- > From: Robin Barker > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mlfrench@aol.com > Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim > Date: 25 September 1997 10:28 > \\snip// > > But L71 was deliberately rearranged 1987->1997, moving the preamble text to > before part A, and adding the sentence fragment: these were the only changes. > What was the point, if only to have the text before part A apply to the > sentence fragment at the start of part C? > \\snip// From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 29 05:39:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 05:39:01 +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 FAA07289 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 05:38:42 +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 PAA11369 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709281938.PAA19233@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <342D7FC2.1145461D@star.net.il> (message from Dany Haimovici on Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:50:58 +0200) Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany writes: > Hi David > I"ll give an example : > The bidding was: > N E S W > Pa Pa 4S > 5H *Pa Pa 5S > Pa Pa 6H^^ Pa > Pa Pa > Now he will always win :- > a) if he passes - he should "loose" the Slam ....when b) > b) So - if he bids 6H - it shouldn't be a "wild" or "non-bridgistic" > bid and no-one will condemn him ; the score will be adjusted > if the contract fails. South is taking a risk here; he is making a reasonable call, and taking the risk that West's bid is justified by his hand. If West opened a strong preempt and knew that the 5S sacrifice would be safe (as long as it wasn't a phantom), he has to either double or sacrifice. Having done this, he might now double 6H and take South for a number. And it is only fair that West should pay if he pushes his opponents into a making 6H with his sacrifice, whether he has violated the rule or not. If you halt play, you must do it without looking at West's hand; if it then turns out that West had a reasonable bid, or had double as an alternative (East's hesitation does not suggest 5S over double or vice versa), what do you do? And what do you do if the play result is not clear? Suppose that 6H is on a guess and South guesses wrong. If you adjust the score to 5H, South is entitled to +450 after the wrong guess; if you halt play, you can't tell whether South would have scored +450 or +480. > {$$$} Which is the sporting value to bid and play ??? {$$$} > I felt many times , when let them play (because TD is > appointed to make all possible to let tournament going on) > and adjusted scores , that players started rumor and > even both pairs "joining" against any TD's or AC's decision. Halting play wouldn't do anything to solve this problem; players would still feel that the director's decision was unfair. -- 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 Mon Sep 29 05:39:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 05:39:15 +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 FAA07296 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 05:39:06 +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 PAA11377 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:38:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709281938.PAA19237@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <342D7FC2.1145461D@star.net.il> (message from Dany Haimovici on Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:50:58 +0200) Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany writes: > Hi David > I"ll give an example : > The bidding was: > N E S W > Pa Pa 4S > 5H *Pa Pa 5S > Pa Pa 6H^^ Pa > Pa Pa > Now he will always win :- > a) if he passes - he should "loose" the Slam ....when b) > b) So - if he bids 6H - it shouldn't be a "wild" or "non-bridgistic" > bid and no-one will condemn him ; the score will be adjusted > if the contract fails. South is taking a risk here; he is making a reasonable call, and taking the risk that West's bid is justified by his hand. If West opened a strong preempt and knew that the 5S sacrifice would be safe (as long as it wasn't a phantom), he has to either double or sacrifice. Having done this, he might now double 6H and take South for a number. And it is only fair that West should pay if he pushes his opponents into a making 6H with his sacrifice, whether he has violated the rule or not. If you halt play, you must do it without looking at West's hand; if it then turns out that West had a reasonable bid, or had double as an alternative (East's hesitation does not suggest 5S over double or vice versa), what do you do? And what do you do if the play result is not clear? Suppose that 6H is on a guess and South guesses wrong. If you adjust the score to 5H, South is entitled to +450 after the wrong guess; if you halt play, you can't tell whether South would have scored +450 or +480. > {$$$} Which is the sporting value to bid and play ??? {$$$} > I felt many times , when let them play (because TD is > appointed to make all possible to let tournament going on) > and adjusted scores , that players started rumor and > even both pairs "joining" against any TD's or AC's decision. Halting play wouldn't do anything to solve this problem; players would still feel that the director's decision was unfair. -- 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 Mon Sep 29 18:14:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:14:51 +1000 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA08963 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:14:39 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA11541; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 01:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma011502; Mon, 29 Sep 97 01:47:16 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA21205 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 01:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709290837.BAA21205@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97 09:08:16 GMT Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott said: >In Law 71C as currently written the statement beginning 'Until the >conceding side makes a call on a subsequent....' is included within the >first statement in 71C. There is tautology but no conflict as to what the >Director shall do at any time up to the end of the period established in >accordance >with Law79C.There is no doubt in my mind that the intention was to delete >everything in 71C after the first occasion that '... normal play of the >remaining cards.' appears. > >My evidence for this is circumstantial but strong. In a memorandum dated >15th June 1994 Edgar Kaplan, as Chairman of the drafting committee, >circulated some suggestions for matters to be revised in the 1997 code. >Of Law 71 he wrote that he had received a suggestion to 'delete the colon >after "that"; delete the headings, both A and B; start the word "within" >with a small w, right after the word "that"; change heading 1 to A, and 2 >to B; add, as C, # Implausible Concession if a player has conceded >a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards # > >He continued with a clarification and an opinion : "This changes the time >period for cancel(l)ing the implausible concession from the start of the >next board to the usual protest period. Why not?" > >This supports a view that only inefficiency has allowed the final sentence >of 71C toremain. It should have been deleted. All of us on the drafting >committee had ample opportunities to correct Edgar's master copy. It has to >be addedthat it was one of the early decisions and I do not recall that we >went back to it at all. Howeverit seems to me that, at least until a further >printing is issued (when the amendment should perhaps be made) there is in >fact no conflict as regards the meaning of the law but only a confusing way of >saying it. Many thanks for this very useful research. Thanks also to Robin Barker for pointing out the problem. This potential point of dispute is worth noting, not least since I do not recall that any of the commentaries I have seen (Stevenson, Kooijman, Blaiss, Pain) suggest the 1997 code changes the meaning of L71C. I will ask the English Bridge Union's Laws & Ethics Committee to consider this point. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 30 04:46:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:46:27 +1000 Received: from borg.star.net.il (borg.star.net.il [195.8.195.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA13786 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 04:46:15 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-154.star.net.il [195.8.208.154]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA28162 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:46:01 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <342FF7AE.F8EC0D0B@star.net.il> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 20:47:11 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Test Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk it is a test

Think there is a problem with the server ...............
  From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 30 05:31:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 05:31:59 +1000 Received: from apm12.star.net.il. (apm12.star.net.il [195.8.194.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA14027 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 05:31:16 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-154.star.net.il [195.8.208.154]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA29169; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:30:16 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34300225.97E89594@star.net.il> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 21:31:49 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling References: <199709281936.PAA19227@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear David I consider the following paragraph from your answer as a very important one and this is the reason we can't stop bid and play up to 4th level (by my opinion) or until a very disturbing irregularity occurs. Quote your e-mail : __%__%__%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%__%_%_%_%_%_%_%%_ If you halt play, you must do it without looking at West's hand; if it then turns out that West had a reasonable bid, or had double as an alternative (East's hesitation does not suggest 5S over double or vice versa), what do you do? _%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_%_ The TD is not allowed to see cards (or consider them if saw them incidentally ) until the bid and play is finished. He can't decide at that moment if offender's call is based on his hand or using the hesitation too .... But there are some bids which should be well-defined - like that 4 sp (It can't be too strong.... ) - and for a very high probability any more bidding , when a partner's irregularity occurred has to be against his side. I asked a lot of world level players what they should do after the 5 sp (with an hesitation..) and I understood that only "the coin" can help them to decide ; most of them answered me : "... I have to deal with a lot of crazy unfair players at table and don't know what to do , why do you want to torture me when I am not obliged to !..." As I understand your opinion is to let bid and play going on almost always. Thank you for your contribution Dany David Grabiner wrote: > Dany writes: > > > Hi David > > > I"ll give an example : > > > The bidding was: > > > N E S W > > Pa Pa 4S > > 5H *Pa Pa 5S > > Pa Pa 6H^^ Pa > > Pa Pa > > > Now he will always win :- > > > a) if he passes - he should "loose" the Slam ....when b) > > > b) So - if he bids 6H - it shouldn't be a "wild" or "non-bridgistic" > > bid and no-one will condemn him ; the score will be adjusted > > if the contract fails. > > South is taking a risk here; he is making a reasonable call, and taking > the risk that West's bid is justified by his hand. If West opened a > strong preempt and knew that the 5S sacrifice would be safe (as long as > it wasn't a phantom), he has to either double or sacrifice. Having done > this, he might now double 6H and take South for a number. > > And it is only fair that West should pay if he pushes his opponents into > a making 6H with his sacrifice, whether he has violated the rule or not. > > If you halt play, you must do it without looking at West's hand; if it > then turns out that West had a reasonable bid, or had double as an > alternative (East's hesitation does not suggest 5S over double or vice > versa), what do you do? > > And what do you do if the play result is not clear? Suppose that 6H is > on a guess and South guesses wrong. If you adjust the score to 5H, > South is entitled to +450 after the wrong guess; if you halt play, you > can't tell whether South would have scored +450 or +480. > > > {$$$} Which is the sporting value to bid and play ??? {$$$} > > > I felt many times , when let them play (because TD is > > appointed to make all possible to let tournament going on) > > and adjusted scores , that players started rumor and > > even both pairs "joining" against any TD's or AC's decision. > > Halting play wouldn't do anything to solve this problem; players would > still feel that the director's decision was unfair. > > -- > 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 Tue Sep 30 17:44:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:44:54 +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 RAA15844 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:44:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0518882; 30 Sep 97 8:37 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:19:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Interpretations of Law MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >Why not give guidelines as to how these more equitable scores are to be >obtained ? > >Why Oh Why ? There have been a number of requests over time on this list for guidance from above. However good or bad a job one believes the lawmakers to have done, their job is specific: at intervals of time, to produce what they believe the best laws to be at that time. This job takes many of them a long time and involves a lot of work. If we are going to ask for guidance from them in all the matters that have been brought to the list by people who have suggested such guidance, that would increase their workload considerably. After all, their decisions are by 'eventual consensus'. Add all the requests by the internet-impaired around the world, and suddenly the WBF would need a department like the British Telecom Directory Enquiries service. One wonders whether it would become as efficient. Hah, sez you! But whom do we ask when we need to know these things? The answer is that we need a group of people that includes some lawmakers, some top-class TDs, some people who regularly chair or serve on ACs, some who arrange and understand ACs, some people who serve on their countries' regulatory committees, some chief TDs of their countries and several other interested players to provide basic commonsense. Where do we find such a mix? BLML, of course. I believe this to be the best forum available for interpretation of the laws. I hope that in time this will be realised by a wider audience. More people get attached to the Internet as time goes on and more people will see the workings of this list. We had very little effect on the 1997 Laws: perhaps the late inclusion of time limits in Law 25B, which we were discussing at the critical time, may have been down to us. I hope that we shall have a much greater effect on the 2007 Laws. By that time I hope that in their deliberations the lawmakers then are more likely to say "BLML have pointed to a weakness in ..." rather than "We are not impressed by a few random mouthings on the Internet". Of course there will always be problems with such a diverse group of people. I am told that one of the top lawmakers, who reads this group but does not wish to contribute, was incensed by the views of a minority over when you could look at convention cards. All I can say is that I totally agree with him: I nearly didn't bother to argue it at the time because the views expressed seemed idiotic to me. But that incident, and a few other threads where logic has apparently disappeared over the horizon, do not mean that this list does not have a lot of value. Indeed we do, and I hope the top lawmaker referred to has forgiven us our stupidity over the convention cards thread. He still reads the list, which must be a good sign. Consider the example that set me writing this. Herman wants guidance on the application of L12C3. He seems to think it should come from above. Would it not be best to draw on the experience of the people that have been using these split scores for years? It comes as something of a surprise to us in England, where we have used them for years and found how acceptable they are to the players, that they are not used much elsewhere. Steve Barnfield, for example, now Chairman of our L&EC, was a top English TD giving split rulings under the 1965 Laws before I was even a TD! Our ACs have given split rulings ever since the footnote was added to L12C2 in 1988, and thus David Burn, Steve Barnfield, Grattan Endicott, myself have all been involved in a lot of such cases and seen case law develop as a result. May I suggest in future that when we need to decide on an interpretation that we approach it on the basis that we have sufficient expertise here, and we do not need to have interpretations handed down to us. If the lawmakers feel that we need such guidance, there are now sufficient of them reading this list that they can make their views known, but I believe it is the wrong approach for us to seek such guidance. -- 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 ~