From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 01:10:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:10:28 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19534 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:10:18 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA24633; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 10:09:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.39) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024615; Tue Sep 30 10:09:03 1997 Received: by har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCCD90.D9B16E80@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com>; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:06:07 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCCD90.D9B16E80@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> From: rts48u To: "'Dany Haimovici'" , David Grabiner Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Double-chance and uniform rulling Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:06:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------- From: Dany Haimovici[SMTP:dh@star.net.il] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 3:31 PM Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling (SNIP) >The TD is not allowed to see cards (or consider them if saw > them incidentally ) until the bid and play is finished.=20 Please cure my ignorance...where in the laws is the diector prohibited = from seeing the cards before bid and play are finished? I have seen the = ethical problem arise in club games with a playing director, but surely = this is nor the reason in a tournament setting. Certainly the director does not want to give information about a = player's holding to another player before the hand is completed, as this = could unfairly affect the outcome. But why would the director be barred = from seeing the cards, especially if he must do so to rule correctly. = Isn't this part of investigating?=20 And with regard to the original thread, I had always thought that a = director should strive whenever possible to acheive a normal result = through play. Routinely halting play and assigning a score does not seem = to promote this end...it warps the result to some degree for all = participants and as a side but real effect usually iriitates the paying = customers at the table even when it might not have been necessary to do = so. Sometimes an adjusted or assigned score cannot equitably be = avoided...but it shouldn't be what we aim at upon arrival at the table. = I was taught that dealing with irregularities and/or breaches of the = proprieties in a manner so as to minimize their effect upon the contest = and the enjoyment of the players was the director'r primary job. Now = that being fast with a pencil is of minimal importance, this aim would = appear to be MORE not less important. Have I missed something here? Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 01:48:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:48:52 +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 BAA19983 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:48:45 +1000 Received: from default (client87bd.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.189]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA11626; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:53:25 +0100 Message-Id: <199709301553.QAA11626@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:32:15 +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 : Not everything I read here fairly reflects my personal view and I have been commenting about the meaning of the law rather than expressing a personal stance. In drafting we have used 'partnership agreement' synonymously with 'partnership understanding'. Your "explanation" does not match to our intentions. For both members of a partnership to be mutually aware that a certain kind of bid will be made (e.g. a random bid divorced from the normal meanings of their system) constitutes a partnership understanding; the understanding is about the way they will play, not about the meaning of any particular call. As to whether there is an understanding has to do with awareness of a possibility when partner makes a call. On this my personal view is that it is a matter of bridge judgement or the knowledge acquired from experience of play at the table;consequently I personally believe it is a subject on which SOs or NBOs can only give guidance and which it is for TDs and ACs to resolve in the heat of battle. I do believe that well kept records of a partnership's departures from system are a source of revelation. As for sneezing: in my opinion anything on which both laws and regulations are silent is 'extraneous' within the meaning of Law 16 and the TD may deem there to have been an infraction if a call or play is based upon information from an extraneous source. If it were evident someone had based a play on partner's sneeze I could have no quarrel with a score adjustment. ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card > Date: 27 September 1997 10:10 > \\much snipping in what follows// > We may be getting somewhere : > > > > 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: > > > > > > (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. > > > > 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. > >>> > Now my last question to Grattan > > 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. > > 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 ? > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 01:48:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:48:44 +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 BAA19975 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:48:37 +1000 Received: from default (client87bd.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.189]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA11622; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:53:22 +0100 Message-Id: <199709301553.QAA11622@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Double chance? Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:45:16 +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, Following what I said earlier in reply to this, in looking up something else I chanced upon this note from me to E.K.:- "I regard Law 12C2 as something of a mess. Taken literally it is capable of being draconian in its effects; I do not believe the laws of a game should produce extreme effects when the objective is restoration of a rough equity. Consequently I believe that Tournament Directors should have rather more latitude than 12C2 allows (since the diffident, harshly treated, are disinclined to seek better justice.) A Tournament Director who considers that equity may not have been obtained by the process set forth in the laws should at least have the right to take forward the case to an appeal committee on his own initiative; I would favour an addition to Law 81C to say: "12. to take any matter arising in the course of an event to a relevant body for consideration." -o-o-o-o-o-o- > 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 ... \\\snip/// and Herman: > Now does all this not imply that the WBF thinks ...... \\snip again// > > Why Oh Why ? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 02:01:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:01:57 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20280 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:01:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac1107190; 30 Sep 97 16:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:37:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Something wrong - but what ? In-Reply-To: <199709191839.OAA01955@brickbat9.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >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". No, I am afraid that is not correct, Michael. Suspicious bidding means that there is some suggestion that an irregularity has occurred, and a TD has a legal requirement to investigate. Disapproval of opponents' bidding is not a matter for investigation. One of the simplest solutions to the original sequence was that there was a CPU. If it is concealed, how do you expect the opponents to know? -- 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 Oct 1 02:07:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:07:36 +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 CAA20322 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:07:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac1403070; 30 Sep 97 16:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:57:14 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote [s] >in which you tended to psych (NOTE >SPELLING!!!). Thankyou Richard, I have duly taken note of the fact that colonials can't spell. --- Eric Landau wrote [s] >The ACBL, with which Grattan seems to be in agreement, How are the mighty fallen! -- 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 Oct 1 02:12:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:12:16 +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 CAA20355 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:12:08 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac1500351; 30 Sep 97 16:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:37:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim In-Reply-To: <199709241720.KAA17453@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote >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. Especially if you compare the laws [1987 and 1997] it appears the drafting committee were trying to clean up a law that was written in an ugly fashion. Either they were not trying to change the meaning at all, or they were. Let us consider the two possibilities. If they were trying to change the meaning of the law, then a concession must be cancelled if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The rest of L71C is irrelevant, and should be deleted: the second half of L71A is irrelevant, and should be deleted: the whole reference to 'Until the conceding ...' has no force whatever. If they were not trying to change the meaning of the law, then Implausible Concessions are subject to the time limits 'Until the conceding ...' but L71C is wrongly worded. The first sentence should be included in the second: it is in the main! I believe that the vast majority would conclude that the lawmakers' intentions are as in the second case. Otherwise it seems far too mangled. But is that enough? Most of our work here is interpreting the laws either because they are not completely clear, and have at least a trace of ambiguity, or because they include terms [such as logical alternative] that require interpretation. Rarely would we ever try to offer a different interpretation to a Law that is clear, but the one occasion when we should do so is when we *know* that Law is flawed. 1987 L11B was such a law because it led to contradictions and could not be completely correct. Since this is a law that in my view is flawed, then I consider we should offer regulating authorities our interpretation. I propose that we interpret L11C such that the words "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends," apply to both sentences therein. -- 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 Oct 1 02:55:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:55:52 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20528 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 02:55:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ad1009711; 30 Sep 97 16:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:47:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim In-Reply-To: <199709281330.OAA17077@sand.global.net.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote >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. While this is in conflict with my opinion given earlier it is a reasonable alternative. The basic point is that the law is clearly flawed, so there does really need to be some interpretation laid down. A pity that two mistakes were made. If the now unnecessary bit of L71A had been discarded then Grattan's opinion would have been clearly seen as the correct 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 Oct 1 03:03:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:03:29 +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 DAA20568 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:03:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac0509522; 30 Sep 97 16:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:54:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) In-Reply-To: <199709191813.OAA18801@brickbat9.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >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. The bidding goes 1S Pass 3S Pass 4H AP 4H makes, opener has 3S's and 6H's. They play 4H as a cue-bid, forcing, slam try, may be a void. You are called to the table by the opponents. "The sequence was a little strange," they bleat, sheepishly. "Bog off", say you, "I am not looking at suspicious sequences." I hope you are pleased with yourself. --------------- Do you think this is the correct way for a TD to conduct himself? Well it is not. -- 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 Oct 1 03:39:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:39:18 +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 DAA20664 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:39:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac1009711; 30 Sep 97 16:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:29:04 +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: <342BF41C.2D1F8964@star.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote >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"......." It is far too harsh to assume that one similar occasion makes a CPU. After all, I know my partner has revoked before: should I be telling the opponents, so they can bid up? The moment that I am allowing for it in *any* way, now it is an agreement or understanding. But not before. While psyching remains a legal part of the game, we do not want interpretations that are strict enough to effectively ban psyching, and I do not read the laws that 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 Wed Oct 1 04:15:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:15:13 +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 EAA20790 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:15:06 +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 OAA23048; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:14:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709301814.OAA27824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:54:23 +0100) Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >> 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. > The bidding goes > 1S Pass 3S Pass > 4H AP > 4H makes, opener has 3S's and 6H's. They play 4H as a cue-bid, > forcing, slam try, may be a void. While I agree with David that a brush-off from the director isn't justified here, there is a problem. How do you rule on this, in a jurisdiction in which the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist? -- 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 Oct 1 04:23:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:23:31 +1000 Received: from emout27.mail.aol.com (emout27.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.132]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA20817 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:22:53 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout27.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA28015 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970930141855_518924052@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Revised ACBL Alert Procedure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In going through the revised Alert Procedure shown on the ACBL web site, in order to make sure that my own summary of them is up to date, I noted two minor changes that could easily be missed: -- Delayed Alerts now apply to conventional BIDS, not doubles, redoubles, or passes, above the level of 3NT starting with opener's rebid. They formerly applied to all conventional CALLS. -- The definition of a "semi-forcing" 1NT response as one that opener may pass if he has a "balanced minimum." Formerly this was "minimum 5-3-3-2." The welcome change came too late to be included on the Alert Procedure sent to clubs, but it is official and should be written in. Anyone wanting an up-to-date version of my compact (?) summary of the Alert Procedure, unofficial of course, need only ask for it by e-mail. There still remain some points of doubt in regard to details, which I shall cover in a separate mailing someday. Thanks to everyone who pointed out mistakes and language that needed clarification. Please keep those suggestions coming! David Stevenson will be revising his well-done presentation of my summary on his web site. He is not responsible for any errors in it; those that may exist are all mine. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 06:45:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 06:45:36 +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 GAA21273 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 06:45:19 +1000 Received: from default (cph16.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.16]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA01685 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:44:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199709302044.WAA01685@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:46:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:14:57 -0400 (EDT) > From: David Grabiner > David Stevenson writes: > > > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote > > >> 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. > > > The bidding goes > > > 1S Pass 3S Pass > > 4H AP > > > 4H makes, opener has 3S's and 6H's. They play 4H as a cue-bid, > > forcing, slam try, may be a void. > > While I agree with David that a brush-off from the director isn't > justified here, there is a problem. How do you rule on this, in a > jurisdiction in which the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist? Denmark is such a jurisdiction. I would rule CPU on the face of the evidence. I would not adjust the score unless there was damage to the opponents (which is hard to determine from the facts at hand, but it is certainly possible that there is no damage). I would then issue an appropriate PP (50 to 100 % of a board, or 3 to 4 VPs). I suspect, however, that David G. is asking how I *justify* this ruling. Well, like this: I rule that you are in violation of L40B, ruling that your methods include the auction we have seen here. L40C does not apply (unless, of course, it does). Your violation of L40B is a failure to follow correct procedure, which I punish under L90. You have the right to appeal my ruling under L83C. This ruling requires that the TD is convinced that there really is a CPU. The Rule of Coincidence allows similar rulings to be made even when the TD is not convinced that there is any CPU, since it only requires the TD to find that both players did something strange, which could have been the result of a CPU (or, much worse, of intentional UI). Even if you don't subscribe to the Rule of Coincidence, the TD is still allowed to rule CPU, ruling on the evidence of the facts, i.e. the auction as it happened. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 07:58:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:58:22 +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 HAA21462 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:58:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0623179; 30 Sep 97 22:25 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:54:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling In-Reply-To: <01BCCD90.D9B16E80@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk rts48u wrote >>The TD is not allowed to see cards (or consider them if saw >> them incidentally ) until the bid and play is finished. >Please cure my ignorance...where in the laws is the diector prohibited from >seeing the cards before bid and play are finished? I have seen the ethical >problem arise in club games with a playing director, but surely this is nor the >reason in a tournament setting. It is one of the first things taught to a TD. No, it is not a part of the Law book, but it is standard expertise for TDs, as is asking a table "How can I help?", listening to all four players not just one or two, hearing the facts then ruling, consulting over judgement rulings and learning to make coffee [*]. All of these are considered TD skills, and none of them appear in the Law book. [*] Certain Zonal authorities only >Certainly the director does not want to give information about a player's >holding to another player before the hand is completed, as this could unfairly >affect the outcome. But why would the director be barred from seeing the cards, >especially if he must do so to rule correctly. Isn't this part of investigating? Absolutely not. it is just not possible to look at the cards and make any sort of sensible decision. Let me give you an example of what we are talking about. The bidding goes 3H No No 3N 4H No No 4N No No No[H] The player who bid 3H leads a spade and declarer calls you to complain that a heart would have been led without the hesitation. How do you rule? Any competent TD requires the hand to be played out, and returns then to see if an adjustment is necessary. Let us say you don't, but you immediately look at opening leader's hand. You see QT93 JT4 7 KJ654 Now what? Be honest: the first thing you do is to ask them to repeat the bidding, and now *everyone* knows there is something wrong. Turning a becoming shade of green, you faintly ask whether there were any alerts as you sneak the convention card off the table, and *three tables away* people are aware of your problems. There are, as with any other rule, exceptions. But a TD who is looking at the players' hands during the play more than [say] once every two years is not approaching his task correctly and should re-examine his basic approach. >And with regard to the original thread, I had always thought that a director >should strive whenever possible to acheive a normal result through play. >Routinely halting play and assigning a score does not seem to promote this >end...it warps the result to some degree for all participants and as a side but >real effect usually iriitates the paying customers at the table even when it >might not have been necessary to do so. Look, it's just ILLEGAL. TDs do not halt play. Anyone that does definitely does not know how to approach these matters. > Sometimes an adjusted or assigned score >cannot equitably be avoided...but it shouldn't be what we aim at upon arrival at >the table. I was taught that dealing with irregularities and/or breaches of the >proprieties in a manner so as to minimize their effect upon the contest and the >enjoyment of the players was the director'r primary job. Now that being fast >with a pencil is of minimal importance, this aim would appear to be MORE not >less important. Have I missed something here? What you have missed is that you are worrying about TDs who are not doing their job. When a TD is called to the table he rules on any mechanical manner, and leaves any judgement matter, or matter that requires further investigation in any way, until the end of the hand. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 08:03:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:03:08 +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 IAA21496 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:03:01 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-56.ime.net [209.90.193.86]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13392; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970930180530.314f13c8@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: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 PM 9/30/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > The moment that I am allowing for it in *any* way, now it is an >agreement or understanding. But not before. While psyching remains a >legal part of the game, we do not want interpretations that are >strict enough to effectively ban psyching, and I do not read the laws >that way. There are times when it is clear that someone has psyched. I remember that someone was faced with what to do after 1D-X-XX-? when looking at a balanced 16 count. This is impossible of opener and doubler each have 12 and the redoubler has 10. This person KNEW someone had psyched, to not allow for that would be foolish. This person also knew that his partner NEVER psyched, so he was able to figure out that one of the opponents was the psycher. In hopes of avoiding trouble, he simply bid 3N. The auction continued 1D-X-XX-3N; P-P-? Is the redoubler forced into doubling here (or taking any action besides pass)? The opponents freely bid 3N and opener (who heard the redouble) did not double. The redoubler might also deduce that someone has psyched. If his partner is known to psych occasionally, why should he be forced to take action? I believe he should be permitted to allow for the psych and pass. David says that it has been demonstrated that an agreement or understanding exists. So what? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 08:10:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:10:28 +1000 Received: from emout28.mail.aol.com (emout28.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21529 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:10:21 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout28.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id SAA17364 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970930180412_711777949@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After reading several of the mailings on this subject, it occurred to me that it might be appropriate to quote Edgar Kaplan on the subject of Rule of Coincidence, which is published in the ACBL's DUPLICATE DECISIONS handbook, page 117. The quote is from a BRIDGE WORLD editorial, November 1993. A reader, Everett Young had stated that the RofC is unfamiliar to most players. His partner had made a takeout double of diamonds, holding four diamonds, and he had passed with a singleton, getting a good score and resulting in an RoC infraction. Mr. Young provided a long justification of his pass. Kaplan's comments: "In our view, the "Rule of Coincidence" SHOULD be unfamiliar to everyone, since there ain't no such animal. The Laws are very clear: 'A player may make any call or play...provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.' And, 'It is not improper for a player to violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the situation.' "Thus, the Laws protect your right, your partner's right, to make any bridge decision that your bridge judgment tells you will work, regardless of whether an opponent or Director or Committee or BRIDGE WORLD editor deplores that judgment. You are protected by Law, even if you both, on the same board, take actions that others consider foolish, and even when all the foolishness turns out fine for you." > Snipped discussion of several cases, including Mr. Young's< "They took no disciplinary action at all against Mr. Young and his partner, so they could not have suspected collusion, cheating. Well, if there was no collusion there was no infraction of Law (only an infraction of the imaginary Rule of Coincidence), so how could there be score adjustment.? "It certainly seems unrighteous that a penalty pass with a singleton trump should achieve a triumph (maybe Mr. Young has better judgment than the rest of us). Surely, though, we do not trust a Director or Committee to make a moral judgment like, 'That was a terrible bridge decision you made, so I'm going to see you get a terrible result.'" I would like to add that my belief is that the RofC was meant to be applied only to egregious cases that are prima facie evidence of cheating, but not sufficient evidence to convict (if that's possible). Right or wrong, the aim was to help TDs/ACs in the implementation of L40B, not to create a new Law. TDs and ACs in my part of the U. S. have employed the RofC, however, in cases involving inexperienced or undisciplined players making poor but successful calls that really are coincidences. That is not only wrong but was not the ACBL's intent in stating the RofC. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 08:20:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:20:35 +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 IAA21564 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:20:26 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA04174; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:20:13 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:20:13 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" Reply-To: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <342CCD90.E7E67D27@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [snip] > --------------------------------------------------- > 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. While I really have rather little to add to the discussion of the legality of psychic bids and other violations of partnership agreements/understandings/whatever, I think this type of regulation is an intriguing idea. It will do the two things I most want a rule about psychics to do -- guarantee my right to violate agreements whenever I choose, whether this happens to be once a year or two hands in a row; and give us a moderately objective criterion (did partner adapt his bidding to allow for deviation from system by you?) to base rulings upon. I would be happy to describe my psyching tendencies and their frequency to opponents, but, as it stands now, if I do this in a spirit of full disclosure, I get in trouble for having an illegal agreement that it is virtually impossible for me to NOT have. Under this rule it would be clearer that I could give my opponents the information they are entitled without upsetting them or the sponsoring organization. Now, since I actually LIKE the regulation, there surely is no chance of seeing it adopted in my lifetime... most of the other policy changes in recent years haven't pleased me... Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 09:59:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:59:23 +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 JAA21844 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:57:18 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-143.star.net.il [195.8.208.143]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA05231; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:54:30 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34319179.368B897A@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 01:55:38 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding - SOLVED(Was: Something wrong, but what?) References: <199709301814.OAA27824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Davids and all others I read yesterday an "anecdote" from the french group and it reminded me some "interesting situations " when I was summoned at tables where OLL or not experienced players played. Case 1. There are two kinds of red double cartoons and you may find in each bidding box 1-2 "D" and 1-2 "X".... .....W summoned me :- I asked the lady what is the meaning of "X" in this sequence - 1S - 3D(the offended) -"X" - ... and she said ^^ Penalty for sure , otherwise she should put "D" for take-out ^^ !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Case 2 . The auction : "stop" 2NT (OLL1)% - pass - 3D(OLL2) - pass - pass !! - .... Now the irritated Mr YYY summoned me : "the OLL2 alerted % but I didn't ask ; now after opener's pass I asked what does it mean and got : ^^2NT with stop is 5+5 minors while 2NT without "stop" is 20-22 p. Case 3 . Mr YYYZZZ : "the sequence was 1S - pass - Stop 2Cl- pass - pass !! .... all pass the only makeble contract , how could oppener pass ?? The oppener (a player just for 1&1/2 year but a good economist.....) explained ....^^ 2Cl with "stop" is non-forcing and without "stop" is forcing for one round !!!!!!!!!!!! ^^ It is real life ; I wrote them here "Just for fun" but they solved the problem of "suspicious" or "ambigous" bidding........ Dany David Grabiner wrote: > > David Stevenson writes: > > > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote > > >> 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. > > > The bidding goes > > > 1S Pass 3S Pass > > 4H AP > > > 4H makes, opener has 3S's and 6H's. They play 4H as a cue-bid, > > forcing, slam try, may be a void. > > While I agree with David that a brush-off from the director isn't > justified here, there is a problem. How do you rule on this, in a > jurisdiction in which the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist? > > -- > 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 Oct 1 10:30:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA22036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:30:26 +1000 Received: from bsd1.nyct.net (root@bsd1.nyct.net [204.141.86.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA22031 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:30:19 +1000 Received: from ldrb.nyct.net (ppp51.nyct.net [207.198.184.51]) by bsd1.nyct.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA27381; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3431992E.5207@nyct.net> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:28:30 -0400 From: ldrb Reply-To: ldrb@nyct.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mlfrench@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revised ACBL Alert Procedure References: <970930141855_518924052@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > > In going through the revised Alert Procedure shown on the ACBL web site, in > order to make sure that my own summary of them is up to date, I noted two > minor changes that could easily be missed: > > -- Delayed Alerts now apply to conventional BIDS, not doubles, redoubles, or > passes, above the level of 3NT starting with opener's rebid. They formerly > applied to all conventional CALLS. > > -- The definition of a "semi-forcing" 1NT response as one that opener may > pass if he has a "balanced minimum." Formerly this was "minimum 5-3-3-2." The > welcome change came too late to be included on the Alert Procedure sent to > clubs, but it is official and should be written in. > > Anyone wanting an up-to-date version of my compact (?) summary of the Alert > Procedure, unofficial of course, need only ask for it by e-mail. There still > remain some points of doubt in regard to details, which I shall cover in a > separate mailing someday. Thanks to everyone who pointed out mistakes and > language that needed clarification. Please keep those suggestions coming! > > David Stevenson will be revising his well-done presentation of my summary on > his web site. He is not responsible for any errors in it; those that may > exist are all mine. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) please send me revised alert procedures.thx ldrb From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 10:55:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA22120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:55:43 +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 KAA22114 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:55:32 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1426075; 1 Oct 97 1:52 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:07:59 +0100 To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: From Gary: X-XX-pass In-Reply-To: <970913022046_-1734927044@emout11.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970913022046_-1734927044@emout11.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com writes >>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. > .............(cut)............ Labeo: SOs that make a blanket statement that conventional calls are to be alerted need to state the exception if they do not wish take-out doubles to be alerted. Reason: by the definition in the laws take-out doubles are conventional and are not excluded from a regulation in this form simply because players take them for granted. -- 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 Wed Oct 1 10:58:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA22140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:58:40 +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 KAA22135 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 10:58:19 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0523126; 1 Oct 97 1:52 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:45:55 +0100 To: Tim Goodwin Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970927232513.3fef4ace@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.16.19970927232513.3fef4ace@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin writes >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: >>> >>>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. ....cut.... Tim G: >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? > ....cut.... Labeo: Well, let us apply the standard test - the revised definition of 'convention' now makes it much easier to decide. There are three questions to ask:- As a matter of partnership understanding 1. does the call show a willingness to play in the denomination named or the last denomination named? (><) or 2. does the call show high card strength in that denomination? or 3. does the call show length (three cards or more) in that denomination ? If the answer to any one of these questions is 'yes' then the call is not conventional. If the answer to all three is 'no', it is understood the specified condition may not be present, then the call is conventional. Pass is an exception because a conventional pass is defined in Law 30C. [Note (><) - if the player may not have the suit and intends to run if doubled that is not a willingness to play in that denomination.] There is of course a further question in other examples where the call is at the One level and is the initial action of that side. May it be made as a matter of partnership understanding on fewer than eight points? If so it is subject to regulation under Law 40D. -- 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 Wed Oct 1 11:48:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:48:59 +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 LAA22235 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:48:45 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-64.ime.net [209.90.193.94]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA29152; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:48:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970930215125.08ffb61c@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Labeo From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:45 PM 9/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >Labeo: Well, let us apply the standard test - the revised definition of >'convention' now makes it much easier to decide. > There are three questions to ask:- > As a matter of partnership understanding > 1. does the call show a willingness to play in the denomination >named or the last denomination named? (><) >or 2. does the call show high card strength in that denomination? >or 3. does the call show length (three cards or more) in that >denomination ? > If the answer to any one of these questions is 'yes' then the >call is not conventional. Then I would guess the definition (or test) is flawed. A 2H opening bid which shows spades and hearts and 13-15 points would not be conventional under the above test, but it seems clear to me that it is a convention. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 12:24:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:24:31 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA22358 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:24:18 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1408572; 1 Oct 97 3:16 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:12:17 +0100 To: David Grabiner Cc: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) In-Reply-To: <199709301814.OAA27824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199709301814.OAA27824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes >David Stevenson writes: > >> The bidding goes > >> 1S Pass 3S Pass >> 4H AP > >> 4H makes, opener has 3S's and 6H's. They play 4H as a cue-bid, >> forcing, slam try, may be a void. >DGrabiner says: >While I agree with David that a brush-off from the director isn't >justified here, there is a problem. How do you rule on this, in a >jurisdiction in which the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist? > Labeo: I would suggest that when it becomes apparent to all that Opener had only three Spades and six Hearts his opponent has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by unauthorized information and that he is entitled to call the Director and tell him the facts. The Director will ensure that play of the hand is completed and then invite the player who passed his partner's 4H bid to state the basis of the pass. There is then a bridge judgement to be made as to whether the explanation is plausible or whether it points to an awareness that the player has failed to explain and, therefore, a concealed understanding. A Director dealing at the end of the hand (per Law 16A2) with aberrant bidding or play for which he can establish no credible bridge explanation should, I would say, rule under Law 85B. I don't know about a Rule of Coincidence, I would have thought there is enough bridge law to handle such cases. In the example quoted I would consider the inferential evidence so powerful as to leave no sane AC in doubt. -- 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 Wed Oct 1 12:32:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:32:56 +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 MAA22398 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:32:45 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1114111; 1 Oct 97 3:28 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:27:24 +0100 To: Tim Goodwin Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970930215125.08ffb61c@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.16.19970930215125.08ffb61c@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 08:45 PM 9/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: > >>Labeo: Well, let us apply the standard test - the revised definition of >>'convention' now makes it much easier to decide. >> There are three questions to ask:- >> As a matter of partnership understanding >> 1. does the call show a willingness to play in the denomination >>named or the last denomination named? (><) >>or 2. does the call show high card strength in that denomination? >>or 3. does the call show length (three cards or more) in that >>denomination ? >> If the answer to any one of these questions is 'yes' then the >>call is not conventional. > >Then I would guess the definition (or test) is flawed. A 2H opening bid >which shows spades and hearts and 13-15 points would not be conventional >under the above test, but it seems clear to me that it is a convention. Labeo: I would think that your quoted bid shows a willingness to play in more than one suit and the answer to (1) should be 'no' since it is showing a willingness to play in a suit other than the one named. -- 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 Wed Oct 1 13:13:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:13:04 +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 NAA22476 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:12:58 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1418483; 1 Oct 97 4:10 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 04:08:34 +0100 To: Tim Goodwin Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970930215125.08ffb61c@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.16.19970930215125.08ffb61c@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 08:45 PM 9/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: > >>Labeo: Well, let us apply the standard test - ...cut... >Then I would guess the definition (or test) is flawed. A 2H opening bid >which shows spades and hearts and 13-15 points would not be conventional >under the above test, but it seems clear to me that it is a convention. > Labeo: On reflection, the question could have been better phrased. Q1 should ask: does the call convey a meaning other than willingness etc etc. or 2. etc. or 3. etc. - which of course means that if it does it is conventional. -- 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 Wed Oct 1 13:16:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:16:29 +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 NAA22497 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:16:18 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-64.ime.net [209.90.193.94]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA14909; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970930231845.314febca@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Labeo From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:27 AM 10/1/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >In message <1.5.4.16.19970930215125.08ffb61c@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin > writes >>At 08:45 PM 9/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >> >>>Labeo: Well, let us apply the standard test - the revised definition of >>>'convention' now makes it much easier to decide. >>> There are three questions to ask:- >>> As a matter of partnership understanding >>> 1. does the call show a willingness to play in the denomination >>>named or the last denomination named? (><) >>>or 2. does the call show high card strength in that denomination? >>>or 3. does the call show length (three cards or more) in that >>>denomination ? >>> If the answer to any one of these questions is 'yes' then the >>>call is not conventional. >> >>Then I would guess the definition (or test) is flawed. A 2H opening bid >>which shows spades and hearts and 13-15 points would not be conventional >>under the above test, but it seems clear to me that it is a convention. > >Labeo: I would think that your quoted bid shows a willingness to play >in more than one suit and the answer to (1) should be 'no' since it is >showing a willingness to play in a suit other than the one named. So? Question one doesn't say anything about a willingness to play in other denominations. If I open 2H showing hearts and spades and 13-15, I am showing a willingness to play in hearts. Answer to question one is 'yes.' Besides, your test only requires that ONE of the conditions be met. Certainly the answer to question 3 is 'yes.' While I'm at it, doesn't the test make a splinter a non-convention? It shows a willingness to play in the last denomination named. So, the answer to question one is 'yes.' Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 13:26:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:26:04 +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 NAA22536 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:25:56 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-64.ime.net [209.90.193.94]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA16219; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:25:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:25:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970930232758.314f4340@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Labeo From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:08 AM 10/1/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >In message <1.5.4.16.19970930215125.08ffb61c@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin > writes >>At 08:45 PM 9/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >> >>>Labeo: Well, let us apply the standard test - > > ...cut... > >>Then I would guess the definition (or test) is flawed. A 2H opening bid >>which shows spades and hearts and 13-15 points would not be conventional >>under the above test, but it seems clear to me that it is a convention. >> >Labeo: On reflection, the question could have been better phrased. Q1 > should ask: does the call convey a meaning other than willingness > etc etc. > or 2. etc. > or 3. etc. > - which of course means that if it does it is conventional. You still need to do some work. This would still produce a 'yes' answer to question one, but I understand that is just a wording problem. But (given the 2H shows hearts and spades and 13-15) the answer to number 3 is still 'yes,' and only one yes is required to make the call not conventional. >>Labeo: Well, let us apply the standard test - the revised definition of >>'convention' now makes it much easier to decide. >> There are three questions to ask:- >> As a matter of partnership understanding >> 1. does the call show a willingness to play in the denomination >>named or the last denomination named? (><) >>or 2. does the call show high card strength in that denomination? >>or 3. does the call show length (three cards or more) in that >>denomination ? >> If the answer to any one of these questions is 'yes' then the >>call is not conventional. Now that there have been obvious flaws shown in this 'standard' test, I'm wondering who made the standard and why it slipped through the review stage with such obvious errors. Or, is this a Labeo-standard? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 17:52:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA23038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:52:50 +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 RAA23033 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:52:39 +1000 Received: from bigfoot.ios.com (ppp-30.ts-4.lax.idt.net [169.132.209.30]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA17184; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3431FEF7.385F685E@idt.net> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:42:48 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Goodwin CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19970930180530.314f13c8@ime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A famous joke (in Southern California, anyway) about psyching: It seems the bidding went 1D-X-XX and 4th seat asked his LHO to leave the table, then asked his RHO if his partner every psyched. He was assured that from time to time he was known to do that. He then asked his RHO to leave the table and asked the same question, receiving approximately the same answer. He then bid 3NT was doubled, and went for a BIG number. After the hand, his LHO said, "Man, you sent the wrong dude from the table!" Irv Tim Goodwin wrote: > At 03:29 PM 9/30/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > The moment that I am allowing for it in *any* way, now it is an > >agreement or understanding. But not before. While psyching remains > a > >legal part of the game, we do not want interpretations that are > >strict enough to effectively ban psyching, and I do not read the laws > > >that way. > > There are times when it is clear that someone has psyched. I remember > that > someone was faced with what to do after 1D-X-XX-? when looking at a > balanced > 16 count. This is impossible of opener and doubler each have 12 and > the > redoubler has 10. This person KNEW someone had psyched, to not allow > for > that would be foolish. This person also knew that his partner NEVER > psyched, so he was able to figure out that one of the opponents was > the > psycher. In hopes of avoiding trouble, he simply bid 3N. The auction > > continued 1D-X-XX-3N; P-P-? Is the redoubler forced into doubling > here (or > taking any action besides pass)? The opponents freely bid 3N and > opener > (who heard the redouble) did not double. The redoubler might also > deduce > that someone has psyched. If his partner is known to psych > occasionally, > why should he be forced to take action? I believe he should be > permitted to > allow for the psych and pass. David says that it has been > demonstrated that > an agreement or understanding exists. So what? > > Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 1 20:59:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:59:05 +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 UAA23338 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:58:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1004344; 1 Oct 97 11:38 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 23:41:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) In-Reply-To: <199709301814.OAA27824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote >David Stevenson writes: >> "Michael S. Dennis" wrote >>> 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. >> The bidding goes > >> 1S Pass 3S Pass >> 4H AP > >> 4H makes, opener has 3S's and 6H's. They play 4H as a cue-bid, >> forcing, slam try, may be a void. >While I agree with David that a brush-off from the director isn't >justified here, there is a problem. How do you rule on this, in a >jurisdiction in which the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist? By investigation. Look, do you know what I would do first? I would ask what the bidding was. That is investigation, and that is what Michael is saying I should not do. Unless I am allowed to investigate, how do I know whether the RoC is relevant even if it applies? Let us take this example a little further. My approach to this is as follows, and perhaps Michael and others who have objected to the investigative process can tell me why my approach is not good for the game. ----------- Player: "Director, I think the opponents' bidding is a little strange. Could you look at it please?" INVESTIGATION STEP #1 Me: "Please tell me what the auction is." Player: "He opened 1S playing Acol, she raised to 3S, he bid 4H, she passed and it made!" CONSIDERATION STEP #1 Me to myself: "Is it worth investigating further? Yes, I fear so!" INVESTIGATION STEP #2 Me: "Were there any alerts, please?" Player: "She alerted 4H!" CONSIDERATION STEP #2 Me to myself: "Is it worth investigating further? Yes, I fear so!" INVESTIGATION STEP #3 Me to lady: "Please tell me what 4H means." Lady: "Errrrr, it's, err, a cue-bid, showing, errr, an ace or void." CONSIDERATION STEP #3 Me to myself: "Is it worth investigating further? Yes, I fear so!" INVESTIGATION STEP #4 Me to lady: "Please tell me what 1S shows." Lady: "We play Acol." CONSIDERATION STEP #4 Me to myself: "Is it worth investigating further? Yes, I fear so!" INVESTIGATION STEP #5 Me to gentleman: "Please tell me what 3S shows." Gentleman: "I suppose about 11 points or so with spades." CONSIDERATION STEP #5 Me to myself: "Is it worth investigating further? This is the big one! I have accused no-one of anything. I have asked no accusatory questions. Questions from now on will be more considered more accusatory, whether I mean them that way or not. Should I proceed? Yes, I fear so!" INVESTIGATION STEP #6 Me to gentleman: "Please tell me why you bid 1S." Gentleman: "***********************************************" CONSIDERATION STEP #6 Me to myself: "Is it worth investigating further? Yes, I fear so!" INVESTIGATION STEP #7 Me to gentleman: "Please tell me why you bid 4H." Gentleman: "***********************************************" CONSIDERATION STEP #7 Me to myself: "Is it worth investigating further? Yes, I fear so!" INVESTIGATION STEP #8 Me to lady: "Please tell me why you passed 4H." Lady: "***********************************************" CONSIDERATION STEP #8 Me to myself: "Is it worth investigating further? No, I think I have found everything out now." FINAL STEP Me to everyone: "Is there anything else anyone would like to tell me? No? Please score the board with the result obtained and I shall consider, consult and return to you. ----------- That's an investigation. Some people have said there is no case for starting an investigation. I am sure they are wrong, but possibly only in understanding the meaning of the word "investigation". After all, here on BLML we are told an auction and asked for an opinion. When someone says something is suspicious in RLB we are *required* to investigate, but only as far as satisfies ourselves. Note how I consider after every answer. After all, if the sequence was the same but the system was Roman Club, then this sequence shows [the way some play it] 3 Ss + 6 Hs, and the pass of 4H is no longer suspicious. ----------- I am unhappy about people who want a Senate investigation whenever they have a bad board, and I never forget there are such people when I am told a sequence is suspicious. But I have to investigate to the point that I satisfy myself that there is or is not a problem. And how do I decide if the RoC is not available to me? That is easy: as with any other judgement decision. I garner the facts, I consider and consult, I make a judgement and I tell the players. ----------- So what is wrong with the investigative approach? -- 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 Oct 1 21:22:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:22:11 +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 VAA23454 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:22:02 +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 NAA06695 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:21:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <34322C69.F99E6E5D@innet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:56:41 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Interpretations of Law 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 > > >Why not give guidelines as to how these more equitable scores are to be > >obtained ? > > > >Why Oh Why ? > I intended my remark as pointing out an illogical aspect of the Laws : If the intent was that the 'correct' score should be an equitable one, then why did they not let TD's give that kind of score. I concluded (I now realize erroneously) that the 'equitable' scores were not what was intended. Meanwhile I have read Grattan Endicott's remark on the issue. It seems that indeed the 'equitable' score should be given. It may strike us as regrettable that a TD is not given the authority to do so on his own initiative. However since the TD can now himself send matters to appeal this need not be a bad thing. David Stevenson commented on this thread in an excellent (snipped) way. I agree with what he says. However, in these early days of new laws, it does seem to me that some 'guidance' as to possible differences of interpretation might be asked. This guidance was also asked in 1987 (I recall), but then on a one-to-one basis, by mail. -- 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 Oct 1 22:14:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:14:49 +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 WAA23688 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:14:23 +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 OAA09731; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:13:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34323EBE.29E9ADD3@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 14:14:54 +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: Double-chance and uniform rulling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David One remark and one question : Remark : I agree with every word you wrote in first paragraph but the asterisk = I have a Galactic authority for making coffee My WIFE - Zone organizations are less important than dust for this item !!!!!!! Question : If I understood your second paragraph , is it illegal to halt play if an irregularity doesn't let any normal continuation ? (I don't mean extreme events , like throwing cards or worse.....) Dany David Stevenson wrote: > > rts48u wrote > > >>The TD is not allowed to see cards (or consider them if saw > >> them incidentally ) until the bid and play is finished. > > >Please cure my ignorance...where in the laws is the diector prohibited from > >seeing the cards before bid and play are finished? I have seen the ethical > >problem arise in club games with a playing director, but surely this is nor the > >reason in a tournament setting. > > It is one of the first things taught to a TD. No, it is not a part of > the Law book, but it is standard expertise for TDs, as is asking a table > "How can I help?", listening to all four players not just one or two, > hearing the facts then ruling, consulting over judgement rulings and > learning to make coffee [*]. All of these are considered TD skills, and > none of them appear in the Law book. > > [*] Certain Zonal authorities only > > >Certainly the director does not want to give information about a player's > >holding to another player before the hand is completed, as this could unfairly > >affect the outcome. But why would the director be barred from seeing the cards, > >especially if he must do so to rule correctly. Isn't this part of investigating? > > Absolutely not. it is just not possible to look at the cards and make > any sort of sensible decision. Let me give you an example of what we > are talking about. > > The bidding goes > > 3H No No 3N > 4H No No 4N > No No No[H] > > The player who bid 3H leads a spade and declarer calls you to complain > that a heart would have been led without the hesitation. How do you > rule? > > Any competent TD requires the hand to be played out, and returns then > to see if an adjustment is necessary. > > Let us say you don't, but you immediately look at opening leader's > hand. You see > QT93 > JT4 > 7 > KJ654 > > Now what? > > Be honest: the first thing you do is to ask them to repeat the > bidding, and now *everyone* knows there is something wrong. Turning a > becoming shade of green, you faintly ask whether there were any alerts > as you sneak the convention card off the table, and *three tables away* > people are aware of your problems. > > There are, as with any other rule, exceptions. But a TD who is > looking at the players' hands during the play more than [say] once every > two years is not approaching his task correctly and should re-examine > his basic approach. > > >And with regard to the original thread, I had always thought that a director > >should strive whenever possible to acheive a normal result through play. > >Routinely halting play and assigning a score does not seem to promote this > >end...it warps the result to some degree for all participants and as a side but > >real effect usually iriitates the paying customers at the table even when it > >might not have been necessary to do so. > > Look, it's just ILLEGAL. TDs do not halt play. Anyone that does > definitely does not know how to approach these matters. > > > Sometimes an adjusted or assigned score > >cannot equitably be avoided...but it shouldn't be what we aim at upon arrival at > >the table. I was taught that dealing with irregularities and/or breaches of the > >proprieties in a manner so as to minimize their effect upon the contest and the > >enjoyment of the players was the director'r primary job. Now that being fast > >with a pencil is of minimal importance, this aim would appear to be MORE not > >less important. Have I missed something here? > > What you have missed is that you are worrying about TDs who are not > doing their job. When a TD is called to the table he rules on any > mechanical manner, and leaves any judgement matter, or matter that > requires further investigation in any way, until the end of the hand. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 2 02:00:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:00:50 +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 CAA26968 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 02:00:43 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xGRKQ-0005w8-00; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:08:46 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.51.104] by snow.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xGRDL-0000Z5-00; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:01:28 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: A bit of frivolity Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:00:01 +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 One of our leading ladies pairs once had this incident: The bidding had gone 1NT-3NT. West considered her opening lead for some considerable time. It was now discovered that she had left a card in the board. East immediately burst out laughing, and said: "Well, now I know my partner has a 4-3-3-3 shape!" Obviously, the reason for West's trance was that she could not find the fourth highest card of her longest suit, because until the discovery of her 13th card, she had no fourth highest card of any suit. Is this authorised information? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 2 05:44:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 05:44:14 +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 FAA28343 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 05:44:07 +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 PAA02561; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710011943.PAA02278@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk CC: Mlfrench@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Labeo on Tue, 30 Sep 1997 01:07:59 +0100) Subject: Re: From Gary: X-XX-pass Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > In message <970913022046_-1734927044@emout11.mail.aol.com>, > Mlfrench@aol.com writes >>> 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. >> > .............(cut)............ > Labeo: SOs that make a blanket statement that conventional calls > are to be alerted need to state the exception if they do not wish > take-out doubles to be alerted. Reason: by the definition in the laws > take-out doubles are conventional and are not excluded from a > regulation in this form simply because players take them for granted. That's fine, except that a penalty pass of a redoubled takeout double is not a convention; it expresses willingness to play in the last contract named, which is the definition of a natural pass. -- 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 Oct 2 06:41:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 06:41:19 +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 GAA28620 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 06:40:26 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA18887 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:40:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15084; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:40:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:40:15 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710012040.QAA15084@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretations of Law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson I share David's thoughts on the value of BLML and thank him for expressing them so well. But this: > 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. For those who have joined us since this discussion, the record should show the following: 1. No poll was ever taken, so we do not know which position was the minority and which the majority. 2. There was in fact very little operational difference about when you could look at convention cards. The debate was over whether a prohibition on looking at the CC when it is not your turn is to be found in L40E2 or elsewhere (primarily L73A). As I say, the operational difference is small, but it is not zero. 3. Edgar Kaplan and Jeff Rubens disagreed on the answer. This suggests to me that there is merit in both viewpoints. 4. More generally, there are quite a number of Laws that might or might not "assume the converse" of what is written. The question of how these are to be interpreted seems of interest. At the very least, people should know that there are two points of view on this question, both strongly held. Although I don't see why one should become "incensed" over a genuine difference of opinion, if the above is really the worst we have done, we have done quite well indeed. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 2 07:01:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 07:01:34 +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 HAA28705 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 07:01:22 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id QAA13938 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:01:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0M7NC01S Wed, 01 Oct 97 15:48:41 Message-ID: <9710011548.0M7NC01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 97 15:48:41 Subject: LAW71C WAS RE: CONT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Reply-To: B>Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim B>Grattan Endicott wrote B> B>>In Law 71C as currently written the statement beginning 'Until the B>>conceding side makes a call on a subsequent....' is included within the B>>first statement in 71C. There is tautology but no conflict as to what the B>>Director shall do at any time up to the end of the period established in B>>accordance B>>with Law79C.There is no doubt in my mind that the intention was to delete B>>everything in 71C after the first occasion that '... normal play of the B>>remaining B>>cards.' appears. B>> B>>My evidence for this is circumstantial but strong. In a memorandum dated B>>15th June 1994 Edgar Kaplan, as Chairman of the drafting committee, B>>circulated some suggestions for matters to be revised in the 1997 code. B>>Of Law 71 he wrote that he had received a suggestion to 'delete the colon B>>after "that"; delete the headings, both A and B; start the word "within" B>>with a small w, right after the word "that"; change heading 1 to A, and 2 B>>to B; add, as C, # Implausible Concession if a player has conceded B>>a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards # The last time I looked up 'suggestion' the dictionary said nothing about 'You do it this way OR ELSE'. Recommendations are made to a committee to be considered. Just because Edgar made them does not mean they will be implemented or even that they were good or in the best interest of bridge. The EVIDENCE is that Edgar made suggestions 3 years ago and the ones this discussion is about WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED. The inference being that they were considered for three years and it was decided best to not include them in the revised laws, and therefore, no mistake was made when they were not included. B>>He continued with a clarification and an opinion : "This changes the time B>>period for cancel(l)ing the implausible concession from the start of the B>>next board to the usual protest period. Why not?" B>> B>>This supports a view that only inefficiency has allowed the final sentence B>>of 71C toremain. It should have been deleted. All of us on the drafting B>>committee had ample opportunities to correct Edgar's master copy. It has to B>>be addedthat it was one of the early decisions and I do not recall that we B>>went back to it at all. Howeverit seems to me that, at least until a further B>>printing is issued (when the amendment should perhaps be made) there is in B>>fact no conflict as regards the meaning of the law but only a confusing way B>of B>>saying it. David Stevenson wrote: B>While this is in conflict with my opinion given earlier it is a B>reasonable alternative. The basic point is that the law is clearly B>flawed, so there does really need to be some interpretation laid down. B> B>A pity that two mistakes were made. If the now unnecessary bit of B>L71A had been discarded then Grattan's opinion would have been clearly B>seen as the correct one. R Pewick Houston, Tx r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 2 10:11:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:11:22 +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 KAA29259 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:11:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0900900; 2 Oct 97 1:00 BST Message-ID: <6pONu9AExlM0Ew9D@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:20:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling In-Reply-To: <34323EBE.29E9ADD3@star.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote >Hi David > >One remark and one question : > >Remark : I agree with every word you wrote in first paragraph >but the asterisk = I have a Galactic authority for making >coffee My WIFE - Zone organizations are less important than dust >for this item !!!!!!! I don't think you are subject to the correct ZO for coffee making. >Question : If I understood your second paragraph , is it illegal >to halt play if an irregularity doesn't let any normal continuation ? >(I don't mean extreme events , like throwing cards or worse.....) Obviously you can halt play if they are playing the board for the second time. But I think it is an extreme event. You may not halt play for any UI reason, for example. You may not halt play because the sequence is ludicrous, or impossible, or something. A long-ago ruling when I was declarer. After LHO knocked her bidding box over when she was on lead, I offered to sort the bidding cards for her while she lead. "Thanks," she said, and started to put dummy down, putting 12 cards face up on the table before anyone could stop her. I called the TD, who halted play and gave me 60-40. He was wrong: he had no reason to halt play and thus no right. The TD i/c later amended it under L82C, giving split adjusted scores that benefitted both sides. Of course I was over-simplifying. The TD can halt play if it is the wrong board or if the players are sitting the wrong way or if dealer has a heart attack or if the table collapses and all the cards are seen or if a player will never play another card twenty minutes after being warned or if there is a fire or if the lights go out or .... But not because of a bidding or play snafu [actual or potential]. -- 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 Oct 2 10:17:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:17:42 +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 KAA29294 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:17:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0614408; 2 Oct 97 1:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:04:00 +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: <1.5.4.16.19970930180530.314f13c8@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote >At 03:29 PM 9/30/97 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >> The moment that I am allowing for it in *any* way, now it is an >>agreement or understanding. But not before. While psyching remains a >>legal part of the game, we do not want interpretations that are >>strict enough to effectively ban psyching, and I do not read the laws >>that way. > >There are times when it is clear that someone has psyched. I remember that >someone was faced with what to do after 1D-X-XX-? when looking at a balanced >16 count. This is impossible of opener and doubler each have 12 and the >redoubler has 10. This person KNEW someone had psyched, to not allow for >that would be foolish. This person also knew that his partner NEVER >psyched, so he was able to figure out that one of the opponents was the >psycher. In hopes of avoiding trouble, he simply bid 3N. The auction >continued 1D-X-XX-3N; P-P-? Is the redoubler forced into doubling here (or >taking any action besides pass)? The opponents freely bid 3N and opener >(who heard the redouble) did not double. The redoubler might also deduce >that someone has psyched. If his partner is known to psych occasionally, >why should he be forced to take action? I believe he should be permitted to >allow for the psych and pass. David says that it has been demonstrated that >an agreement or understanding exists. So what? Sneaky, huh! I can't even write something short and snappy, but someone takes me literally. Oh well .... When I said >> The moment that I am allowing for it in *any* way, now it is an >>agreement or understanding. But not before. I meant >> It is not an agreement or understanding before the moment that I am >>allowing for it in *any* way, sometimes not even then. -- 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 Oct 2 10:25:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:25:53 +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 KAA29325 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:25:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1423454; 2 Oct 97 1:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:00:34 +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: <1.5.4.16.19970930232758.314f4340@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote >Now that there have been obvious flaws shown in this 'standard' test, I'm >wondering who made the standard and why it slipped through the review stage >with such obvious errors. Or, is this a Labeo-standard? I cannot quite remember how long you have been reading BLML, Tim. Not=20 very long ago we had a discussion on the new definition of Convention. =20 The general feeling [no, don't shoot me, not the unanimous feeling, but=20 a majority one] was that the new definition was seriously flawed in that=20 it was not totally consistent, and made non-conventions out of calls=20 that people felt ought to be conventional [for example, an opening bid=20 is always made in the suit with the strongest top-card structure]. Now we were not saying that the lawmakers had done a stupid job or=20 anything. It is *very* difficult to come up with a definition that is=20 just as people feel it ought to be. I for one would prefer the=20 definition either to be deleted from the law book, and left to custom=20 and practice or ZO or SO regulation [a view that put me in a *very*=20 small minority ] or defined differently in the two places it is=20 required, namely L40 and insufficient bids. To me it is clear that the=20 new definition is defined for L40. Months ago we considered a definition of convention on BLML and came=20 up with: A convention is a call that, by agreement: directly suggests that the final contract be in a denomination other than the current one; or, for a suit bid, does not show length, strength, or values in the suit named or directly shows length, strength, or values in another specified suit; or=20 for a notrump bid, does not directly suggest notrumps as a final denomination and may show an unbalanced hand; or for a pass, promises more than a specified amount of strength. Personally, I prefer this definition to the Law book. Some felt that Convention=A0=20 A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than=20 willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last=20 denomination named), or highcard strength or length (three cards or=20 more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make=20 a call a convention. would be better worded [without changing the intended meaning] as Convention=A0=20 A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than (or=20 in addition to) willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the=20 last denomination named in the case of a pass, double or redouble), or=20 highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an=20 agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. =20 Willingness is stronger than being prepared to play there if necessary. =20 See also Law 30C. There was much discussion as to how much of the first sentence was=20 covered by "willingness to play": if all then the definition became much=20 more acceptable. At about the time we were discussing these matters on BLML, a very=20 long time reader of this list mentioned that we were all crazy in an=20 article he wrote on OKB, saying that *he* knew what a Convention was=20 without all this tomfoolery. I tended to agree! While I am sympathetic to all the worries and comments, we have this=20 definition in the 1997 Laws, and we should do two things [a] work with it as far as possible for ten years [b] get it changed for 2007! --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 2 20:05:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:05:46 +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 UAA00790 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:05:37 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-220.innet.be [194.7.10.220]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA28126 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:05:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3433763F.375ED6B0@innet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:23:59 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 31st october X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <342A466B.EDD5D566@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > > 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 have received probable confirmations from the following locations : - Belgium - my club - another one in Antwerp - Canada, Montreal - Czech Republic - Israel - Russia (apparently several clubs) - US - North Carolina - another one Even with only eight locations, I'm going to do it. (three other people had comments. One commented it was Hallowe'en but I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that. If Vanderbilt had a Hallowe'en party to go to, well he didn't) > I'm thinking of the following : > > I let a program deal some, say 32, deals. Someone suggested 36 deals to accomodate a 17 table tournament. OK. > 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. One person indeed requested Duplimate - OK. > You play in your club (your regular movement) and calculate your > tournament. > On saturday you e-mail me the results for all the boards. Many people have asked about the mechanism. For now, I suggest a text file. > 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 ? > Offers still welcome. > I'll await your suggestions or comments on a name for this tournament as > well. > Some suggestions : > > Balboa > Panama > Finland > Vanderbilt > Internet > blml > I have received as additional suggestions : Kaplan Internement While several people said there was already a Vanderbilt (of course), only one person chose from above : SS Finland. I propose therefor : "the first annual BLML - SS Finland - challenge" Someone suggested we ask OKBridge to join, but I doubt if that's a good idea. Even now, the sections in Moskou and Montreal will not overlap, but what time to choose on OKBridge ? Either someone from Moskou will first play in his club and then on the net, or someone in Montreal will do the reverse. I will mail the individual responders with more details. -- 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 Oct 2 20:28:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:28:20 +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 UAA00821 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:28:10 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id EAA26569; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 04:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma026491; Thu, 2 Oct 97 04:01:56 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id DAA03009 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 03:52:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710021052.DAA03009@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 10:14:41 GMT Subject: LAW71C WAS RE: CONT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk R Pewick said: > The last time I looked up 'suggestion' the dictionary said nothing >about 'You do it this way OR ELSE'. Recommendations are made to a >committee to be considered. Just because Edgar made them does not mean >they will be implemented or even that they were good or in the best >interest of bridge. The EVIDENCE is that Edgar made suggestions 3 years >ago and the ones this discussion is about WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED. The >inference being that they were considered for three years and it was >decided best to not include them in the revised laws, and therefore, no >mistake was made when they were not included. Obviously R Pewick is entitled to his view as the evidence. Since all the textual changes were made exactly as proposed it seems to me reasonable to suppose they were implemented. The question is "What do they mean?", given that what was L71B remains as the final sentence of L71C. To me, the following statement makes clear the intent of the "suggester". >B>>He continued with a clarification and an opinion : "This changes the time >B>>period for cancel(l)ing the implausible concession from the start of the >B>>next board to the usual protest period. Why not?" It seems to me reasonable to assume that, since the full committee presumably approved the suggested changes, that this was also what they intended them to mean. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 2 21:30:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:30:44 +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 VAA00967 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:30:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0611287; 2 Oct 97 12:16 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 01:39:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Deliberate pause to inform declarer MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Neil Cohen wrote on RGB and I have borrowed it! Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have a problem? Suppose declarer is S, and a hand looks like: 9xxxx Kx J10x AQx Declarer needs to pick up this suit with one loser and is very short on entries to dummy. He starts by cashing the club A from his hand. Is it permissible for E to pause slightly before playing an honor, so declarer will know he has both the J and 10 and consider running the Q next? -- 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 Oct 2 21:36:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:36:56 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA01000 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:36:47 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-248.innet.be [194.7.10.248]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA17323 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:36:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <343385D0.B4F6A1F2@innet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 12:30:24 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A bit of frivolity 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: > > One of our leading ladies pairs once had this incident: > > The bidding had gone 1NT-3NT. West considered her opening lead for some > considerable time. It was now discovered that she had left a card in the > board. East immediately burst out laughing, and said: "Well, now I know my > partner has a 4-3-3-3 shape!" Obviously, the reason for West's trance was > that she could not find the fourth highest card of her longest suit, > because until the discovery of her 13th card, she had no fourth highest > card of any suit. > > Is this authorised information? NO (did you really expect a longer response ?) Good story. -- 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 Oct 3 00:49:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:49:07 +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 AAA03801 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:48:56 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-16.star.net.il [195.8.208.16]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01347; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:48:00 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3433B482.A9928CBF@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:49:38 +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: 31st october References: <342A466B.EDD5D566@innet.be> <3433763F.375ED6B0@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id QAA01347 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman The most important thing is to get results as quick as possible. I think the quickest way way to send you results is faxing the score sheets . If agreed - let us know=A0 your fax number. I don't think there is any good-profit to involve OKB. One more remark - I am not sure it is a good idea to calculate local sections "alone" - my experience with simultaneous tells that there may be a difference of up to 8-10% from the overall score !! Dany =A0 Herman De Wael wrote: > I wrote: > > > > My bridge club wants to do something special on the last friday of ea= ch > > month. > > I want to do something special on the 31st of october, which is the d= ate > > that the Finland reached the Panama Canal in 1925. I consider that th= e > > 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 have received probable confirmations from the following locations : > > - Belgium > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - my club > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - another one in Antwerp > - Canada, Montreal > - Czech Republic > - Israel > - Russia (apparently several clubs) > - US > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - North Carolina > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - another one > > Even with only eight locations, I'm going to do it. > > (three other people had comments. One commented it was Hallowe'en but > I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that. If Vanderbilt had a > Hallowe'en party to go to, well he didn't) > > > I'm thinking of the following : > > > > I let a program deal some, say 32, deals. > > Someone suggested 36 deals to accomodate a 17 table tournament. OK. > > > I e-mail you these. > > I also make a file that the Jannersten duplicator can read - so we ca= n > > have machine duplication if you can reach such a machine. > > One person indeed requested Duplimate - OK. > > > You play in your club (your regular movement) and calculate your > > tournament. > > On saturday you e-mail me the results for all the boards. > > Many people have asked about the mechanism. For now, I suggest a text > file. > > > 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 ? > > > > Offers still welcome. > > > I'll await your suggestions or comments on a name for this tournament= as > > well. > > Some suggestions : > > > > Balboa > > Panama > > Finland > > Vanderbilt > > Internet > > blml > > > > I have received as additional suggestions : > > Kaplan > Internement > > While several people said there was already a Vanderbilt (of course), > only one person chose from above : SS Finland. > > I propose therefor : "the first annual BLML - SS Finland - challenge" > > Someone suggested we ask OKBridge to join, but I doubt if that's a good > idea. Even now, the sections in Moskou and Montreal will not overlap, > but what time to choose on OKBridge ? Either someone from Moskou will > first play in his club and then on the net, or someone in Montreal will > do the reverse. > > I will mail the individual responders with more details. > > -- > 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 =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 00:52:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:52:11 +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 AAA03836 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:51:57 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-16.star.net.il [195.8.208.16]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA01394; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:50:17 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3433B50B.5606E5FD@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:51:55 +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=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sir I think the Latin Quotation should be renewed for our days: As many opinions as twice there are men ; each a law for others , not for himself . Do you agree ?? Cordially Dany Labeo wrote: .........cut....... > -- 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 Fri Oct 3 03:25:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:25:45 +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 DAA04719 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:25:30 +1000 Received: from default (client87c2.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.194]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA15705; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:30:24 +0100 Message-Id: <199710021730.SAA15705@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Interpretations of Law Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:27:18 +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 : I think the world-wide discussion is a good thing. It may be helpful to bear in mind that responsibility for interpretation of the laws rests initially with each national authority. This in turn is invited to seek guidance from the Zonal Authority where it has a problem and the W.B.F. Laws Committee, acting corporately, bears responsibility in its remit for ultimate interpretation of the meaning. If consultedindividual members of the Committee are always helpful (and sometimes opinionated!) although their views are, of necessity, offered on a personal basis. ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Interpretations of Law > Date: 30 September 1997 08:19 > > Herman De Wael wrote > > >Why not give guidelines as to how these more equitable scores are to be > >obtained ? > > > >Why Oh Why ? and David S added: > > 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. > \\\\\snipped/////> > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 04:16:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:16:36 +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 EAA05066 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:16:26 +1000 Received: from default (client83e7.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.231]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA19322; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:21:21 +0100 Message-Id: <199710021821.TAA19322@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: LAW71C WAS RE: CONT Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:15:03 +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 : Every document I have that responds to the Law 71 suggestion (from numbers of people) agrees the change should be made. The next time a fresh draft was circulated the change was in it, albeit imperfectly made. I think Mr. Pewick is swimming against a very strong tide. If the change was made the intended meaning has to be as Edgar described it. On this at least I can say that *my* approval of it was certainly on that basis. [I simply wrote: "(new numbering) Laws 50 through 71 :Yes. We may have the odd problem out of 70E."]. > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: LAW71C WAS RE: CONT > Date: 02 October 1997 11:14 > > R Pewick said: > > > The last time I looked up 'suggestion' the dictionary said nothing > >about 'You do it this way OR ELSE'. Recommendations are made to a > >committee to be considered. Just because Edgar made them does not mean > >they will be implemented or even that they were good or in the best > >interest of bridge. The EVIDENCE is that Edgar made suggestions 3 years > >ago and the ones this discussion is about WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED. The > >inference being that they were considered for three years and it was > >decided best to not include them in the revised laws, and therefore, no > >mistake was made when they were not included. > \\snipped// Stephen Barnfield: > It seems to me reasonable to assume that, since the full committee presumably > approved the suggested changes, that this was also what they intended them to > mean. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 07:01:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:01:41 +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 HAA05588 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:01:33 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0925918; 2 Oct 97 21:48 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:39:55 +0100 To: Tim Goodwin Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970930231845.314febca@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.16.19970930231845.314febca@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin writes >At 03:27 AM 10/1/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >>In message <1.5.4.16.19970930215125.08ffb61c@ime.net>, Tim Goodwin >> writes >>>At 08:45 PM 9/28/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >>> >>>>Labeo: Well, let us apply the standard test - >>under the above test, but it seems clear to me that it is a convention. >> >>Labeo: I would think that your quoted bid shows a willingness to play >>in more than one suit and the answer to (1) should be 'no' since it is >>showing a willingness to play in a suit other than the one named. > > Labeo: My fault - trying to be too clever by reversing the definition into three questions. It did not work. So let's go back to the basics. Law Book definition says a call (exclude Pass - see later) is conventional if it conveys a meaning other than: 1. willingness to play in the named denomination (or the last named denomination); OR 2. high card strength in the denomination named; OR 3. length (three cards or more) in the denomination named. So if by partnership agreement (and that covers any partnership understanding which, once identified, you continue to play) a call may have a meaning other than one of these, it is conventional. The true question, therefore, is whether such is the case. Pass - a conventional pass is defined in Law 30; it is not a good arrangement to divorce this definition from the others and the relevant statement belongs in the definitions at the front of the book. For the record, two-suited bids show a willingness to play in either one of two suits or a holding in more than one suit, at least one of which is not named; they fail to comply with any of the three statements above because in each instance they show an additional feature. The route taken in the laws, of course, is to define (except in the case of Pass) what is not a conventional call and then to say that all else is conventional. -- 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 Fri Oct 3 08:38:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:38:36 +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 IAA05864 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:38:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab0522045; 2 Oct 97 23:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:46:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L25A MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk S puts the wrong bidding card on the table. We allow it to be changed [subject to ...] so long as N has not called. We allow W to take back any call he has made under Law ...? I know we have discussed it: I know there seemed to be no Law: we hoped it would appear in the 1997 Laws: but *someone* said ... and quoted a Law number. Which Law? Who said it? Grattan? Steve? Jens? Labeo? No doubt everyone has looked at the new wording and wondered if the call can be changed after dummy has appeared, so long as the mistaken call was one of the last two calls of the auction, obviously being a pass. Can it? Herman changed one in slightly different circumstances but most of us agreed at the time that we would not have. Anyway, that was 1987. How about this case now? -- 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 Oct 3 12:23:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:23:52 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA06478 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:23:42 +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 VAA07645 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 21:23:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0TZ9M03K Thu, 02 Oct 97 21:20:25 Message-ID: <9710022120.0TZ9M03@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 97 21:20:25 Subject: LAW71C WA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: O>Every document I have that responds to the Law 71 suggestion O>(from numbers of people) agrees the change should be made. O>The next time a fresh draft was circulated the change was O>in it, albeit imperfectly made. I think Mr. Pewick is swimming O>against a very strong tide. If the change was made the O>intended meaning has to be as Edgar described it. On this O>at least I can say that *my* approval of it was certainly on O>that basis. [I simply wrote: "(new numbering) Laws 50 O>through 71 :Yes. We may have the odd problem out of 70E."]. O> O> O>> From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com O>> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au O>> Subject: LAW71C WAS RE: CONT O>> Date: 02 October 1997 11:14 O>> O>> R Pewick said: O>> O>> > The last time I looked up 'suggestion' the dictionary said nothing O>> >about 'You do it this way OR ELSE'. Recommendations are made to a O>> >committee to be considered. Just because Edgar made them does not mean O>> >they will be implemented or even that they were good or in the best O>> >interest of bridge. The EVIDENCE is that Edgar made suggestions 3 years O>> >ago and the ones this discussion is about WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED. The O>> >inference being that they were considered for three years and it was O>> >decided best to not include them in the revised laws, and therefore, no O>> >mistake was made when they were not included. O>> O> \\snipped// O> O>Stephen Barnfield: O>> It seems to me reasonable to assume that, since the full committee O>>presumably approved the suggested changes, that this was also what O>>they intended them to mean. I have dug up a memorandum dated February 4, 1997 compiling and discussing the changes to the laws. I came into possession of it at the Summer Nationals in Albuquerque at a seminar covering this topic. I quote from page 12: ….. LAW 71 CONCESSION CANCELED The intention here is to not change the Law. The interpretation is the same as the previous Law. The time limit in part C applies to part C only and supercedes the time noted in the introduction. ... I apologize that when I had made my previous comments, I had not reviewed this document and spoken from it. I do not know the procedures for approval of the laws and would find it enlightening to find out. My post was pointed at the language which was used to make various assertions. The encompassing use of the phrase- suggestion by Edgar- to assert that one thing was intended even though what made it into print contradicts it. The use of 'presumably approved' as to mean that it was a fact. And the same concerning ‘if it was approved it was meant to be what Edgar said was suggested to him'. I mainly was pointing out that the phraseology used was that of a hedger, someone who qualified his statement so that in the slim chance it was not accurate, then face could be saved. I do not doubt that there was [and still is] support of members of the committee for deleting the last sentence of L71C. Personally, I would have benefited many times from such a change, but I am in favor of rewording the last sentence retaining the meaning, not eliminating it. I believe that bridge ought to be a real time event and allowing revisions to completed play after a hand has begun makes the game too much of a crap shoot, pardon the expression. If there is interest in the entirety of above mentioned memorandum, REVISED LAWS- DISCUSSION ITEMS, I presume that the ACBL will feel it is ok for me to scan it into my word processor and post it. Let me know. R Pewick Houston, Tx r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 12:26:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:26:49 +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 MAA06523 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:26:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1226490; 3 Oct 97 3:19 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:03:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 31st october In-Reply-To: <3433763F.375ED6B0@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3433763F.375ED6B0@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >I wrote: >> >> 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 would love to be involved but I do not see how. I cannot even offer to be honorary TD by email: I am playing in a Welsh event that evening. [s] >> I'll await your suggestions or comments on a name for this tournament as >> well. [s] >I propose therefor : "the first annual BLML - SS Finland - challenge" I like a name that includes BLML. >Someone suggested we ask OKBridge to join, but I doubt if that's a good >idea. Even now, the sections in Moskou and Montreal will not overlap, >but what time to choose on OKBridge ? Either someone from Moskou will >first play in his club and then on the net, or someone in Montreal will >do the reverse. Definitely *no* OKB: just not suitable. >I will mail the individual responders with more details. I would not mind continuing to be informed. If you have any idea how I could help ... -- 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 Oct 3 12:47:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:47:21 +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 MAA06589 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:46:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1226490; 3 Oct 97 3:19 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 02:57:06 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Labeo writes >Labeo: > My fault - trying to be too clever by reversing the definition >into three questions. It did not work. > So let's go back to the basics. > Law Book definition says a call (exclude Pass - see later) is >conventional if it conveys a meaning other than: > 1. willingness to play in the named denomination (or the last >named denomination); Last named denomination? My Law book says "Last denomination named"! 1H P 3S=splinter, willing to play in the last denomination named, so natural. Yes? No, of course not, conveys a meaning other than "willingness to play in the last denomination named", so long as it is understood that other than is the same as additional to, which is obvious ... perhaps. 1H P 3S=raise in hearts, showing no other feature, willing to play in the last denomination named, so natural. Yes? Looks that way. Perhaps we can now have the people who claim that natural is not the same as non-conventional. Well, if you insist, this sequence is not conventional. How anyone really thinks that these complications matter for insufficient bids, I have no idea. At least if a player bids 1C as a transfer to diamonds over 1D, he will be allowed to correct it to 2D if that is not conventional. Chat among yourselves folks, I've had an *exceptionally* bad week and i'm just blethering. -- 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 Oct 3 15:45:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA06913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:45:20 +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 PAA06904 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:44:16 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Fri, 03 Oct 1997 09:37:18 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:40:19 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---- From: David Stevenson Subject: Deliberate pause to inform declarer >Neil Cohen wrote on RGB and I have borrowed it! > >Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have >a problem? IMO, no (Law73D2 and Law 73F2, new Laws). > >Suppose declarer is S, and a hand looks like: > > 9xxxx > > > Kx J10x > > AQx > > > >Declarer needs to pick up this suit with one loser and is very short on >entries to dummy. He starts by cashing the club A from his hand. Is it >permissible for E to pause slightly before playing an honor, so declarer >will know he has both the J and 10 and consider running the Q next? > IMO, that is not felicitous example. If E have J10, not J10x, he must play an honor without speed variation and pause must show for declarer that E have not only J10. My example: i s xxx i d Qx i i s KJx s 10x i d Kx d J10x i i s AQ9 i d Ax NT kontract, declarer (S) needs to 3 tricks and play sA (he knows nothing about diamond position). I (W) know that partner hasn't dA and must unblocked by J. But declarer may suppose that I have J10 and may play Q at next round (it is winnig play). I paused slightly before play J and it is deliverate pause (I know that I will play J). There is more probability that declarer mistakenly played s9 now (W can think to unblock by K with KJ supposed that partner have Q10x in S opinion). Who will apply 73D2 or 73D1 (if TD decided that is impossible to prove the premeditation of this play, "player should be particulary careful..." etc.) and 73F2? That is very hardly for TD in this situation but is nessesary, isn't that? >-- >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 Oct 3 20:06:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:06:24 +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 UAA07352 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:06:16 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-204.innet.be [194.7.10.204]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19754 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:06:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3433D0B6.B82E98C3@innet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:49:58 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 31st october X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <342A466B.EDD5D566@innet.be> <3433763F.375ED6B0@innet.be> <3433B482.A9928CBF@star.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Hi Herman > > The most important thing is to get results as quick as possible. > I think the quickest way way to send you results is faxing > the score sheets . If agreed - let us know your fax number. > Maybe not such a bad idea - costs me some paper though. Might indeed be more productive in the whole. +32-3-825.29.19. > I don't think there is any good-profit to involve OKB. > we agree on that then > One more remark - I am not sure it is a good idea to calculate > local sections "alone" - my experience with simultaneous tells > that there may be a difference of up to 8-10% from the overall score !! > Isn't that instructive ? But are you talking about prescored simultaneous or post-scored ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 21:07:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:07:31 +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 VAA07528 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:07:22 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-46.innet.be [194.7.10.46]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05235 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:07:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3434D7ED.F4D557D2@innet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:33:01 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L25A 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: > > S puts the wrong bidding card on the table. We allow it to be changed > [subject to ...] so long as N has not called. We allow W to take back > any call he has made under Law ...? I know we have discussed it: I know > there seemed to be no Law: we hoped it would appear in the 1997 Laws: > but *someone* said ... and quoted a Law number. Which Law? Who said > it? Grattan? Steve? Jens? Labeo? > > No doubt everyone has looked at the new wording and wondered if the > call can be changed after dummy has appeared, so long as the mistaken > call was one of the last two calls of the auction, obviously being a > pass. Can it? Herman changed one in slightly different circumstances > but most of us agreed at the time that we would not have. Anyway, that > was 1987. How about this case now? > (speedy thought :) How about that strange bit in L25B1 ? (after reflection and RTFLB :) No that only applies if 25A doesn't. So indeed - the Laws don't state anything. In the 1987 version, this was understandable, as the Lawmakers never thought this could happen (it's only possible with bidding boxes). But in the 1997, this is an oversight. OK, so we apply common sense and let LHO change his call without any penalties. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 21:07:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:07:29 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA07527 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:07:20 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-46.innet.be [194.7.10.46]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05213 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:07:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3434D629.FA76C2E7@innet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:25:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 31st october 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 would love to be involved but I do not see how. I cannot even offer > to be honorary TD by email: I am playing in a Welsh event that evening. > I nominate David Stevenson as Chair(man) of the Appeals' Committee for the first annual BLML-SS Finland challenge -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 21:09:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:09:06 +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 VAA07561 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:08:43 +1000 Received: from default (client87a9.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.169]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA23110; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:13:31 +0100 Message-Id: <199710031113.MAA23110@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: L25A Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:43:48 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : I do not think I have considered the question. However, it seems to me repugnant to allow a call to be made after the auction period has terminated. This is not allowed even when a call has been based on misinformation. I would think Law 39 applicable. . In addition I would say that it would be strange to think a call could be changed 'without pause for thought' and yet the change occurred in the play period. I am not saying that regulations made under Law 80E could not contain such a provision. The SO's hands are not tied since this section of the laws has been established by the WBF in quite a well-known case to be not subordinate to 80F. However, unless there are screens I would think it bizarre. . ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: L25A > Date: 02 October 1997 19:46 > > > S puts the wrong bidding card on the table. We allow it to be changed > [subject to ...] so long as N has not called. We allow W to take back > any call he has made under Law ...? I know we have discussed it: I know > there seemed to be no Law: we hoped it would appear in the 1997 Laws: > but *someone* said ... and quoted a Law number. Which Law? Who said > it? Grattan? Steve? Jens? Labeo? > > No doubt everyone has looked at the new wording and wondered if the > call can be changed after dummy has appeared, so long as the mistaken > call was one of the last two calls of the auction, obviously being a > pass. Can it? Herman changed one in slightly different circumstances > but most of us agreed at the time that we would not have. Anyway, that > was 1987. How about this case now? > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 21:09:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:09:17 +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 VAA07562 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:08:53 +1000 Received: from default (client87a9.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.169]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA23118; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:13:35 +0100 Message-Id: <199710031113.MAA23118@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: LAW71C WA Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:09:18 +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: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sand.global.net.uk id MAA23118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ : =20 Mr. Pewick's document from Albuquerque does not have the imprimatur=20 of the WBF Laws Committee. We have not been consulted about it. As=20 a member of the Committee I for one reject it. I have no doubt that when=20 the change was made we intended to accomplish the objective which Edgar Kaplan specified in his memorandum of 15 June 1994. --------= -- > From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: LAW71C WA > Date: 02 October 1997 22:20 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: =20 > =20 > O>Every document I have that responds to the Law 71 suggestion > O>(from numbers of people) agrees the change should be made. > O>The next time a fresh draft was circulated the change was > O>in it, albeit imperfectly made. > O> =20 > O>> From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > O>> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > O>> Subject: LAW71C WAS RE: CONT > O>> Date: 02 October 1997 11:14 > O>>=20 > O>> R Pewick said: > O>>=20 >=20 > O>>=20 > O> \\snipped// > O> > O>Stephen Barnfield: > O>> It seems to me reasonable to assume that, since the full committee > O>>presumably approved the suggested changes, that this was also what=20 > O>>they intended them to mean. =20 > R Pewick: > I have dug up a memorandum dated February 4, 1997 compiling and=20 > discussing the changes to the laws. I came into possession of it at th= e=20 > Summer Nationals in Albuquerque at a seminar covering this topic. I=20 > quote from page 12: >=20 >=20 > =85.. >=20 > LAW 71 CONCESSION CANCELED > =09 > The intention here is to not change the Law. The interpretation is the= =20 > same as the previous Law. The time limit in part C applies to part C=20 > only and supercedes the time noted in the introduction. > =20 > ... >=20 > I apologize that when I had made my previous comments, I had not=20 > reviewed this document and spoken from it. I do not know the procedure= s=20 > for approval of the laws and would find it enlightening to find out. M= y=20 > post was pointed at the language which was used to make various=20 > assertions. The encompassing use of the phrase- suggestion by Edgar- t= o=20 > assert that one thing was intended even though what made it into print=20 > contradicts it. The use of 'presumably approved' as to mean that it wa= s=20 > a fact. And the same concerning =91if it was approved it was meant to = be=20 > what Edgar said was suggested to him'. I mainly was pointing out that=20 > the phraseology used was that of a hedger, someone who qualified his=20 > statement so that in the slim chance it was not accurate, then face=20 > could be saved. I do not doubt that there was [and still is] support o= f=20 > members of the committee for deleting the last sentence of L71C.=20 >=20 > Personally, I would have benefited many times from such a change, but = I=20 > am in favor of rewording the last sentence retaining the meaning, not=20 > eliminating it. I believe that bridge ought to be a real time event an= d=20 > allowing revisions to completed play after a hand has begun makes the=20 > game too much of a crap shoot, pardon the expression. >=20 > If there is interest in the entirety of above mentioned memorandum,=20 > REVISED LAWS- DISCUSSION ITEMS, I presume that the ACBL will feel it is= =20 > ok for me to scan it into my word processor and post it. Let me know. > =20 > =20 >=20 >=20 > R Pewick > Houston, Tx > r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > ___ > * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 3 21:45:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:45:24 +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 VAA07668 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:45:18 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1201868; 3 Oct 97 12:19 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:51:36 +0100 To: Mlfrench@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: Law71C was Re: Contested claim In-Reply-To: <970924171325_1856362248@emout20.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970924171325_1856362248@emout20.mail.aol.com>, Mlfrench@aol.com writes snip > somebody goofed. Cross it out, snip >Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) mmmm i like this idea -- cross out bits of the laws where somebody goofed Lots of Law 25B has gone in my new Law Book any other suggestion :)) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 4 00:39:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:39:50 +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 AAA10431 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:39:41 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA12169 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA15997; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:39:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:39:50 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710031439.KAA15997@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > >Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have > >a problem? From: "Alexey Gerasimov" > IMO, no (Law73D2 and Law 73F2, new Laws). Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show declarer (but not partner) the other honor? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 4 01:21:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 01:21:38 +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 BAA10668 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 01:21:23 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS2-106.star.net.il [195.8.208.106]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA03793; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 17:20:11 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34350D91.78D9E35F@star.net.il> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 17:21:53 +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: 31st october References: <3434D629.FA76C2E7@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id RAA03793 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk So happy am I=A0=A0=A0 !!!!!! We are back to FURNITURE tournaments ...... Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > >=A0=A0 I would love to be involved but I do not see how.=A0 I cannot e= ven offer > > to be honorary TD by email: I am playing in a Welsh event that evenin= g. > > > > I nominate David Stevenson as Chair(man) of the Appeals' Committee for > the first annual BLML-SS Finland challenge > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 4 02:18:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:18:35 +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 CAA11243 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:18:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0904151; 3 Oct 97 17:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:41:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A In-Reply-To: <3434D7ED.F4D557D2@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: >> >> S puts the wrong bidding card on the table. We allow it to be changed >> [subject to ...] so long as N has not called. We allow W to take back >> any call he has made under Law ...? I know we have discussed it: I know >> there seemed to be no Law: we hoped it would appear in the 1997 Laws: >> but *someone* said ... and quoted a Law number. Which Law? Who said >> it? Grattan? Steve? Jens? Labeo? >So indeed - the Laws don't state anything. Thanks for the answer [which came by email]. L21B refers to changing a call "... as a result of misinformation given him by an opponent ..." and being told that he is bidding 2H when he is actually bidding 2S sounds like misinformation to me! >In the 1987 version, this was understandable, as the Lawmakers never >thought this could happen (it's only possible with bidding boxes). It's *not* only possible with bidding boxes! While we were discussing this some months ago, my wife had a ruling after someone said "2H er wait a minute I didn't mean that I meant to bid oh damn am I allowed to change it now?" which gave LHO plenty of time to double in a firm voice . -- 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 Oct 4 03:41:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:41:16 +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 DAA11468 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:41:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1522755; 3 Oct 97 17:09 BST Message-ID: <5j7t80AWwPN0Ew0P@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:07:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 31st october In-Reply-To: <3434D629.FA76C2E7@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> I would love to be involved but I do not see how. I cannot even offer >> to be honorary TD by email: I am playing in a Welsh event that evening. >> > >I nominate David Stevenson as Chair(man) of the Appeals' Committee for >the first annual BLML-SS Finland challenge > Sounds good. I have just returned from Guernsey. Regrettably I was rather ill for some of it, but anyway it involves 14.3 sessions. I have been Chairman of Appeals three years running, and have had exactly one appeal each year! That's about the right level IMO. No, there were none while I was ill. I made some sort of comment on RGB and people sent emails worrying about whether I was at death's door. No, I felt very bad for about four days, bad for at least another four [I still do] and went to hospital twice *but* it was not serious and there is no long term problem. The worst part of the whole affair was that my partner, a client whom I like very much, played a game far below his normal ability, which is medium club player. I hope it is not age catching up [he is 79]: one alternative was this was delayed reaction from a car crash a week before, in which he was not hurt. We got a couple of rulings in our favour. In one of them my partner opened 1NT [12-14, balanced] on a 6=3=1=3 hand and a 15 count. 2D on his left, I bid 2H and he alerted and told the oppos this was a transfer. He bid 3S, which surprised me [we don't break transfers] but I suppose 6-card support, a singleton and being over the top of the range must be worth something. Pass pass 4D, which I doubled for 200! [UI note: this is the sort of partner to whom 3S means I have got spades: it cannot mean heart support since Geoffrey will never have heard of such an idea, so 4H was not an LA for me.] The TD was called. The oppos never commented on the opening bid, but claimed misinformation, correctly, of course. I was 1=4=4=4, but I was never much taken by passing. The TD took the sequence down and removed the board to consult. He came back, and said "I don't think I wrote the sequence down correctly." "Ok," I said, "Geoffrey opened 1NT ..." "You mean 1S," interrupted the TD. "No, I mean 1NT," said I. The TD gave me a long searching look, but I wasn't falling for that one: I just smiled at him! The TD ruled no damage! Don't tell anyone, but he also overcalled 1NT during the week with a 6=3=3=1. Both 1NT bids had singleton king! Unfortunately he also passed 17 counts as dealer and similar so there was no pattern. I also bought some shorts and a sunhat and went to Herm! -- 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 Oct 4 06:41:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 06:41:02 +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 GAA12020 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 06:40:53 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic159.cais.com [207.226.56.159]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA21431 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971003164138.00691450@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 16:41:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) In-Reply-To: <199709301814.OAA27824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:14 PM 9/30/97 -0400, David wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> "Michael S. Dennis" wrote > >>> 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. > >> The bidding goes > >> 1S Pass 3S Pass >> 4H AP > >> 4H makes, opener has 3S's and 6H's. They play 4H as a cue-bid, >> forcing, slam try, may be a void. > >While I agree with David that a brush-off from the director isn't >justified here, there is a problem. How do you rule on this, in a >jurisdiction in which the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist? Unless you find evidence of an infraction (e.g. UI; did dealer fold his cards and set them on the table as he bid 4H?), you rule that the score stands. David S.'s point, of course, is that if the circumstances look suspicious, it is the TD's duty to look around and see whether such evidence is present rather than simply ruling "score stands" out of hand and walking away. TDs do have to earn their living from time to time. Of course, if one believes the silly "Rule of Coincidence", then one needn't look for evidence either -- just rule "gotcha, adjustment time" out of hand and walk away. 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 Oct 4 13:21:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:21:13 +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 NAA12895 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:20:45 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-10.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.200]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA22074 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3435B6EF.BA1C1D8A@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 23:24:32 -0400 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge laws Subject: Law 9A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 9 - Procedure following an Irregularity A. Calling Attention to an Irregularity 1 During the Auction Period *Unless prohibited by Law*, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call. If the auction goes 1C - 1S - 1H - and the 1 spade bidder says "insufficient" is he giving unauthorized information to his partner??? Must his partner be the one who points out the insufficient bid??? Should he expect his partner to be awake and aware of what is happening at the table???? When does the "Prohibited by Law" apply??? This happened at the table recently at a local club game. The 1C bidder told the 1 spade bidder that he could not call this insufficient bid to the attention of the table. The 1 spade bidder (very experienced) agreed. The 1 Heart bidder was allowed to make the bid sufficient and the auction continued. At no time was the director called. The 1 Club bidder is a director (although not at this game) and the 1 heart bidder was an inexperienced player. How many irregularities occurred at this table?? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 4 20:41:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 20:41:00 +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 UAA13362 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 20:40:51 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-61.star.net.il [195.8.208.61]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15080; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 12:39:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34361D56.E58AB320@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 12:41:26 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nancy@pinehurst.net CC: bridge laws Subject: Re: Law 9A1 References: <3435B6EF.BA1C1D8A@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id MAA15080 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good morning As you quoted Law 9A , any one may call attention to an irregularity unless prohibited by Law...and every one may call TD , unless prohibited = by Laws , but TD=A0 MUST be summoned after the irregularity (at least) deeme= d to occur (see=A0 9B1..). By 97 version , even dummy may summon TD=A0 ^^A F T E R^^ other player called for the I R E G U L A R I T Y=A0 ....... As much as I remember by heart Law 27 -insufficient bid -87 and 97 versio= ns - there is nothing prohibited there=A0 (I don't remember now which law prohibits summoning TD DURING the auction it in 87 version if at all...) = - the 1S player is allowed to call attention for the irregularity I believe that both "big boys" got confused with other situations , especially with dummy's limitation to call attention for an irregularity during the play=A0 (he is allowed to call, shout , bark, etc... after the= play of the specific board ceased, with same rights as all other players - Law 43) , or with defenders' prohibition to summon TD and tell declarer that there was a wrong explanation of there bid , when auction finished and before start play (see Law 75D2).... The worst "crime" here was they didn't act immediately after attention drawn ----=A0 by Law 9B1 , must summon the TD . The fact that a player who is an official TD (so I understood from you message) didn't act this way must be reported to the ...."angels"=A0 in order to explain him that he isn't beyond the Laws...afterwards the "angels'=A0 boss " will decide what to do....... Cordially Dany Nancy T.Dressing wrote: > Law 9 - Procedure following an Irregularity > =A0 A. Calling Attention to an Irregularity > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 During the Auction Period > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 *Unless prohibited by Law*, any playe= r may call attention to > an irregularity during the=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 auction, whether or = not it is his > turn to call. > > If the auction goes=A0=A0 1C - 1S - 1H - and the 1 spade bidder says > "insufficient" is he giving unauthorized information to his partner??? > Must his partner be the one who points out the insufficient bid??? > Should he expect his partner to be awake and aware of what is happening > at the table????=A0 When does the "Prohibited by Law" apply???=A0=A0 Th= is > happened at the table recently at a local club game.=A0 The 1C bidder t= old > the 1 spade bidder that he could not call this insufficient bid to the > attention of the table.=A0 The 1 spade bidder (very experienced) agreed. > The 1 Heart bidder was allowed to make the bid sufficient and the > auction continued.=A0 At no time was the director called.=A0 The 1 Club > bidder is a director (although not at this game) and the 1 heart bidder > was an inexperienced player.=A0 How many irregularities occurred at thi= s > table??=A0=A0=A0 Nancy =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 5 08:15:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:15:43 +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 IAA17664 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:15:35 +1000 Received: from default (client83c1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.193]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA00587; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 23:20:36 +0100 Message-Id: <199710042220.XAA00587@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "bridge laws" Subject: Re: Law 9A1 Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 23:06:20 +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 : The player who drew attention to the infraction was in order; there is no unauthorized info. The Law you quote provides the authority. Apart from the insufficient bid the worst aspect is the failure on the part of all four players to call the Director as soon as the irregularity was drawn to attention. I am especially critical of a TD who does not set an example, but the very experienced player has little excuse also. The player who volunteered to state the law should be told it is not the job of a player to do this (not even if at other times he is a TD.). To give an incorrect account of the law is reprehensible. It seems to me that the One Heart bidder is amongst the least of the offenders at this table. He made a common slip and the law provides the remedies. Up to now the only application of "Prohibited by Law" that I have identified is in connection with possible happenings under Law 75D2. ---------- > From: Nancy T.Dressing > To: bridge laws > Subject: Law 9A1 > Date: 04 October 1997 04:24 > > Law 9 - Procedure following an Irregularity > A. Calling Attention to an Irregularity > 1 During the Auction Period > *Unless prohibited by Law*, any player may call attention to > an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his > turn to call. > > If the auction goes 1C - 1S - 1H - and the 1 spade bidder says > "insufficient" is he giving unauthorized information to his partner??? > Must his partner be the one who points out the insufficient bid??? > Should he expect his partner to be awake and aware of what is happening > at the table???? When does the "Prohibited by Law" apply??? This > happened at the table recently at a local club game. The 1C bidder told > the 1 spade bidder that he could not call this insufficient bid to the > attention of the table. The 1 spade bidder (very experienced) agreed. > The 1 Heart bidder was allowed to make the bid sufficient and the > auction continued. At no time was the director called. The 1 Club > bidder is a director (although not at this game) and the 1 heart bidder > was an inexperienced player. How many irregularities occurred at this > table?? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 5 09:12:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:12:50 +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 JAA17848 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:12:42 +1000 Received: from default (client87a4.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.164]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA02178; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 00:17:45 +0100 Message-Id: <199710042317.AAA02178@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 00:11:34 +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 : Is this the current thinking when the TD has to decide whether a call was possibly conventional? e.g. insufficient bid. ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling > Date: 30 September 1997 17:54 > > rts48u > \ \ \snipped/ / / > What you have missed is that you are worrying about TDs who are not > doing their job. When a TD is called to the table he rules on any > mechanical manner, and leaves any judgement matter, or matter that > requires further investigation in any way, until the end of the hand. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 5 09:15:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:15:03 +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 JAA17871 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:14:56 +1000 Received: from default (client87a4.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.164]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA02166; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 00:17:40 +0100 Message-Id: <199710042317.AAA02166@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , Cc: "bridge laws" Subject: Re: Law 9A1 Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 23:44:00 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sand.global.net.uk id AAA02166 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ : =20 75D2 has prohibitions on all players during auction, whether=20 eventually to be defender or not. Failure to disclose is=20 technically an infraction to which it is prohibited to draw attention until the time specified in the laws. Also I do not think we should rule out a possibility that=20 an SO might have a regulation of some kind that would=20 preclude it. That would be something to do with screens,=20 bidding boxes, or convention cards, or a 40D regulation; not=20 a Law 80F regulation. = =20 ---------- From: Dany Haimovici To: nancy@pinehurst.net Cc: bridge laws Subject: Re: Law 9A1 Date: 04 October 1997 11:41 \\\SNIP/// I believe that both "big boys" got confused with other situations , especially with dummy's limitation to call attention for an irregularity during the play=A0 (he is allowed to call, shout , bark, etc... after the= play of the specific board ceased, with same rights as all other players - Law 43) , or with defenders' prohibition to summon TD and tell declarer that there was a wrong explanation of there bid , when auction finished and before start play (see Law 75D \\\snip/// =A0 ---------- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 5 12:36:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:36:58 +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 MAA18454 for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:36:50 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1425471; 5 Oct 97 3:30 BST Message-ID: <$CzKHAA9ovN0Ew2Y@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 03:23:57 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971003164138.00691450@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19971003164138.00691450@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 02:14 PM 9/30/97 -0400, David wrote: > >>David Stevenson writes: ...(cut)... >> >>> "Michael S. Dennis" wrote ...(cut)... >> >Of course, if one believes the silly "Rule of Coincidence", then one >needn't look for evidence either -- just rule "gotcha, adjustment time" >out of hand and walk away. > > Labeo: Does this 'Rule' feature in ACBL published regulations? If so, what form of words? Or has someone found it in the laws? Or is a Director applying it just making up the game as he goes along? --Labeo } Let's eat, drink, and play till the worms do corrupt us, { 'Tis certain, Post mortem Nulla voluptas, } For health, wealth and beauty, wit, learning and sense, { Must all come to nothing a hundred years hence. (Jordan) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 6 11:42:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:42:45 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25408 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:42:37 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1406074; 6 Oct 97 2:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:49:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) In-Reply-To: <$CzKHAA9ovN0Ew2Y@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >Eric Landau writes >>Of course, if one believes the silly "Rule of Coincidence", then one >>needn't look for evidence either -- just rule "gotcha, adjustment time" >>out of hand and walk away. > Labeo: Does this 'Rule' feature in ACBL published regulations? > If so, what form of words? > Or has someone found it in the laws? > Or is a Director applying it just making up the game > as he goes along? It is in the ACBL published regulations in their Active Ethics Pamphlet. ACBL Active Ethics Principles RULE OF COINCIDENCE The convention card is expected to reflect conventional agreements and should also display partnership style wherever possible. For example, a partnership that lists a 15 to 17 point notrump range and tends to open most 14 point hands in third seat with one notrump has mismarked the convention card. You should indicate (14)15-17 on the card. There is no infraction just because an opponent makes a call which does not match the stated conventional agreements. A player has a right to deviate from announced partnership agreements provided his partner has no awareness of the possibility of deviation. However, whenever his partner's responding action is also unexpected (and successful), there is evidence that such an awareness may exist. The following combination of overbid and underbid is an example of the Rule of Coincidence. East, whose card is marked 15-17, opens one notrump with a balanced 14, West with 10 points decides to bid only 2NT and eight tricks are the maximum available. This "lucky coincidence" is the result of two improbably actions which, in combination, "work". It is a violation of regulation and is subject to a score adjustment on its face. The Rule of Coincidence could also apply to passing partner's forcing bid when he clearly didn't have the values for a forcing bid, underbidding one's values when partner has psyched, and so on. The Rule of Coincidence allows "automatic" score adjustments when these infractions occur. The acting side must convince the director or committee that their actions were actually normal or that they lack the bridge experience to know they were making unusual bids. If the director or opposing side feels it is appropriate, a player memo (recorder form) may be submitted to the appropriate body. Please don't be unreasonable in applying the Rule of Coincidence. Everyone has different skill levels and card judgment. Most important is that inexperienced players be treated with consideration. They are exercising their best judgment, have no intention of doing anything wrong and DO NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the Rule of Coincidence. -- 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 Oct 6 16:41:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA25991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:41:57 +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 QAA25985 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:40:52 +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 JAA23826 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:06:54 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199710060606.JAA23826@adm.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: 31st october Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:03:51 +0300 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: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > Îò: Herman De Wael > Êîìó: Bridge Laws > Òåìà: Re: 31st october > Äàòà: 2 îêòÿáðÿ 1997 ã. 19:49 > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Hi Herman > > > > The most important thing is to get results as quick as possible. > > I think the quickest way way to send you results is faxing > > the score sheets . If agreed - let us know your fax number. > > > > Maybe not such a bad idea - costs me some paper though. > > Might indeed be more productive in the whole. > > +32-3-825.29.19. > > > I don't think there is any good-profit to involve OKB. > > > > we agree on that then > > > One more remark - I am not sure it is a good idea to calculate > > local sections "alone" - my experience with simultaneous tells > > that there may be a difference of up to 8-10% from the overall score !! > > > > Isn't that instructive ? > > But are you talking about prescored simultaneous or post-scored ? We play such kind of tournaments in Russia every year. When you calculate results in small heat they are quite different from calculated across a country. The difference is about 10%. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 6 16:46:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:46:48 +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 QAA26008 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:45:31 +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 JAA24749 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:40:08 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199710060640.JAA24749@adm.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:37:10 +0300 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: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > ïÔ: Steve Willner > ëÏÍÕ: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > ôÅÍÁ: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer > äÁÔÁ: 3 ÏËÔÑÂÒÑ 1997 Ç. 17:39 > > From: David Stevenson > > >Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have > > >a problem? > > From: "Alexey Gerasimov" > > IMO, no (Law73D2 and Law 73F2, new Laws). > > Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original > example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show > declarer (but not partner) the other honor? IMO yes Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 6 18:34:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA26311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:34:16 +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 SAA26306 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:34:05 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA22176 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:33:30 GMT Message-Id: <199710060833.IAA22176@cadillac.meteo.fr> Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA28983; Mon, 6 Oct 97 08:33:29 GMT Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 08:33:29 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: Deliberate pause to inform declarer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:37 06/10/97 +0300, you wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> > >Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you >have >> > >a problem? >> >> From: "Alexey Gerasimov" >> > IMO, no (Law73D2 and Law 73F2, new Laws). >> >> Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original >> example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show >> declarer (but not partner) the other honor? >IMO yes > >Sergei Litvak, >Chief TD of RBL. > > Let'us go on: Is it permissible, With AQx in front of dummy's KJx, when declarer attacks suit, to pause deliberately before playing low, in order to be sure declarer will play dummy's king? JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 6 23:57:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:57:59 +1000 Received: from emout39.mail.aol.com (emout39.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA27238 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:57:52 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout39.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id JAA23447 for Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:57:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971006095453_2054982512@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Logical concession? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Playing a spade contract, the two card ending is S 8 3 S 10 4 D 8 7 S J H 9 West, on lead, says, "nice endplay", and concedes. RHO says nothing. If LHO were to lead the 10 of spades, he is correct. If the 4, he gets a trick. Result? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 7 01:12:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:12:53 +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 BAA29870 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:12:31 +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 LAA14597 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17393; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:11:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:11:40 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710061511.LAA17393@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Mon Oct 6 04:35:19 1997 > Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 08:33:29 GMT > From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort > Let us go on: Is it permissible, With AQx in front of dummy's KJx, when > declarer attacks suit, to pause deliberately before playing low, in order to > be sure declarer will play dummy's king? Following the logic of the other case, it is not permissible to pause or otherwise use mannerisms, but it is permissible to show declarer the ace. I wonder, though.... L73F2 refers to "false inference" and deception. Here the intended inference is true. Does that make a difference? I personally would read L73F2 very broadly and say that bridge is not about acting, and trying to gain advantage by using mannerisms in any form whatsoever is forbidden. However, I can see that others might disagree. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 7 01:17:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:17:20 +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 BAA29905 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:17:07 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:16:20 +0100 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 16:16:17 BST Message-Id: <26507.9710061516@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, RCraigH@aol.com Subject: Re: Logical concession? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It depends when the director is called, whether S10 lead is abnormal, and which laws are in use (and perhaps your interpretation of L71C). > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Oct 6 15:36:46 1997 remote from > From: RCraigH@aol.com > Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:57:14 -0400 (EDT) > To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Logical concession? > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Content-Length: 428 > > Playing a spade contract, the two card ending is > > S 8 3 > S 10 4 D 8 7 > S J > H 9 > > West, on lead, says, "nice endplay", and concedes. RHO says nothing. If LHO > were to lead the 10 of spades, he is correct. If the 4, he gets a trick. > > Result? > If S10 is a normal play by West then once he has conceded and East has not objected the concession stands: two tricks can be lost by a normal play of the remaining cards. If S10 is abnormal and EW call TD before the end of the round then the concession is cancelled and EW get a trick. If S10 is abnormal and EW call TD after the end of the round but before the end of the correction period: then (1987 laws), S10 is a legal play so EW lose two tricks; but (1997 laws), S10 is not normal play so EW get one trick. If it is beyond of the end of the correction period: concession stands. This leaves: is S10 normal? I can't see any layout where S10 gains over S4 but that has not stopped people before: perhaps in this sort of 50/50 position neither card can be regarded as irrational. I rule S10 is normal. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 7 01:43:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:43:51 +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 BAA29997 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 01:43:43 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic73.cais.com [207.226.56.73]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id LAA17553 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971006082000.006912a0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 08:20:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:39 AM 10/2/97 +0100, David wrote: >Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have >a problem? > >Suppose declarer is S, and a hand looks like: > > 9xxxx > > > Kx J10x > > AQx > > > >Declarer needs to pick up this suit with one loser and is very short on >entries to dummy. He starts by cashing the club A from his hand. Is it >permissible for E to pause slightly before playing an honor, so declarer >will know he has both the J and 10 and consider running the Q next? Behind dummy, holding J10x, looking at 9xxxx, and declarer cashes the A... I know lots of bridge players, and I very much doubt that as many as 1% of them would be up to smoothly dropping an honor without taking a moment to think about the position. I don't really think "permissable" comes into it; perhaps "inevitable" would be closer to the mark. 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 Oct 7 03:08:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:08:51 +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 DAA01165 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 03:08:45 +1000 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aaouto1.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.54]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA16795.; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:25:21 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA7597; Mon, 06 Oct 97 13:08:11 -0400 Message-Id: <9710061708.AA7597@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by CSERVE (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC125652800469E0B; Mon, 6 Oct 97 13:08:11 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 6 Oct 97 14:51:19 Subject: ROC in practice (Was: Suspicious Bidding) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The ROC is well meant, but almost impossible to manage. How do you determine whether an unusual bid was improper information or brilliant feeling? If you use the ROC as routinely as it is outlined in the ACBL document, you will change the nature of the game. In the German Open Pairs Championship we had to decide such a case: E, all AKQ10 K42 72 Q642 974 J863 Q109753 A86 - K86 AK98 J107 52 J AQJ109543 53 The bidding went: S W N E 3D 3H all pass seems normal, but... 3H was alerted and explained as Harvey (takeout for the majors). After four rounds of spades, the contract was made, since South trumped the last spade round with his HJ. Did the East play field the psych (ROC!) or die East find a clever bid, perhaps playing with one trump less, but avoiding a possible penalty double? What would have been your decision? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 7 04:21:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:21:36 +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 EAA01478 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 04:21:27 +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 OAA23566; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710061821.OAA02947@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: RCraigH@aol.com CC: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <971006095453_2054982512@emout15.mail.aol.com> (RCraigH@aol.com) Subject: Re: Logical concession? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Playing a spade contract, the two card ending is > S 8 3 > S 10 4 D 8 7 > S J > H 9 > West, on lead, says, "nice endplay", and concedes. RHO says nothing. If LHO > were to lead the 10 of spades, he is correct. If the 4, he gets a trick. >From West's comment, it is normal for him to play either card, since he believes it is irrelevant. Therefore, the concession stands. I would rule that it stands even if East objects; East is entitled to object to a concession based on his own cards, or based on the facts (East can prevent West from conceding a trick which cannot be lost), but not on what he thinks West should know. -- 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 Oct 7 08:42:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:42:38 +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 IAA02548 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:42:32 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1021469; 6 Oct 97 23:21 BST Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:53:30 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Two dummies To: Bridge Laws 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 How about this ? The opening lead is out of turn and face up. Two dummies appear, 1,the correct one first, 2, the incorrect one first. What is the ruling in each case ? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 7 13:03:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:03:03 +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 NAA03360 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:02:55 +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 XAA09322; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:02:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710070302.XAA24398@goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: martin.pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Martin Pool on Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:53:30 +0100 (BST)) Subject: Re: Two dummies Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > How about this ? > The opening lead is out of turn and face up. Two dummies appear, 1,the correct > one first, 2, the incorrect one first. What is the ruling in each case ? The first dummy to appear becomes a dummy. Once the correct dummy appears, declarer does not have the right to become dummy, and thus his hand is treated as an inadvertently exposed declarer's hand and play continues. Likewise, once declarer spreads his hand as if he was dummy, he has elected a penalty for the lead out of turn, and has become dummy; this stands when his partner erroneously exposes his hand. Now, how about if dummy makes the opening lead face up, and a defender faces his hand as dummy? -- 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 Oct 7 15:20:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:20:08 +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 PAA03609 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:19:45 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 07 Oct 1997 09:03:17 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:06:24 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 01:39 AM 10/2/97 +0100, David wrote: > >>Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have >>a problem? >> >>Suppose declarer is S, and a hand looks like: >> >> 9xxxx >> >> >> Kx J10x >> >> AQx >> >> >> >>Declarer needs to pick up this suit with one loser and is very short on >>entries to dummy. He starts by cashing the club A from his hand. Is it >>permissible for E to pause slightly before playing an honor, so declarer >>will know he has both the J and 10 and consider running the Q next? > >Behind dummy, holding J10x, looking at 9xxxx, and declarer cashes the A... >I know lots of bridge players, and I very much doubt that as many as 1% of >them would be up to smoothly dropping an honor without taking a moment to >think about the position. I don't really think "permissable" comes into >it; perhaps "inevitable" would be closer to the mark. Eric! We discussed about _deliberate_ pause only! If TD decided that this pause isn't deliberate in this case - there is no problems: E had a reason to think and TD cann't apply Law 73F2. Next question: how we can prove the premediation? That is very hardly I repeat. Who had similar cases in TD/AC practice, plz, tell about this (I not remember this at Russian tournamemts). > > >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 Oct 7 16:15:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:15:31 +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 QAA03719 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:13:55 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Tue, 07 Oct 1997 10:11:43 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Two dummies Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:14:52 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---- From: David Grabiner Subject: Re: Two dummies >You write: > >> How about this ? > >> The opening lead is out of turn and face up. Two dummies appear, 1,the correct >> one first, 2, the incorrect one first. What is the ruling in each case ? > >The first dummy to appear becomes a dummy. Once the correct dummy >appears, declarer does not have the right to become dummy, and thus his i ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Strange... Law 54A After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; _he becomes dummy_, and dummy becomes declarer. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. There is no words about real dummy actions, but accurate instruction about real declarer actions. IMO, there is quite the contrary: dummy is declarer now, his hand take back without penalty. Logic: auction period is finished because the opening lead is faced (no words about out of turn opening lead at Law17E), and we have potential declarer and dummy. Dummy must spread his hand - he did it, but it hasn't influence to declarer's right to accept lead (well, if declarer not seen the dummy cards until his ruling - Law10A can apply otherwise). >hand is treated as an inadvertently exposed declarer's hand and play >continues. Likewise, once declarer spreads his hand as if he was dummy, >he has elected a penalty for the lead out of turn, and has become >dummy; this stands when his partner erroneously exposes his hand. > >Now, how about if dummy makes the opening lead face up, and a defender >faces his hand as dummy? > >-- >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 Oct 7 21:02:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:02:41 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA04391 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:02:29 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-87.innet.be [194.7.10.87]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA29859; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:48:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <343A1DB8.21C27DCB@innet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:32:08 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Volhejn , Jack Kryst , "D.D.O. Bridge Club" , Sergei Litvak , Dany Haimovici , Nancy Dressing , Herman De Wael , Tony Musgrove , Igor Temirov , Bridge Laws Subject: BLML-SSFinland - participating centers X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As of now we have : Australia - NSW - Sydney - Port Hacking BC (Tony) Belgium - Antwerpen - Squeeze BC (Herman) Czech Rep. - Praha - Bridge Centrum Praha (Jan) USA - NC - Southern Pines - Elks Club (Nancy) USA - Alaska - Fairbanks - Farthest North BC (Gordon) for a total of some 50 tables (estimate) and serious intrest from Israel and Russia There's still three weeks to enter! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 7 22:35:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:35:17 +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 WAA04748 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:35:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1226135; 7 Oct 97 13:28 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:11:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ROC in practice (Was: Suspicious Bidding) In-Reply-To: <9710061708.AA7597@notes2.compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk christian.farwig wrote: >The ROC is well meant, but almost impossible to manage. How do you determine >whether an unusual bid was improper information or brilliant feeling? If you >use the ROC as routinely as it is outlined in the ACBL document, you will >change the nature of the game. > >In the German Open Pairs Championship we had to decide such a case: > >E, all > AKQ10 > K42 > 72 > Q642 >974 J863 >Q109753 A86 >- K86 >AK98 J107 > 52 > J > AQJ109543 > 53 > >The bidding went: >S W N E >3D 3H all pass >seems normal, but... 3H was alerted and explained as Harvey (takeout for the >majors). After four rounds of spades, the contract was made, since South >trumped the last spade round with his HJ. > >Did the East play field the psych (ROC!) or die East find a clever bid, perhaps >playing with one trump less, but avoiding a possible penalty double? > >What would have been your decision? What did East say when asked why he passed 3H? -- 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 Oct 7 22:51:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:51:52 +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 WAA04820 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:51:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1226132; 7 Oct 97 13:28 BST Message-ID: <$uV8fPBgoiO0Ew9Y@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:25:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 31st october In-Reply-To: <3434D629.FA76C2E7@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Duplicate: I have not seen this so it may be lost.] Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> I would love to be involved but I do not see how. I cannot even offer >> to be honorary TD by email: I am playing in a Welsh event that evening. >> > >I nominate David Stevenson as Chair(man) of the Appeals' Committee for >the first annual BLML-SS Finland challenge > Sounds good. I have just returned from Guernsey. Regrettably I was rather ill for some of it, but anyway it involves 14.3 sessions. I have been Chairman of Appeals three years running, and have had exactly one appeal each year! That's about the right level IMO. No, there were none while I was ill. I made some sort of comment on RGB and people sent emails worrying about whether I was at death's door. No, I felt very bad for about four days, bad for at least another four [I still do] and went to hospital twice *but* it was not serious and there is no long term problem. The worst part of the whole affair was that my partner, a client whom I like very much, played a game far below his normal ability, which is medium club player. I hope it is not age catching up [he is 79]: one alternative was this was delayed reaction from a car crash a week before, in which he was not hurt. We got a couple of rulings in our favour. In one of them my partner opened 1NT [12-14, balanced] on a 6=3=1=3 hand and a 15 count. 2D on his left, I bid 2H and he alerted and told the oppos this was a transfer. He bid 3S, which surprised me [we don't break transfers] but I suppose 6-card support, a singleton and being over the top of the range must be worth something. Pass pass 4D, which I doubled for 200! [UI note: this is the sort of partner to whom 3S means I have got spades: it cannot mean heart support since Geoffrey will never have heard of such an idea, so 4H was not an LA for me.] The TD was called. The oppos never commented on the opening bid, but claimed misinformation, correctly, of course. I was 1=4=4=4, but I was never much taken by passing. The TD took the sequence down and removed the board to consult. He came back, and said "I don't think I wrote the sequence down correctly." "Ok," I said, "Geoffrey opened 1NT ..." "You mean 1S," interrupted the TD. "No, I mean 1NT," said I. The TD gave me a long searching look, but I wasn't falling for that one: I just smiled at him! The TD ruled no damage! Don't tell anyone, but he also overcalled 1NT during the week with a 6=3=3=1. Both 1NT bids had singleton king! Unfortunately he also passed 17 counts as dealer and similar so there was no pattern. I also bought some shorts and a sunhat and went to Herm! -- 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 Oct 7 23:03:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:03:55 +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 XAA04884 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:03:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1508267; 7 Oct 97 13:28 BST Message-ID: <5ez9zWB7oiO0Ew$X@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:25:31 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Duplicate: I have not seen this so it may be lost.] In article , Labeo writes >Labeo: > My fault - trying to be too clever by reversing the definition >into three questions. It did not work. > So let's go back to the basics. > Law Book definition says a call (exclude Pass - see later) is >conventional if it conveys a meaning other than: > 1. willingness to play in the named denomination (or the last >named denomination); Last named denomination? My Law book says "Last denomination named"! 1H P 3S=splinter, willing to play in the last denomination named, so natural. Yes? No, of course not, conveys a meaning other than "willingness to play in the last denomination named", so long as it is understood that other than is the same as additional to, which is obvious ... perhaps. 1H P 3S=raise in hearts, showing no other feature, willing to play in the last denomination named, so natural. Yes? Looks that way. Perhaps we can now have the people who claim that natural is not the same as non-conventional. Well, if you insist, this sequence is not conventional. How anyone really thinks that these complications matter for insufficient bids, I have no idea. At least if a player bids 1C as a transfer to diamonds over 1D, he will be allowed to correct it to 2D if that is not conventional. Chat among yourselves folks, I've had an *exceptionally* bad week and i'm just blethering. -- 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 Oct 7 23:18:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:18:26 +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 XAA04939 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:18:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1508267; 7 Oct 97 13:28 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:10:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two dummies In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Pool wrote: >How about this ? > >The opening lead is out of turn and face up. Two dummies appear, 1,the correct >one first, 2, the incorrect one first. What is the ruling in each case ? > Law 54 - Faced Opening Lead out of Turn When an opening lead is faced out of of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply. A. A Declarer Spreads His Hand After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy, and dummy becomes declarer. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. B. Declarer Accepts Lead When a defender faces the opening lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53, and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41. 1. Declarer Plays Second Card The second card to the trick is played from declarer's hand. 2. Dummy Has Played Second Card If declarer plays the second card to the trick from dummy, dummy's card may not be withdrawn except to correct a revoke. C. Declarer Must Accept Lead If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead. D. Declarer Refuses Opening Lead When declarer requires the defender to retract his faced opening lead out of turn, Law 56 applies. Seems clear. In case one the correct dummy appears first. L54C requires declarer to accept the lead, but does not say who plays the hand. L54A requires declarer to continue spreading his hand and to become dummy: his partner [the original dummy] picks his hand up and plays the hand, and the opponenets attempt to defend double-dummy [literally!] while laughing their heads off. Case two is simpler: L54A requires declarer to continue spreading his hand and to become dummy: his partner [the original dummy] picks his hand up and plays the hand, and the opponenets attempt to defend double- dummy [literally!] while laughing their heads off. ------------- There is only one thing wrong with this. If you want to be literal, then L54 does not apply *at all*. It only applies "When an opening lead is faced out of of turn, **and** offender's partner leads face down...". It does not seem to apply if there is a faced LOOT but no correct opening lead as well .... Oh dear! -- 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 Oct 7 23:18:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:18:22 +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 XAA04935 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:18:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1226132; 7 Oct 97 13:28 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:24:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Double-chance and uniform rulling In-Reply-To: <199710042317.AAA02178@sand.global.net.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Is this the current thinking when the TD has to >decide whether a call was possibly conventional? >e.g. insufficient bid. No, it is the general approach. There are certain exceptions, such as the one you note. >> From: David Stevenson > \ \ \snipped/ / / > >> What you have missed is that you are worrying about TDs who are not >> doing their job. When a TD is called to the table he rules on any >> mechanical manner, and leaves any judgement matter, or matter that >> requires further investigation in any way, until the end of the hand. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 7 23:51:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:51:08 +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 XAA05095 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:51:01 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ab1226135; 7 Oct 97 13:28 BST Message-ID: <4+h9bSBxoiO0Ew9N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:25:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A In-Reply-To: <3434D7ED.F4D557D2@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Duplicate: I have not seen this so it may be lost.] Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> S puts the wrong bidding card on the table. We allow it to be changed >> [subject to ...] so long as N has not called. We allow W to take back >> any call he has made under Law ...? I know we have discussed it: I know >> there seemed to be no Law: we hoped it would appear in the 1997 Laws: >> but *someone* said ... and quoted a Law number. Which Law? Who said >> it? Grattan? Steve? Jens? Labeo? >So indeed - the Laws don't state anything. Thanks for the answer [which came by email]. L21B refers to changing a call "... as a result of misinformation given him by an opponent ..." and being told that he is bidding 2H when he is actually bidding 2S sounds like misinformation to me! >In the 1987 version, this was understandable, as the Lawmakers never >thought this could happen (it's only possible with bidding boxes). It's *not* only possible with bidding boxes! While we were discussing this some months ago, my wife had a ruling after someone said "2H er wait a minute I didn't mean that I meant to bid oh damn am I allowed to change it now?" which gave LHO plenty of time to double in a firm voice . -- 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 Oct 7 23:53:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:53:36 +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 XAA05117 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:53:29 +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 JAA22805; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:53:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710071353.JAA06991@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: gerasimov@sapr.gaz.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (gerasimov@sapr.gaz.ru) Subject: Re: Two dummies Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > ---- > From: David Grabiner > Subject: Re: Two dummies >> You write: >> >>> How about this ? >> >>> The opening lead is out of turn and face up. Two dummies appear, 1,the > correct >>> one first, 2, the incorrect one first. What is the ruling in each case ? >> >> The first dummy to appear becomes a dummy. Once the correct dummy >> appears, declarer does not have the right to become dummy, and thus his > i ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Strange... Law 54A > After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; _he > becomes dummy_, and dummy becomes declarer. If declarer begins to spread his > hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire > hand. > There is no words about real dummy actions, but accurate instruction about > real declarer actions. IMO, there is quite the contrary: dummy is declarer > now, his hand take back without penalty. And for the other case, I'm applying Law 54C: C. Declarer Must Accept Lead If declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead. Thus, when the real dummy comes down, declarer has seen dummy's cards and must accept the lead. -- 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 Oct 8 00:44:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:44:51 +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 AAA07574 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:44:44 +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 KAA24632; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:44:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710071444.KAA07123@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:10:31 +0100) Subject: Re: Two dummies Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Law 54 - Faced Opening Lead out of Turn > When an opening lead is faced out of of turn, and offender's partner > leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be > retracted, and the following sections apply. > There is only one thing wrong with this. If you want to be literal, > then L54 does not apply *at all*. It only applies "When an opening lead > is faced out of of turn, **and** offender's partner leads face down...". > It does not seem to apply if there is a faced LOOT but no correct > opening lead as well .... This looks like another one of those unclarifications, like the one we discussed before for correction of claims. I would assume that what was intend would be something like: When an opening lead is faced out of turn, the following restrictions apply. If offender's partner leads face down, the Director requires the face-down lead to be retracted and the restrictions still apply. -- 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 Oct 8 03:27:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 03:27:06 +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 DAA08697 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 03:26:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1102137; 7 Oct 97 18:02 BST Message-ID: <4qt9edBArmO0Ewco@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:00:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Splinters MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 1S by RHO, 4H splinter [singleton or void + spade support] by LHO, 6S by RHO. You lead the heart ace [from ace-king] and dummy is 4=1=4=4. You switch to a trump and 6S makes. *But* one of dummy's small diamonds is a heart and you could have cashed a second heart! -- 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 Oct 8 03:33:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 03:33:44 +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 DAA08734 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 03:33:36 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-5.star.net.il [195.8.208.5]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14981; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:33:04 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343A7292.B2340A83@star.net.il> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 19:34:10 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Pool CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Two dummies References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id TAA14981 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Martin Practically there is no difference which hand appeared=A0 first - in both cases the "genuine" declarer' s hand will stay spread as dummy and "genuine" dummy takes his cards back in his hand and plays the cards ..... The basic law is 54C - "if declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards (except cards exposed during auction -=A0 ^^which is not the case here^^) he MUST accept the lead " (^^out of turn^^). There is a strengthening consideration when "genuine" declarer's hand appears first -54A -=A0 but this is the minor consideration IMO =A0 Now I try to complicate the problem : ..........................Case A Let say that the other defender lead a card faced down simultaneously. Here is no problem - the "genuine" declarer saw dummy' cards and he must accept the lead OUT. ..........................Case B The other defender lead also a faced up card almost same time. Still the "genuine" declarer's hand will stay spread as dummy for the same reason ( Law 54C) but >>...!!! ........beyond this clear definition there can be a catch !!!!!!!! By law 48B2=A0 when declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of term, he may be deemed to have made a claim/concession=A0 !!!!!! In this case there deemed to be one more "move" after the opening lead so -=A0=A0 did the "legal" new declarer claim ????? (IMO=A0 non-sense but maybe someone will give "devil's advocate" opinion) Dany Martin Pool wrote: > How about this ? > > The opening lead is out of turn and face up. Two dummies appear, 1,the = correct > one first,=A0 2, the incorrect one first. What is the ruling in each ca= se ? =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 03:34:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 03:34:36 +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 DAA08752 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 03:34:29 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-5.star.net.il [195.8.208.5]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA15082; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:34:10 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343A72D6.7BB77E99@star.net.il> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 19:35:18 +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: Logical concession? References: <971006095453_2054982512@emout15.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by borg.star.net.il id TAA15082 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk U2lyDQoNClRoZSBhY3F1aWVzY2VuY2Ugb2YgdGhhdCBjb25jZXNzaW9uIG9jY3VycmVkIC0g YnkgTGF3IDY5QQ0KdGhlIHNjb3JlIG11c3QgYmUgd3JpdHRlbiBkb3duIGluY2x1ZGluZyBi b3RoIHRyaWNrcyBmb3IgZGVjbGFyZXIuDQpJZiBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGRlZmVuZGVycyB3aWxs IHRyeSB0byBjb250ZXN0IGxhdGVyIChpbiBsZWdhbCBwZXJpb2QgLCBldGMuLi4uKQ0KdGhl IHNjb3JlIHNob3VsZG4ndCBiZSBjaGFuZ2VkICwgYmVjYXVzZSB3ZXN0IHBsYXkgIi4uLmlu Y2x1ZGVzDQpwbGF5IHRoYXQgd291bGQgYmUgY2FyZWxlc3Mgb3IgaW5mZXJpb3IgZm9yIHRo ZSBjbGFzcyBvZiBwbGF5ZXIgaW52b2x2ZWQuLiINCihzZWUgZm9vdG5vdGUgdG8gbGF3cyA2 OS03MSkuDQpFdmVuIGlmIEdhcnJ1enpvIHNpdHRpbmcgd2VzdCAtIGhpcyBjb25jZXNzaW9u IHNob3dzIGhlIGNvdWxkIHBsYXkNCnRoZSAxMCBvZiB0cnVtcCAuLi6gIHZlcnkgaW5mZXJp b3IgZm9yIGhpcyBsZXZlbCAsIGJ1dCBzdGlsbCBwb3NzaWJsZS4NCg0KRGFueQ0KoA0KDQpS Q3JhaWdIQGFvbC5jb20gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4gUGxheWluZyBhIHNwYWRlIGNvbnRyYWN0LKAg dGhlIHR3byBjYXJkIGVuZGluZyBpcw0KPg0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgU6AgOCAzDQo+IKCgoKCgIFOgIDEwIDSgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIEQgOCA3DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBToCBKDQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBIoCA5DQo+DQo+IFdlc3QsIG9uIGxlYWQsIHNheXMsICJuaWNlIGVu ZHBsYXkiLCBhbmQgY29uY2VkZXMuoCBSSE8gc2F5cyBub3RoaW5nLqAgSWYgTEhPDQo+IHdl cmUgdG8gbGVhZCB0aGUgMTAgb2Ygc3BhZGVzLCBoZSBpcyBjb3JyZWN0LqAgSWYgdGhlIDQs IGhlIGdldHMgYSB0cmljay4NCj4NCj4gUmVzdWx0Pw0KDQqgDQoNCg== From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 05:06:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:06:06 +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 FAA09092 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:05:59 +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 PAA04225; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:05:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710071905.PAA10946@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <4qt9edBArmO0Ewco@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:00:48 +0100) Subject: Re: Splinters Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > 1S by RHO, 4H splinter [singleton or void + spade support] by LHO, 6S > by RHO. You lead the heart ace [from ace-king] and dummy is 4=1=4=4. > You switch to a trump and 6S makes. > *But* one of dummy's small diamonds is a heart and you could have > cashed a second heart! This has to be down one under the principle of restoring equity; now we have to find a Law which justifies the ruling. It's possible that dummy revoked (by ruffing a heart later); that makes the ruling easy, since the specified penalty is to adjust to the score that would have been likely without a revoke. Law 41D (arrangement of dummy's cards) is a law not specifying a penalty. Had dummy's cards been properly arranged, you would have cashed the setting trick. I think this is the best basis for the ruling. -- 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 Oct 8 05:14:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:14:06 +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 FAA09127 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:13:58 +1000 Received: from default (cph26.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.26]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA05978 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:13:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710071913.VAA05978@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:13:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Directing in Denmark Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I spent the weekend directing rounds 1 to 3 of the Danish national teams championships. I want to share two experiences with you. Twice I was called to rule whether a defender had played a card. Twice I duly paraphrased L45C1. Twice declarer refused to believe me. Twice I then opened the book and read out the Law. Twice they told me "No, this has been changed." Twice I told them "No, it has not; furthermore it is not even going to be changed when the 1997 laws are implemented," (which we do at the end of the year, (in)appropriately enough). During the interval, two other players players approached me and told me that they had heard about my ruling and thought I had made a mistake. Twice I gave them the book, opened to L45C1 and ask them to read. Twice they told me that this had been changed, according to an article in the Swedish (yes, Swedish) magazine "Bridgetidningen". Twice I told them that we play by the international laws, not by random articles in some magazine. Last night one of the well-meaning players faxed me a copy of the article, which clearly, but incorrectly, states that a defender's card must be played if dummy or declarer has seen it. So even then I had to call him back and tell him that the article is wrong, I am right, and the laws are as stated. Note that all of this difference of opinion has been handled without anyone being discourteous, and with the players respecting my right to rule. So what do I do? Contact the author of the Swedish article and claim that he owes me a beer? Write a letter to the editor? Well, the other experience is this: a defender places her diamond Ace in her hand as if it was the heart Ace. She now apparently holds a single small diamond. Three rounds of diamonds are played, and she throws a black card on each of the last two. Then a heart is played, and she goes up with the (diamond) Ace. Her opponent (declarer) calls me. My ruling was (of course): there are three revokes. The first is established and subject to penalty according to L64A. The second is established, but not subject to penalty (L64B2). The third is not established but must be corrected, and the diamond Ace is a major penalty card. Declarer made three overtricks in 4 spades. During the same session, another player made the same mistake, but got away with just an unestablished revoke for it. All this leads me to suggest that it is high time that we changed the design of the diamond and/or heart symbol, so that these mistakes would not happen so often. Suggestions? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 05:23:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:23:19 +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 FAA09192 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:23:13 +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 MAA16221 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA22032; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:22:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:22:59 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199710071922.MAA22032@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Changes to Pips Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens wrote: > ...this leads me to suggest that it is high time that we changed the > design of the diamond and/or heart symbol, so that these mistakes > would not happen so often. Suggestions? No. Many times, people have tried to come up with different designs for playing cards. (In the last 30 years---there were zillions of variations hundreds of years ago.) I've seen a dozen or more of them. They are all far inferior to the pack we commonly use. The standard card pack is very very well designed for easy seeing; even as blind as I am, I can usually work out exactly which pip is played on the other side of the table. Face cards are not as good; I, personally, can't tell the difference between them at a large distance. So, I claim that to change the pips would be a mistake; the Aces and spot cards should surely stay as they are. There isn't much point in tinkering with the royalty, but it would bother me much less if that were to be done than for any other changes to be made. --jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 05:36:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:36:37 +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 FAA09261 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:36:30 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-172.star.net.il [195.8.208.172]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA11915; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:35:40 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343A8F76.B013018@star.net.il> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 21:37:26 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: ROC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id VAA11915 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi=A0 Christian I don't think anyone can do anything against E-player bid - my bridge judjment in his place should be the same , because a fricky hand at south , produces at least one more unbalanced hand distribution .=A0 By low 40 and 75 , East must tell opps. what the bid means , not what he thinks or "inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience "=A0 (Law 75). But............ I believe that if 20 experts will answer here you"ll get 37 opinions ..!!!! Dany =A0 christian.farwig wrote: > The ROC is well meant, but almost impossible to manage. How do you determine > whether an unusual bid was improper information or brilliant feeling? If you > use the ROC as routinely as it is outlined in the ACBL document, you will > change the nature of the game. > > In the German Open Pairs Championship we had to decide such a case: > > E, all >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AKQ10 >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 K42 >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 72 >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Q642 > 974=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 J863 > Q109753=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A86 > -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 K86 > AK98=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 J107 >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 52 >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 J >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AQJ109543 >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 53 > > The bidding went: > S=A0=A0 W=A0=A0 N=A0=A0 E > 3D=A0 3H=A0 all pass > seems normal, but... 3H was alerted and explained as Harvey (takeout for the > majors). After four rounds of spades, the contract was made, since South > trumped the last spade round with his HJ. > > Did the East play field the psych (ROC!) or die East find a clever bid, perhaps > playing with one trump less, but avoiding a possible penalty double? > > What would have been your decision? =A0 =A0 =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 05:53:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:53:23 +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 FAA09323 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:53:12 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27865; 7 Oct 97 12:52 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Directing in Denmark In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Oct 1997 21:13:28 PDT." <199710071913.VAA05978@isa.dknet.dk> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:52:33 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710071252.aa27865@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > All this leads me to suggest that it is high time that we changed the > design of the diamond and/or heart symbol, so that these mistakes > would not happen so often. Suggestions? One possibility: Make the suits the same color as they are on bidding-box cards. In the ones I'm used to, spades are dark blue (black would be acceptable), hearts are red, diamonds are orange, clubs are green. I think this might be the other way around in France, but they just like doing things differently. The biggest problem I can see with this is that we'd have trouble talking about "the red suits" or "the black suits" any more. Say someone plays CRASH and you open 1C and they double, alerted, and they explain it as "Two suits of the same color." Well, there's no such thing any more. Despite the disadvantages, it would certainly prevent most people (those with normal color perception) from missorting their hands. IMHO, it would accomplish this purpose a lot better than changing the design of any suit symbols, since it would be much easier to notice a card in the wrong place if it were a different color than if you had to strain to look at the suit symbol. It's hard for me to imagine a different design of symbol that would make it that easy to notice, unless you did something like making the heart symbols a SOLID red while the diamond symbols were simply an outline with a white interior. Other possibilities: Make the club and diamond CARDS a noticeably different color, such as light blue. For clubs and diamonds, reverse the number (or letter) and the suit symbol, so that the diamond or club appears above the rank, instead of below it. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 06:27:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 06:27:24 +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 GAA09410 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 06:27:14 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-172.star.net.il [195.8.208.172]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA05936; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 22:26:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343A9B22.13C3F726@star.net.il> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:27:15 +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: Splinters References: <4qt9edBArmO0Ewco@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id WAA05936 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Very prolific David I met this case 2 years ago - I had no problems to decide because dummy was a OLL , very polite , playing for 30 years and no one was in doubt she didn't see and feel ( 9 dioptries)..... There is no doubt that dummy violated Law 41D - "......sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank, in columns pointing lengthwise towards....." The violation must be considered and "filtered" through Law 72B... Doing all these the TD will use his discretionary powers to adjust score (Law 12 ) and (not necessary) Law 91.....if he found that the infraction was intentional (Law 72B1...). DANY =A0 David Stevenson wrote: > =A0 1S by RHO, 4H splinter [singleton or void + spade support] by LHO, = 6S > by RHO.=A0 You lead the heart ace [from ace-king] and dummy is 4=3D1=3D= 4=3D4. > You switch to a trump and 6S makes. > > =A0 *But* one of dummy's small diamonds is a heart and you could have > cashed a second heart! > > -- > David Stevenson=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Bridge=A0=A0 Cat= s=A0=A0 Railways=A0=A0 Logic=A0=A0=A0 /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 http://www.blakjak.demon.co= .uk=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk=A0=A0 Emails welcome=A0=A0=A0 bluejak on OKB= =A0=A0 =3D( + )=3D > Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412=A0=A0=A0=A0 Phone before Fax please=A0=A0=A0 R= TFLB=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ~ =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 06:41:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 06:41:46 +1000 Received: from pacs03.infoave.net (pacs03.InfoAve.Net [165.166.0.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA09506 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 06:41:41 +1000 From: LJHALL@InfoAve.Net Received: from LOCALNAME (dial-44.r4.nccrty.InfoAve.Net) by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-8 #23426) with ESMTP id <01IOJ62AHWT092TGDI@InfoAve.Net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 16:41:03 EDT Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 16:36:55 -0700 Subject: Accomodations at St Louis Nationals To: bridge-lawsoctaviaanueduau Reply-to: LJHALL@InfoAve.Net Message-id: <343AC796.990FB15A@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win16; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk TO: All bridge afficados If you are considerig the possibilities of playing any in St. Louis, but think that the Adam's Mark is to expensive for your tastes, you may want to check following via Bridge Pro Travel http://web.wt/bridgepro/welcome.htm Judi@wt.net or 1-800-925-1895 Accomodations are next to site at Holiday Inn Riverfront large accomodations and all have kitchens ALL FOR $69 PER NIGHT For more info contact Juid or the Holliday Inn (1-800-525-1395) but mention Bridge Pro Travel Best of all Judi is an OKB subscriber! See you in St. Louis Fun-pro From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 07:19:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA09628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:19:25 +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 HAA09623 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:19:10 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-172.star.net.il [195.8.208.172]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA11466; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:18:27 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343AA768.C61E87DB@star.net.il> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 23:19:36 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens & Bodil CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Directing in Denmark References: <199710071913.VAA05978@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id XAA11466 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good=A0 evening Jens I liked very much this message - TDs have many difficulties to manage tournaments , beyond the "dry" rulling.......... I believe there should be some uniform way to deal with those situations and BLML should be the right stage to agree (if there is any way to agree ....... ) Item 1 : I don't think we should be upset by every article published in a bridge newspaper or booklet , until it is an official paper . (Maybe there was a printing mistake or someone who only deemed he knew what he wrote.......hmmmmmm). The laws are very clear published in one book and if the WBF decides to send rectifications they are attached to the laws' book. Only if the "writer" is a Swedish oficial , you should drow attention to the Swedish federation. >From an other point of view I don't know which level were the teams ( National league , Second league , Ligue A or B or C...) because players in the national league (first top level) should know that laws' changes are published by the national federation only ! Item 2 : If we could arrange 4 colours (club=3Dgreen ; diamond=3D blue; heart=3Dred ; spade=3Dblack....) I believe we could avoid 75% of revokes (just feelings , no statistical proof !!!!). But meanwhile players should pay attention to "small"/"minor" procedures eg: counting the cards when pulled from the board , check the dummy's cards arrengement, thinking twice before claiming etc..... Dany Jens & Bodil wrote: > I spent the weekend directing rounds 1 to 3 of the Danish national > teams championships.=A0 I want to share two experiences with you. > > Twice I was called to rule whether a defender had played a card. > Twice I duly paraphrased L45C1.=A0 Twice declarer refused to believe > me.=A0 Twice I then opened the book and read out the Law.=A0 Twice they > told me "No, this has been changed."=A0 Twice I told them "No, it has > not; furthermore it is not even going to be changed when the 1997 > laws are implemented," (which we do at the end of the year, > (in)appropriately enough).=A0 During the interval, two other players > players approached me and told me that they had heard about my ruling > and thought I had made a mistake.=A0 Twice I gave them the book, opened > to L45C1 and ask them to read.=A0 Twice they told me that this had been > changed, according to an article in the Swedish (yes, Swedish) > magazine "Bridgetidningen".=A0 Twice I told them that we play by the > international laws, not by random articles in some magazine. Last > night one of the well-meaning players faxed me a copy of the article, > which clearly, but incorrectly, states that a defender's card must be > played if dummy or declarer has seen it.=A0 So even then I had to call > him back and tell him that the article is wrong, I am right, and the > laws are as stated.=A0 Note that all of this difference of opinion has > been handled without anyone being discourteous, and with the players > respecting my right to rule.=A0 So what do I do? Contact the author of > the Swedish article and claim that he owes me a beer?=A0 Write a letter > to the editor? > > Well, the other experience is this:=A0 a defender places her diamond > Ace in her hand as if it was the heart Ace.=A0 She now apparently > holds a single small diamond.=A0 Three rounds of diamonds are played, > and she throws a black card on each of the last two.=A0 Then a heart is > played, and she goes up with the (diamond) Ace.=A0 Her opponent > (declarer) calls me. My ruling was (of course):=A0 there are three > revokes.=A0 The first is established and subject to penalty according > to L64A.=A0 The second is established, but not subject to penalty > (L64B2).=A0 The third is not established but must be corrected, and the > diamond Ace is a major penalty card.=A0 Declarer made three overtricks > in 4 spades.=A0 During the same session, another player made the same > mistake, but got away with just an unestablished revoke for it.=A0 All > this leads me to suggest that it is high time that we changed the > design of the diamond and/or heart symbol, so that these mistakes > would not happen so often.=A0 Suggestions? > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 09:14:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:14:18 +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 JAA10035 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:14:12 +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 AA25553; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:01:57 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA085962915; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:01:56 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 10:01:42 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Two dummies Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="openmail-part-050a6986-00000001" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --openmail-part-050a6986-00000001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I had an interesting experience with double dummies the first time I directed. West leaded face up out of turn. North exposed his hand on table as dummy. Est did the same, thinking that he was dummy=85.. The real dummy, South, called =85DIRECTOR Happily, I just finished publishing flow charts on bridge laws and used them to find the solution=85. Lead out of turn, but accepted because dummy exposed cards, dummy becoming declarer. Thirteen cards exposed as major penality cards by Est. Every time West is in hand, declarer can forbid one or two suits or asked for a specific suit, removing penality cards in that suit(s), or say " play what you want " to keep cards one table as penality. Declarer can designate which legal card East play on each trick. It was the first round in an invitational club=85. I ruled they shuffle and make a new deal=85. Comments=85.. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City --openmail-part-050a6986-00000001 --openmail-part-050a6986-00000001-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 10:25:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:25:56 +1000 Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com (pimaia4w.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10295 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:25:49 +1000 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA32468 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:25:41 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA78870 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:25:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199710080025.UAA78870@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:25:39, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Changes to Pips Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are two solutions when vision is a problem with cards. 1) large print cards 2) a deck that is four different colors. Not playing with the four color deck very often, I can't remember which suits are which color, but the other two colors are green and orange. I think I last reviewed this option a couple of years ago. Talking about Jens suggestion to change the design of one of the red symbols, what if the diamond was a little more 3D, maybe it is still red, but a black line goes from the top of the diamond to the bottom but like this: | / \ | / \ / | \ / / \ \ \ / \ | / \ / Kind of hard to draw. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 11:07:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:07:56 +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 LAA10476 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:07:39 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA28522; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:06:56 -0800 Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 17:06:56 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: "christian.farwig" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ROC in practice (Was: Suspicious Bidding) In-Reply-To: <9710061708.AA7597@notes2.compuserve.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 6 Oct 1997, christian.farwig wrote: > In the German Open Pairs Championship we had to decide such a case: [hands snipped] > The bidding went: > S W N E > 3D 3H all pass > seems normal, but... 3H was alerted and explained as Harvey (takeout for the > majors). After four rounds of spades, the contract was made, since South > trumped the last spade round with his HJ. > > Did the East play field the psych (ROC!) or die East find a clever bid, perhaps > playing with one trump less, but avoiding a possible penalty double? > > What would have been your decision? > I would like to hear what East has to say about it, of course, but my immediate reaction to E-W is sympathetic. If 3H gets doubled you can run to 3S but if 3S gets doubled you run to 4H; especially if West did not promise much strength I can see a good argument for getting out cheaply in any decent fit. I don't think East's pass in and of itself is a violation of anything. Mind you, I do see why N-S were upset about the result! And, depending on the history of these players, the details of the length and strength this pair promised with 3H, and what was said at the table, my view might be changed. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 11:26:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:26:31 +1000 Received: from server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net [203.108.7.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA10504 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:26:26 +1000 Received: from oznet07.ozemail.com.au (oznet07.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.122]) by server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA02977 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:26:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri4p23.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.39]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA11524 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:26:19 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971008104443.006be784@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 10:44:43 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Law 50 and UI Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South is in 4S. East makes the opening lead OOT of the HK (by their methods showing also the HA. South prohibits a heart lead from West, and the HK is returned to hand. West leads a club, won in dummy, and declarer finesses a spade to West's king. West now plays a heart, and declarer of course calls the Director. West's explanation: I was not using the UI that partner held the HK and probably the HA. I was using the AI that declarer prohibited a heart lead from me. Therefore a heart lead now seems likely to be profitable. Do you accept this? Law 50D1: The requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner. Does 'other information' include declarer's prohibition of a heart lead from West? I find it hard to fault West's argument. Surely the Law doesn't intend to make declarer's choice of penalty UI to West? Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 14:20:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:20:52 +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 OAA10919 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:20:42 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1402636; 8 Oct 97 4:44 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 04:40:15 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote: >>Eric Landau writes > >>>Of course, if one believes the silly "Rule of Coincidence", then one >>>needn't look for evidence either -- just rule "gotcha, adjustment time" >>>out of hand and walk away. > >> Labeo: Does this 'Rule' feature in ACBL published regulations? >> If so, what form of words? David Stevenson: >> It is in the ACBL published regulations in their Active Ethics Pamphlet. > .......(cut).... Labeo: Thank you for the information. The obvious question is where the differences lie between the ACBL regulation and (say) the psyche classification applied by the EBU. It does not appear that the words suggest there would be a case where an ACBL Director found the RoC applied and yet the EBU would rule it 'green'. In both cases the immediate evidence is circumstantial (further off the player or pair might be shown to have a record which indicated a pattern of behaviour); if the circumstantial evidence is weighty enough the player needs to defend his action in bridge terms. It does seem to me that identification of collusion, which is what we are talking about, hangs (I use the word advisedly) on a basis of bridge judgement - has the player, whose call successfully protects the partnership from harm opposite grossly abnormal action by partner, chosen action for which the player is unable to present a persuasive bridge argument. I think the EBU accepts that a persuasive defence should be allowed; am I to understand from what I read on BLML that the ACBL does not? May I suppose that in both hemispheres the concept of natural justice ensures that the player is told of what he is accused and is allowed to defend his actions? --Labeo } Let's eat, drink, and play till the worms do corrupt us, { 'Tis certain, Post mortem, Nulla voluptas, } For health, wealth and beauty, wit, learning and sense, { Must all come to nothing a hundred years hence. (Jordan) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 16:08:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA11150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:08:53 +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 QAA11145 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:08:45 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1015498; 8 Oct 97 6:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:48:54 +0100 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Directing in Denmark In-Reply-To: <199710071913.VAA05978@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199710071913.VAA05978@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes ......(cut)...... >Well, the other experience is this: a defender places her diamond >Ace in her hand as if it was the heart Ace. She now apparently >holds a single small diamond. Three rounds of diamonds are played, >and she throws a black card on each of the last two. Then a heart is >played, and she goes up with the (diamond) Ace. Her opponent >(declarer) calls me. My ruling was (of course): there are three >revokes. The first is established and subject to penalty according >to L64A. The second is established, but not subject to penalty >(L64B2). The third is not established but must be corrected, and the >diamond Ace is a major penalty card. Declarer made three overtricks >in 4 spades. During the same session, another player made the same >mistake, but got away with just an unestablished revoke for it. All >this leads me to suggest that it is high time that we changed the >design of the diamond and/or heart symbol, so that these mistakes >would not happen so often. Suggestions? Labeo: Leave the suit symbols as they are in red and black; change the base background colour of the minor suits (?yellow, ?light blue), either across the whole of the face of the card (maybe needing to leave a strip white on packs to be read for machine dealing) or, better perhaps, just change the background colour in a rectangle around the symbol at the edge of the card. Alternatively leave the card as it is except for placing a disk in red or black, as appropriate, a little above the symbol in the corner of the card. --Labeo } Let's eat, drink, and play till the worms do corrupt us, { 'Tis certain, Post mortem Nulla voluptas, } For health, wealth and beauty, wit, learning and sense, { Must all come to nothing a hundred years hence. (Jordan) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 16:27:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA11180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:27:24 +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 QAA11175 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:27:12 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1128163; 8 Oct 97 6:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:53:56 +0100 To: Dany Haimovici Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" From: Labeo Subject: Re: ROC In-Reply-To: <343A8F76.B013018@star.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <343A8F76.B013018@star.net.il>, Dany Haimovici writes >Hi=A0 Christian ..............(cut)....... > >I don't think anyone can do anything against E-player bid - >my bridge judjment in his place should be the same , because >a fricky hand at south , produces at least one more unbalanced >hand distribution .=A0 By low 40 and 75 , East must tell opps. what >the bid means , not what he thinks or "inferences drawn from his >general knowledge and experience "=A0 (Law 75). > >christian.farwig wrote: > >> The ROC is well meant, but almost impossible to manage.=20 >> ........(cut)......... Labeo: East may have a bridge case here. It would be interesting to know what he would do if it were=20 to come back to him in 3H doubled, but it is pointless asking him that when it has not happened. Of course, if he were to develop a pattern of lucky judgements of passing partner's 'conventional' overcalls...... I am not sure what Dany means by "general=20 knowledge and experience" in his remarks; it would have to come from the wider game outside of this partnership (from which any experience would be 'partnership experience' not 'general'). --Labeo } Let's eat, drink, and play till the worms do corrupt us, { 'Tis certain, Post mortem Nulla voluptas, } For health, wealth and beauty, wit, learning and sense, { Must all come to nothing a hundred years hence. (Jordan) = =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 18:46:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA11427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:46:48 +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 SAA11422 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:46:41 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1221387; 8 Oct 97 9:39 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:35:39 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: Directing in Denmark In-Reply-To: <9710071252.aa27865@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9710071252.aa27865@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >> All this leads me to suggest that it is high time that we changed the >> design of the diamond and/or heart symbol, so that these mistakes >> would not happen so often. Suggestions? > >One possibility: Make the suits the same color as they are on >bidding-box cards. In the ones I'm used to, spades are dark blue >(black would be acceptable), hearts are red, diamonds are orange, >clubs are green. I think this might be the other way around in >France, but they just like doing things differently. The biggest >problem I can see with this is that we'd have trouble talking about >"the red suits" or "the black suits" any more. Say someone plays >CRASH and you open 1C and they double, alerted, and they explain it as >"Two suits of the same color." Well, there's no such thing any more. > >Despite the disadvantages, it would certainly prevent most people >(those with normal color perception) from missorting their hands. >IMHO, it would accomplish this purpose a lot better than changing the >design of any suit symbols, since it would be much easier to notice a >card in the wrong place if it were a different color than if you had >to strain to look at the suit symbol. It's hard for me to imagine a >different design of symbol that would make it that easy to notice, >unless you did something like making the heart symbols a SOLID red >while the diamond symbols were simply an outline with a white >interior. > >Other possibilities: Make the club and diamond CARDS a noticeably >different color, such as light blue. > >For clubs and diamonds, reverse the number (or letter) and the suit >symbol, so that the diamond or club appears above the rank, instead of >below it. > > -- Adam > Those of you who advocate a change in colour or symbol, overlook how accustomed the perceptual system is to the shape and colour of the curent playing cards we use. In England, and I guess elsewhere) there is available a 4 colour pack with BLUE diamonds. As a publicity stunt, clubs were sent a pack of these to use in a particular number board in a BBL Simultaneous. At my club, that evening, 3 players revoked on that board in Diamonds - a pretty remarkable hit-rate even for our LOLs and LOGs !! The problem was that in searching for Diamonds they were looking for squarish red things. Those blue ones just didn't register on the brain. Along the same lines it is remarkable that many players cannot tell you what colour the symbols are in bidding boxes, they just go by the shapes Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 21:17:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:17:51 +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 VAA11785 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:17:44 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA19283 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:17:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 07:17:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Card Design (was: Re: Directing in Denmark) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Various suggestions have been made in the last few days. I have objections to most. Change the design of some symbols: Very much against tradition, and won't much help people with poor vision who go partly on color when sorting. Change the color of some symbols: Again, against tradition, and foils descriptions such as "for the black suits." Not really a bad idea, but colors have to be chosen carefully. Red/Green color blindness is not uncommon, and there are other forms. Dark blue and black can also be easy to confuse in less than perfect lighting. Change the background color of the minors: About 100% of my opponents sometimes hold their cards carelessly enough that I would see the color of their cards if I so much as glanced in their direction. The best (I thought) attempt I've seen was a deck where the minor suit symbols were hollow. Everybody hated them. (Tradition, I think). I suspect with time even bridge players might get used to them. -- Richard Lighton | Is a diagnostic someone who is not quite sure (lighton@idt.net) | if there are two Gods? Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 21:40:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:40:47 +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 VAA11904 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:40:39 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS2-113.star.net.il [195.8.208.113]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16461; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:40:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343B715A.DCC80A5E@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:41:15 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Labeo CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: ROC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id NAA16461 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Sir I just quoted Law 75C ....... But...... I come back to my proposals for uniform ruling.=A0 !!! I think that the best "hint" to decide is to check "veteran partnership" and "veteranity" of the convention . If Macwells or Robson-Forester or Branco-Chagas should be E-W I take it as CPU for 99.9998% -=A0 for fun I keep this 0.0002% because even Branco-Chagas played 6 SP with a 4+1 fit ,as many of us remember ( even at that level occurred a peculiar misunderstanding) But if the pair is not a veteran partnership or if they introduced this convention during last weeks or yhe pair is low level or a Pro + pupil or like=A0 this ...I should let the result stand . Dany Labeo wrote: > In message <343A8F76.B013018@star.net.il>, Dany Haimovici > writes > >Hi=A0 Christian > > ..............(cut)....... > > > >I don't think anyone can do anything against E-player bid - > >my bridge judjment in his place should be the same , because > >a fricky hand at south , produces at least one more unbalanced > >hand distribution .=A0 By low 40 and 75 , East must tell opps. what > >the bid means , not what he thinks or "inferences drawn from his > >general knowledge and experience "=A0 (Law 75). > > > >christian.farwig wrote: > > > >> The ROC is well meant, but almost impossible to manage. > >> > ........(cut)......... > > Labeo:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 East may have a bridge case her= e. It would be > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 interesting to know= what he would do if it were > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 to come back to him= in 3H doubled, but it is > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 pointless asking hi= m that when it has not happened. > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Of course, if he we= re to develop a pattern of > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 lucky judgements of= passing partner's 'conventional' > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 overcalls...... > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 I am not sure what = Dany means by "general > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 knowledge and exper= ience" in his remarks; it > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 would have to come = from the wider game outside > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 of this partnership= (from which any experience > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 would be 'partnersh= ip experience' not 'general'). > > --Labeo=A0=A0=A0=A0 }=A0 Let's eat, drink, and play till the worms do c= orrupt us, > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 {=A0 'Tis certain, Post mortem Nulla = voluptas, > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 }=A0 For health, wealth and beauty, w= it, learning and sense, > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 {=A0 Must all come to nothing a hundr= ed years hence. (Jordan) > =A0 > =A0 > =A0 =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 21:41:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:41:37 +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 VAA11924 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:41:30 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS2-113.star.net.il [195.8.208.113]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16588; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:41:07 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343B7198.EB75F541@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:42:16 +0200 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: Two dummies References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id NAA16588 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval I believe you did the right and best thing had to be done in a club tournament. We must remember that TD are "instruments" to run tournaments but the "heroes" are the players coming to enjoy the PLAY !!!! So as much as possible let them play . Dany Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Name: BDY.RTF > =A0=A0 BDY.RTF=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Encoding: quoted-printable =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 21:42:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:42:42 +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 VAA11943 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 21:42:35 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS2-113.star.net.il [195.8.208.113]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA16663; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:41:43 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343B71BC.66868DF9@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:42:53 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Reg Busch CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 50 and UI References: <3.0.1.32.19971008104443.006be784@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id NAA16663 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi REG The laws are IMHO very clear : (the Laws & Paragraphs as in 97 Laws) FIRST : Law 50D1 DOES NOT=A0 apply here because there is NO penalty card=A0 =3D by Law 50D2a , the moment declarer prohibited lead of suit of the penalty card , the card is no longer a penalty card and is picked up ! =3D=A0 Law 50D1 applies only when there is a penalty card . SECONDLY : The prohibition stands as long as the offender's partner retains the lead (see again 50D2a=A0 !!) ; the moment someone else is to lead the prohibition "vanishes". THIRD : There is no reference to Law16 in this context (the Law 16 applies only about a minor penalty card - see 50C- which is not the case here ). Nothing wrong , the second lead is legal.=A0 But .......... The TD is allowed to apply his discretionary powers if he deems (better say =3D almost sure ) that the infraction produced a total distor= tion of the play - e.g. the only way to give W possibility to play H as a tota= l abnormal play (all other pairs didn't do it) . In case I use my "dictatorial" rights - using again the 97 Laws - I "ll appeal to AC to check again the bridgistic considerations. =A0 Reg Busch wrote: > South is in 4S. East makes the opening lead OOT of the HK (by their met= hods > showing also the HA. South prohibits a heart lead from West, and the HK= is > returned to hand. West leads a club, won in dummy, and declarer finesse= s a > spade to West's king. West now plays a heart, and declarer of course ca= lls > the Director. > West's explanation: I was not using the UI that partner held the HK and > probably the HA. I was using the AI that declarer prohibited a heart le= ad > from me. Therefore a heart lead now seems likely to be profitable. > =A0Do you accept this? > > Law 50D1: The requirement that offender must play the card is authorise= d > information for his partner; however, other information arising from fa= cing > of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner. > > Does 'other information' include declarer's prohibition of a heart lead > from West? I find it hard to fault West's argument. Surely the Law does= n't > intend to make declarer's choice of penalty UI to West? > Reg Busch. =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 8 22:06:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:06:10 +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 WAA12047 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:05:52 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:05:12 +0100 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 97 13:05:11 BST Message-Id: <27127.9710081205@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Splinters Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 1S by RHO, 4H splinter [singleton or void + spade support] by LHO, 6S > by RHO. You lead the heart ace [from ace-king] and dummy is 4=1=4=4. > You switch to a trump and 6S makes. > > *But* one of dummy's small diamonds is a heart and you could have > cashed a second heart! D. Dummy's Hand After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank, in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer, with trumps to dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. B. Infraction of Law 1. Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. There has been an irregularity by dummy. Dummy appearing to have a H singleton may be likely to damage non-offending side; it depends mainly on the alertness of the NOS. I assume that NO had not seen the heart and would have lead HK if he had seen dummy's second H. Then dummy appearing to have a H singleton did damage NOS and so was likely to damage NOS (at least this NOS). If dummy appearing to have a H singleton _is_ likely to damage NOS then certainly dummy at the time of the irregularity could have known this, as declarer may have bid the slam relying on the H control. On this basis, L72B1 applies and I adjust to 6S-1. OS may convince an appeals committee that NOS were likely to spot the second H in dummy (even though they did not on this occasion). 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 Oct 9 00:25:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:25:26 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14683 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:25:19 +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 QAA25066 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:25:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <343B80C6.F1E6597A@innet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:47:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Directing in Denmark X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: > > > In England, and I guess elsewhere) there is available a 4 colour pack > with BLUE diamonds. As a publicity stunt, clubs were sent a pack of > these to use in a particular number board in a BBL Simultaneous. At my > club, that evening, 3 players revoked on that board in Diamonds - a > pretty remarkable hit-rate even for our LOLs and LOGs !! The problem > was that in searching for Diamonds they were looking for squarish red > things. Those blue ones just didn't register on the brain. Along the > same lines it is remarkable that many players cannot tell you what > colour the symbols are in bidding boxes, they just go by the shapes > > Mike > -- > michael amos In my club I once put a fun pack into one of the boards - It had red spades and clubs, and black hearts and diamonds. I had to cancel all time penalties for the tables playing that board. There were very few revokes, because I stayed at the table throughout. But indeed, blue diamonds would be awful. Orange - OK, and green clubs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 00:29:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:29:03 +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 AAA14704 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:28:55 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0909956; 8 Oct 97 15:01 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:46:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Neil Cohen wrote on RGB and I have borrowed it! > >Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have >a problem? > >Suppose declarer is S, and a hand looks like: > > 9xxxx > > > Kx J10x > > AQx > >Declarer needs to pick up this suit with one loser and is very short on >entries to dummy. He starts by cashing the club A from his hand. Is it >permissible for E to pause slightly before playing an honor, so declarer >will know he has both the J and 10 and consider running the Q next? Law 73 - Communication D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. Inadvertent Variations It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. While it is not perhaps totally clear, there is a strong inference here that inadvertent variations are permitted so intentional ones are not. ------------- Law 74 - Conduct and Etiquette C. Violations of Procedure The following are considered violations of procedure: 7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. This makes it illegal. You are not misinforming or deceiving an opponent by your deliberate pause, but your are certainly aiming to disconcert him! So I would not permit such action. ------------- Alexey Gerasimov wrote: >>Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have >>a problem? >IMO, no (Law73D2 and Law 73F2, new Laws). These refer to deception so I do not believe they apply here. ------------- Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Let'us go on: Is it permissible, With AQx in front of dummy's KJx, when >declarer attacks suit, to pause deliberately before playing low, in order to >be sure declarer will play dummy's king? Back to L74C: this is surely illegal. ------------- Anonymous wrote: >"is it permissable to pause to inform declarer ?" >and suddenly it becomes more difficult, or so we think. > But why would you inform ? Only so he can get it wrong ? So you're >actually trying to deceive. >And we know that's a no-no. This view has some interest. Can informing him correctly be an attempt to deceive? Regretfully, I think not. [Apologies for the bad Netiquette in quoting an email: I am presuming {perhaps wrongly} that the author will not mind] ------------- Sergei Litvak wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original >> example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show >> declarer (but not partner) the other honor? >IMO yes > >Sergei Litvak, >Chief TD of RBL. This one worries me. I am quite sure that it ought to be illegal: showing your opponents your cards so that he will make a mistake is surely not what Bridge is about. But is there a Law? ------------- Steve Willner wrote: >> Let us go on: Is it permissible, With AQx in front of dummy's KJx, when >> declarer attacks suit, to pause deliberately before playing low, in order to >> be sure declarer will play dummy's king? >Following the logic of the other case, it is not permissible to pause >or otherwise use mannerisms, but it is permissible to show declarer >the ace. > >I wonder, though.... L73F2 refers to "false inference" and deception. >Here the intended inference is true. Does that make a difference? > >I personally would read L73F2 very broadly and say that bridge is not >about acting, and trying to gain advantage by using mannerisms in any >form whatsoever is forbidden. However, I can see that others might >disagree. I approve of Steve's intent. ------------- Law 74 - Conduct and Etiquette B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 3. detaching a card before it is his turn to play. Hello! This is what he is doing, and since it does not refer to deception or anything, I shall tell him it is discourteous so he should not do it. ------------- Kaplan said something like "If you know how you want to rule, you then look for a Law to help you" and that is what I have done. When Steve says >I personally would read L73F2 very broadly and say that bridge is not >about acting, and trying to gain advantage by using mannerisms in any >form whatsoever is forbidden. I am sure he is right. The game is not about such methods. It is important that we do not allow players to gain an advantage by hesitations nor by showing their cards to their opponents. Even though the Laws were not really written with these antics in mind, in my view L73D1, L74B3 and L74C7 clearly can be read to prohibit such actions. Possibly even L73F2 might encompass these actions and I think we have sufficient firepower to stop such activities. -- 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 Oct 9 00:36:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:36:24 +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 AAA14760 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 00:36:18 +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 AA27219; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:36:14 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA124231373; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:36:13 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 97 10:36:05 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="openmail-part-050ac89d-00000001" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --openmail-part-050ac89d-00000001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, This week in a local club, the auction was : N E S W 1NT P P ? After a long hesitation, W (who plays occasionnally in clubs) looked at his CC, said something like " We play Capelletti pd " and bid 2C At that time, the director was called . He asked E privaltely what 2C means, according to their agreement? " Think we dont play Capelletti 4th seat " What is the best ruling? 1- Stop the auction and give an A+ to N-S juging that this UI (S + an other suit) is so important that it will be impossible to have a valid score after that. 2- Stop the auction for the same reason but allowing a real score (1NT making 3 was the most probable score for N-S on a normal H lead) 3- Let the auction continue and adjuste score afterward (2NT by N-S will= go down 2 on a S lead and 2S by E-W can be X and down 2). If TD choose option 1 (stop the auction and give A+), can an AC change the decision and give a real score? If TD choose option 2 (stop the auction and give 1NT making 3), can an AC decide it will be an A+? Doing so, AC is overruling the interpretation of laws made by TD? I know Law 16A says that the auction must go on after UI, but is this applicable in any violation of this law? I remember there was some discussions on the list about stopping the auction and allowing A+. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City --openmail-part-050ac89d-00000001 --openmail-part-050ac89d-00000001-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 01:25:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:25:21 +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 BAA14981 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:25:14 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1111242; 8 Oct 97 15:01 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 02:04:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two dummies In-Reply-To: <343A7292.B2340A83@star.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: [s] >The other defender lead also a faced up card almost same time. >Still the "genuine" declarer's hand will stay spread as dummy for >the same reason ( Law 54C) but >>...!!! >........beyond this clear definition there can be a catch !!!!!!!! >By law 48B2=A0 when declarer faces his cards at any time other >than immediately after an opening lead out of term, he may be deemed >to have made a claim/concession=A0 !!!!!! >In this case there deemed to be one more "move" after the opening >lead so -=A0=A0 did the "legal" new declarer claim ????? It is immediately after an opening lead out of turn. No, he did not=20 claim. >(IMO=A0 non-sense but maybe someone will give "devil's advocate" opinion) --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 02:16:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:16:47 +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 CAA15481 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:16:42 +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 JAA17837 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA23052; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:16:37 -0700 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:16:37 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199710081616.JAA23052@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Card Design Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton said: |Various suggestions have been made in the last few days. I have |objections to most. | |The best (I thought) attempt I've seen was a deck where the minor suit |symbols were hollow. Everybody hated them. (Tradition, I think). |I suspect with time even bridge players might get used to them. I have a couple packs of these. I think they were called "True-vu" or something like that. They are ghastly. I keep them as a curiosity, but they absolutely fail as playing cards. It's just too hard to see the outline shapes from across the table. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 02:53:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:53:44 +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 CAA15776 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:53:37 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa03694; 8 Oct 97 9:53 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Directing in Denmark In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Oct 1997 05:48:54 PDT." Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:53:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710080953.aa03694@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Labeo: Leave the suit symbols as they are in red and black; change > the base background colour of the minor suits (?yellow, > ?light blue), either across the whole of the face of the card > (maybe needing to leave a strip white on packs to be read > for machine dealing) or, better perhaps, just change the > background colour in a rectangle around the symbol at the > edge of the card. I think this last suggestion is the best I've seen. It would certainly help prevent missorting, but by making just the part in the corner a different color, we'd stave off objections from people who have more trouble than average seeing cards across the table. I'm not sure about using yellow as the background color, since some cards have a tendency to turn that color with age. Light blue would be a lot better IMHO. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 03:08:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:08:33 +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 DAA15887 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:08:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1419257; 8 Oct 97 15:01 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:43:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Directing in Denmark In-Reply-To: <199710071913.VAA05978@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >I spent the weekend directing rounds 1 to 3 of the Danish national >teams championships. I want to share two experiences with you. > >Twice I was called to rule whether a defender had played a card. >Twice I duly paraphrased L45C1. Twice declarer refused to believe >me. Twice I then opened the book and read out the Law. Twice they >told me "No, this has been changed." Twice I told them "No, it has >not; furthermore it is not even going to be changed when the 1997 >laws are implemented," (which we do at the end of the year, >(in)appropriately enough). While I was directing at the weekend [in charge of the Great Northern Swiss Pairs] I was talking to a player, and he was chatting about the new Laws. I told him that the Insufficient Bid Law was the one change that might be noticed by the players, to which he replied "You are wrong: the Insufficient Bid Law has not changed: Paul Hackett says so." Words failed me. [s] >All >this leads me to suggest that it is high time that we changed the >design of the diamond and/or heart symbol, so that these mistakes >would not happen so often. Suggestions? Obviously new colours is possible as suggested by Adam. Red and Orange for the red suits, Blue and Green for the black suits, and I do not think people would be confused by the terms red and black suits. When re-designing cards, please remember they are used in other things bar Bridge. If you do not like new colours, why not try cross-hatching? Solid black spades and solid red hearts, black and white diagonally striped clubs and red and white diagonally striped diamonds. -- 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 Oct 9 05:01:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:01:01 +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 FAA16553 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:00:54 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id UAA02499 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:00:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 97 19:59 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Splinters 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: <199710071905.PAA10946@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> David Grabiner wrote: > David Stevenson writes: > > > 1S by RHO, 4H splinter [singleton or void + spade support] by LHO, > > 6S by RHO. You lead the heart ace [from ace-king] and dummy is > > 4=1=4=4. You switch to a trump and 6S makes. > > > *But* one of dummy's small diamonds is a heart and you could have > > cashed a second heart! > > This has to be down one under the principle of restoring equity; now we > have to find a Law which justifies the ruling. Hmm, let the crime fit the punishment as it were? There are a few possibilities I would want to consider first. Did LHO make a "psychic" splinter and deliberately mis-sort his hand in order to conceal the fact? Maybe he mis-sorted by accident and splintered in good faith but on realising his error left the hand mis-sorted to avoid "giving the game away", or to deflect some of partner's criticism. Maybe declarer noticed the mis-sort straight away but said nothing (I'm not sure if this is "OK under L72B2" or a breach of L72B3). In the first of these cases a mere adjustment is way too lenient. In the second case a PP may be order (depending on motive) as well as an adjustment to 6S-1. Granted I may not be able to establish the evidence for any of these conclusions but I should try to do so (of course I could always apply the RoC in the absence of any evidence!). Even if I assume that the hand was mis-sorted and laid out in good faith I still have a choice in "restoring equity". There is the "equity" of "had the hand been sorted correctly the bidding would have stopped short of slam and been 5S making". While I consider this technically imperfect it might be the most acceptable/pragmatic ruling in a club game. Or perhaps the equity of "LHO made an error which gave you a chance at a top but since you made the egregious error of not properly examining dummy you blew it!" - result stands. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 05:33:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:33:20 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA16633 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:33:12 +1000 Received: from rolph.bu.edu (metcalf@ROLPH.BU.EDU [128.197.12.129]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id PAA13820; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:33:03 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by rolph.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id PAA05048; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710081932.PAA05048@rolph.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Cc: metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson >>Is it permissible to pause deliberately so that declarer knows you have >>a problem? >>Suppose declarer is S, and a hand looks like: >> 9xxxx >> Kx J10x >> AQx >>Declarer needs to pick up this suit with one loser and is very short on >>entries to dummy. He starts by cashing the club A from his hand. Is it >>permissible for E to pause slightly before playing an honor, so declarer >>will know he has both the J and 10 and consider running the Q next? $$ [relevant laws] $$ LAW 73.D.2 Variations in Tempo - Intentional Variations $$ It is grossly improper to attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark $$ or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in $$ hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the $$ call or play is made. $$ LAW 73.F.2 Violation of Proprieties - Player Injured by Illegal Deception $$ If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false $$ inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an $$ opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that the $$ deception could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an $$ adjusted score (see Law 12). I think (as do others) Law 73.D.2. applies to this situation - it is improper to attempt to mislead an opponent using the tempo of ones play. In this case, the inference you wish the declarer to draw is a true one (i.e. that you have both J and T), but your motivation is still an attempt to deceive. From: "Alexey Gerasimov" >> Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original >> example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show >> declarer (but not partner) the other honor? Here too, I would apply the above laws, and disallow this action. Although deliberately exposing a card to an opponent in an attempt to deceive him is not specifically listed, I would still feel that this would be covered (if worst comes to worst, I would sneak it in under the "or the like" phrase in 73.F.2). I feel that the intent of these laws is to limit the allowable ways to deliberately attempt to deceive the opponents to the cards played and the bids made. Note that this is different from a case where you show your cards to declarer for a different reason - if declarer is leading toward a KJ and I am behind the tenace with AQ, and declarer stops and begins to think, I might well, in order to speed up the game and to save the declarer the agony, show him both cards. The difference is that my motivation is not deception - it is not an "attempt to mislead an opponent". From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >> Let'us go on: Is it permissible, With AQx in front of dummy's KJx, when >> declarer attacks suit, to pause deliberately before playing low, in order to >> be sure declarer will play dummy's king? From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >> Following the logic of the other case, it is not permissible to pause >> or otherwise use mannerisms, but it is permissible to show declarer >> the ace. >> I wonder, though.... L73F2 refers to "false inference" and deception. >> Here the intended inference is true. Does that make a difference? >> I personally would read L73F2 very broadly and say that bridge is not >> about acting, and trying to gain advantage by using mannerisms in any >> form whatsoever is forbidden. However, I can see that others might >> disagree. In my opinion, giving declarer partial information, even if true information, in order to deceive him is prohibited. It shouldn't matter if the information is passed by means of tempo variation or by showing declarer a card. I agree with Steve in his last sentence - this is not what the game is about, and law 73, however badly written, is intended to enforce this. David Metcalf metcalf@cs.bu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 09:01:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:01:37 +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 JAA17181 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:01:27 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1219515; 8 Oct 97 23:50 BST Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:49:43 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: How do you rule ? To: Bridge Laws 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 How do you rule ? A63 T765 863 532 J5 KQ84 Q3 AKJ92 AKQ742 95 986 Q7 T972 84 JT AKJT4 W opens 1N P 2D P 2H P 2S P 4H P P P The 2D bid was alerted and S immediately asked and was told transfer to H's. N led a C, S cashed the AK and led a D. E/W made 11 tricks. W then asked for an adjusted score as the question regarding D's meant that N lead a C when with no question some of the time he was likely to lead a D. The D lead had been precluded by the question. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 09:58:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:58:59 +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 JAA17391 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:58:49 +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 RAA10208 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 17:00:24 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA07440; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 16:58:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199710082358.QAA07440@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Oct 8 16:31 PDT 1997 > > How do you rule ? > A63 > T765 > 863 > 532 > J5 KQ84 > Q3 AKJ92 > AKQ742 95 > 986 Q7 > T972 > 84 > JT > AKJT4 > > W opens 1N P 2D P > 2H P 2S P > 4H P P P > > The 2D bid was alerted and S immediately asked and was told transfer to H's. > N led a C, S cashed the AK and led a D. E/W made 11 tricks. W then asked for > an adjusted score as the question regarding D's meant that N lead a C when > with no question some of the time he was likely to lead a D. The D lead > had been precluded by the question. I've seen this coming. The logical interpretation their complaint is that since the question suggests a diamond lead, it suggests avoiding a diamond lead. What is North to lead? The director should presume that if North had led a diamond successfully, the complainant would still have complained. IMHO, the _complainant_ should be convicted of a _breach_of_proprieties_ -- intimidating opponents by excessive lawyering -- be given a full board procedural penalty for the session and forfeit their right to a favorable ruling on any complaint about UI from questions for a substantial period of time, perhaps six months for a first offense, even for a subsequent complaint which have some merit. If they give up bridge for six months, that's fair. Of course the best solution I know for this particular case is to play under ACBL jurisdiction, where West announces "transfer" and no question is necessary. But the issue remains a problem for other cases. An amateur's opinion, Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 10:21:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:21:45 +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 KAA17486 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:21:38 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29109; 8 Oct 97 17:20 PDT To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:49:43 PDT." Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:20:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710081720.aa29109@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > How do you rule ? > > > A63 > T765 > 863 > 532 > > J5 KQ84 > Q3 AKJ92 > AKQ742 95 > 986 Q7 > T972 > 84 > JT > AKJT4 > > W opens 1N P 2D P > 2H P 2S P > 4H P P P > > The 2D bid was alerted and S immediately asked and was told transfer to H's. > N led a C, S cashed the AK and led a D. E/W made 11 tricks. W then asked for > an adjusted score as the question regarding D's meant that N lead a C when > with no question some of the time he was likely to lead a D. The D lead > had been precluded by the question. If West wants an adjustment, I'll adjust--to 4H making four. Well, maybe not, since that's not permitted by the Laws, but it does reflect what I think about West for this particular director call. (1) When a bid is alerted and the correct opponent immediately asks for an explanation, I don't think this suggests anything that the other opponent can take advantage of. I mean, what's the alert system for, if not to let the opponents know that they should ask about the meaning of a call? This is even more true if, in your country, 2D as forcing Stayman is a lot more common than it is in the U.S. (2) The diamond lead is contraindicated because South didn't double 2D. With no information whatsoever from the question, if North decides to lead a minor from those equivalent holdings, a club lead is a little more likely to work, and I believe it would be the choice of most good players who are not swinging. (3) We've got enough problems about players asking questions to try to lead the suit they're asking about--now someone's asking us to rule that they asked a question about a suit to get partner to lead a different suit. Sheesh. This is about as frivolous a director call as they come. If South had kept completely silent, and North had led a club, this West would probably have called the director claiming that the absence of a question was UI that South wasn't interested in diamonds. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 10:23:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:23:52 +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 KAA17504 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:23:44 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-24.star.net.il [195.8.208.24]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA10512; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:23:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343C2433.E1FA6E07@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 02:24:19 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Pool CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: How do you rule ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by borg.star.net.il id CAA10512 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SGkgTWFydGluDQoNCk1heWJloCBJIGRpZG4ndCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoYXQgd2FzIHRoZSBF LVcgY29tcGxhaW4uLi4uLi4NCkFzIG11Y2ggYXMgSSByZWFkIC2gIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBub3Ro aW5nIHRvIHRoaW5rIGV2ZW4gISEhIQ0KSW4gTVAgdGhleSBtdXN0IHNheSAidGhhbmsgR29k IiBOIGRpZG4ndCBsZWFkIEEgU3AuLi4NCklmoCB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBhcHBlYWwgdGhpcyAo IGFzIEkgdW5kZXJzdG9vZCBmcm9tIHlvdXIgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24pDQp0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBs b3N0IGRlcG9zaXQgYXQgbXkgQUMuLi4NCklmIEkgZGlkbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlaXIg cHJvYmxlbSB0cnkgdG8gcmVkZXNjcmliZSBpdA0KDQpGcmllbmRseQ0KRGFueQ0KDQpNYXJ0 aW4gUG9vbCB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBIb3cgZG8geW91IHJ1bGUgPw0KPg0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBNjMNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKAgVDc2NQ0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCA4NjMN Cj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgNTMyDQo+DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgIEo1oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBLUTg0DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgIFEzoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS0o5Mg0KPiCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS1E3NDKgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgOTUNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKAgOTg2oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIFE3DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBUOTcyDQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoCA4NA0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgSlQN Cj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIEFLSlQ0DQo+DQo+IFcgb3Bl bnMgMU6gIFCgIDJEoCBQDQo+IKCgoKCgoKAgMkigIFCgIDJToCBQDQo+IKCgoKCgoKAgNEig IFCgoCBQoCBQDQo+DQo+IFRoZSAyRCBiaWQgd2FzIGFsZXJ0ZWQgYW5kIFMgaW1tZWRpYXRl bHkgYXNrZWQgYW5kIHdhcyB0b2xkIHRyYW5zZmVyIHRvIEgncy4NCj4gTiBsZWQgYSBDLCBT IGNhc2hlZCB0aGUgQUsgYW5kIGxlZCBhIEQuIEUvVyBtYWRlIDExIHRyaWNrcy4gVyB0aGVu IGFza2VkIGZvcg0KPiBhbiBhZGp1c3RlZCBzY29yZSBhcyB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24gcmVnYXJk aW5nIEQncyBtZWFudCB0aGF0IE4gbGVhZCBhIEMgd2hlbg0KPiB3aXRoIG5vIHF1ZXN0aW9u IHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHRpbWUgaGUgd2FzIGxpa2VseSB0byBsZWFkIGEgRC4gVGhlIEQgbGVh ZA0KPiBoYWQgYmVlbiBwcmVjbHVkZWQgYnkgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uLg0KDQqgDQoNCg== From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 10:43:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:43:49 +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 KAA17533 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:43:37 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00708; 8 Oct 97 17:42 PDT To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 09 Oct 1997 02:24:19 PDT." <343C2433.E1FA6E07@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 17:42:54 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710081742.aa00708@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > SGkgTWFydGluDQoNCk1heWJloCBJIGRpZG4ndCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoYXQgd2FzIHRoZSBF > LVcgY29tcGxhaW4uLi4uLi4NCkFzIG11Y2ggYXMgSSByZWFkIC2gIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBub3Ro > aW5nIHRvIHRoaW5rIGV2ZW4gISEhIQ0KSW4gTVAgdGhleSBtdXN0IHNheSAidGhhbmsgR29k > IiBOIGRpZG4ndCBsZWFkIEEgU3AuLi4NCklmoCB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBhcHBlYWwgdGhpcyAo > IGFzIEkgdW5kZXJzdG9vZCBmcm9tIHlvdXIgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24pDQp0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBs > b3N0IGRlcG9zaXQgYXQgbXkgQUMuLi4NCklmIEkgZGlkbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlaXIg > cHJvYmxlbSB0cnkgdG8gcmVkZXNjcmliZSBpdA0KDQpGcmllbmRseQ0KRGFueQ0KDQpNYXJ0 > aW4gUG9vbCB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBIb3cgZG8geW91IHJ1bGUgPw0KPg0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCg > oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBNjMNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg > oKCgoKCgoKAgVDc2NQ0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCA4NjMN > Cj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgNTMyDQo+DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCg > oKCgoKCgoKCgIEo1oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBLUTg0DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCg > oKCgoKCgoKCgIFEzoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS0o5Mg0KPiCgoKCgoKCg > oKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS1E3NDKgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgOTUNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCg > oKCgoKCgoKAgOTg2oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIFE3DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg > oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBUOTcyDQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg > oKCgoKCgoKCgoCA4NA0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgSlQN > Cj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIEFLSlQ0DQo+DQo+IFcgb3Bl > bnMgMU6gIFCgIDJEoCBQDQo+IKCgoKCgoKAgMkigIFCgIDJToCBQDQo+IKCgoKCgoKAgNEig > IFCgoCBQoCBQDQo+DQo+IFRoZSAyRCBiaWQgd2FzIGFsZXJ0ZWQgYW5kIFMgaW1tZWRpYXRl > bHkgYXNrZWQgYW5kIHdhcyB0b2xkIHRyYW5zZmVyIHRvIEgncy4NCj4gTiBsZWQgYSBDLCBT > IGNhc2hlZCB0aGUgQUsgYW5kIGxlZCBhIEQuIEUvVyBtYWRlIDExIHRyaWNrcy4gVyB0aGVu > IGFza2VkIGZvcg0KPiBhbiBhZGp1c3RlZCBzY29yZSBhcyB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24gcmVnYXJk > aW5nIEQncyBtZWFudCB0aGF0IE4gbGVhZCBhIEMgd2hlbg0KPiB3aXRoIG5vIHF1ZXN0aW9u > IHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHRpbWUgaGUgd2FzIGxpa2VseSB0byBsZWFkIGEgRC4gVGhlIEQgbGVh > ZA0KPiBoYWQgYmVlbiBwcmVjbHVkZWQgYnkgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uLg0KDQqgDQoNCg== If you're saying that West's director call is so ridiculous that you (as the director) would be speechless and only able to utter unintelligible gibberish, I'm with you completely. If, however, this is an encoded message of some sort, please note that not all of us use PC's or Windows 95 to read this mailing list, and thus we don't all have the ability to read this kind of message. -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 10:50:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:50:56 +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 KAA17590 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:50:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac1401317; 9 Oct 97 1:49 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dummy answers MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Borrowed from RGB > The following auction takes place: > > Pro Partner Client Me > > P P 3S Dbl > 4D P 4S P > P P > > Before leading, I ask client "What is the 4D bid?" Now, to almost any > good player, 4D HAS to show spades. But suppose that before Client > can say anything, Pro says "We have no agreement" before their partner > can start to say something like "Well, we've never discussed it, but I > don't think he'd bid unless he could stand to hear me bid spades > again." If indeed that is the truth, he's not obligated to say that > much, but the pro is trying to make sure he doesn't. > > What do you think? -- 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 Oct 9 11:28:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:28:38 +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 LAA17683 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:28:32 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1221188; 9 Oct 97 2:16 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:09:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Stop the world! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: >This week in a local club, the auction was : > > N E S W > 1NT P P ? > >After a long hesitation, W (who plays occasionnally in clubs) looked at >his CC, said something like >" We play Capelletti pd " and bid 2C > >At that time, the director was called . >He asked E privaltely what 2C means, according to their agreement? " >Think we dont play Capelletti 4th seat " >What is the best ruling? > >1- Stop the auction and give an A+ to N-S juging that this UI (S + an >other suit) is so important that it will be impossible to have a valid >score after that. > >2- Stop the auction for the same reason but allowing a real score (1NT >making 3 was the most probable score for N-S on a normal H lead) > >3- Let the auction continue and adjuste score afterward (2NT by N-S will >go down 2 on a S lead and 2S by E-W can be X and down 2). > >If TD choose option 1 (stop the auction and give A+), can an AC change >the decision and give a real score? >If TD choose option 2 (stop the auction and give 1NT making 3), can an >AC decide it will be an A+? >Doing so, AC is overruling the interpretation of laws made by TD? > >I know Law 16A says that the auction must go on after UI, but is this >applicable in any violation of this law? >I remember there was some discussions on the list about stopping the >auction and allowing A+. I never understand the point to all these ideas. The laws do not suggest that you should stop the auction, so why on earth go against the laws? To stop the auction when the laws do not permit it seems similar to me to playing anti-clockwise: it is pointless *and* illegal. Sorry Laval, I am not trying to be personal, but we have had several posts, and no-one has yet come up with any sensible reasons not to follow the laws of bridge. -------- To answer your other questions, only #3 is acceptable. If the TD rules #1 or #2, of course an AC can overrule him, using L82C [Director's error]. An AC can always give A+ or A- if it considers it equitable under L12C3, which is legal [afaik] outside the ACBL, and effectively used by ACs within the ACBL. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 11:29:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:29:19 +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 LAA17702 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:29:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1015365; 9 Oct 97 1:48 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 15:45:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: > David Stevenson: >>> It is in the ACBL published regulations in their Active >Ethics Pamphlet. > The obvious question is where the differences lie >between the ACBL regulation and (say) the psyche classification >applied by the EBU. It does not appear that the words suggest there >would be a case where an ACBL Director found the RoC applied and >yet the EBU would rule it 'green'. In both cases the immediate >evidence is circumstantial (further off the player or pair might >be shown to have a record which indicated a pattern of behaviour); >if the circumstantial evidence is weighty enough the player needs >to defend his action in bridge terms. > It does seem to me that identification of collusion, >which is what we are talking about, hangs (I use the word advisedly) >on a basis of bridge judgement - has the player, whose call >successfully protects the partnership from harm opposite grossly >abnormal action by partner, chosen action for which the player is >unable to present a persuasive bridge argument. I think the EBU >accepts that a persuasive defence should be allowed; am I to >understand from what I read on BLML that the ACBL does not? The Active Ethics Pamphlet makes it clear that the RoC is not to be applied blindly without consideration, but a lot of posts here and on RGB and RGBO suggest that it is applied blindly. Even the post that started this discussion suggested that. I am not unhappy with the RoC but its application worries me. -- 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 Oct 9 14:24:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:24:36 +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 OAA18029 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:24:28 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS2-66.star.net.il [195.8.208.66]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA18846; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:24:18 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343C5CB6.92F3CE50@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 06:25:26 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: How should you rule? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id GAA18846 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam called my attention that some thing got wrong in message. (Letters or protocol or whatever).=A0 I send it again. Hi Martin Maybe=A0 I didn't understand what was the E-W complain...... As much as I read -=A0 they have nothing to think even !!!! In MP they must say "thank God" N didn't lead A Sp... If=A0 they should appeal this ( as I understood from your explanation) they should lost deposit at my AC... If I didn't understand their problem try to redescribe it Friendly Dany =A0 ADAM=A0=A0 thank you very much =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 21:16:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:16:21 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA19035 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:16:15 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-71.innet.be [194.7.10.71]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA22575 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:16:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <343CC3D4.85833868@innet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 12:45:24 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Directing in Denmark 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: > > While I was directing at the weekend [in charge of the Great Northern > Swiss Pairs] I was talking to a player, and he was chatting about the > new Laws. I told him that the Insufficient Bid Law was the one change > that might be noticed by the players, to which he replied "You are > wrong: the Insufficient Bid Law has not changed: Paul Hackett says so." > > Words failed me. > Sometimes they tell me : "a director has told me" (and they DO know me) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 21:16:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:16:02 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA19024 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:15:55 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-71.innet.be [194.7.10.71]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA22439 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:15:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <343CBE4F.D7F6E4B9@innet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 12:21:51 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer 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 to me personally : > > Hi Herman > because I had pushed the wrong button and only told him what I would not want to keep from you : > >David, you say > >"is it permissable to pause to deceive declarer ?" > > > > and we all shout "NO" > > > > but when you ask : > > > >"is it permissable to pause to inform declarer ?" > > > >and suddenly it becomes more difficult, or so we think. > > > >But why would you inform ? Only so he can get it wrong ? So you're > >actually trying to deceive. > > > >And we know that's a no-no. > > I think you have over-simplified. Anyway, I have given BLML my > answer. I hope you do not mind my quoting you: I did it anonymously > because it was email. > which was unintentional - sorry -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 21:44:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:44:07 +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 VAA19094 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:44:01 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1113478; 9 Oct 97 12:39 BST Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 12:35:45 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Re: How do you rule ? To: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: 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 08 Oct, Martin Pool wrote: > How do you rule ? > > > A63 > T765 > 863 > 532 > > J5 KQ84 > Q3 AKJ92 > AKQ742 95 > 986 Q7 > T972 > 84 > JT > AKJT4 > > W opens 1N P 2D P > 2H P 2S P > 4H P P P > > The 2D bid was alerted and S immediately asked and was told transfer to H's. > N led a C, S cashed the AK and led a D. E/W made 11 tricks. W then asked for > an adjusted score as the question regarding D's meant that N lead a C when > with no question some of the time he was likely to lead a D. The D lead > had been precluded by the question. > > Thanks for all the replies. It seems pretty conclusive that you all think W has no cause for complaint, but wait, S is an experienced player and has no reason to ask, N is an ethical player and said I didnot know which minor to lead but then I could not lead D's because of partners question. If no question had been asked then some of the time a D would have been led. Therefore the defence takes more tricks because of the question. Is this right ? Where on the convention card does one put this new lead directing gadget ? Is it similar to a competitve auction where wiyh a good holding in the opposition suit pass slowly to stop partner saving ? Martin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 9 22:16:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:16:49 +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 WAA19241 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:16:43 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id FAA05679; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma005655; Thu, 9 Oct 97 05:52:40 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id FAA23145 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710091242.FAA23145@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Oct 97 13:11:15 GMT Subject: Re: Suspicious Bidding (Was: Something wrong, but what?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo said. > Thank you for the information. I echo the thanks. > The obvious question is where the differences lie >between the ACBL regulation and (say) the psyche classification >applied by the EBU. It does not appear that the words suggest there >would be a case where an ACBL Director found the RoC applied and >yet the EBU would rule it 'green'. If this sentence is saying "If an ACBL TD found the RoC applied then an EBU TD would rule "red" or "amber" psyche.", then I disagree in a big way. There are at least two very major differences: 1) The EBU L&E system for classifying psyches applies only to psyches (and possibly "misbids" (e.g. opening 4D (Texas) with long diamonds because one has forgotten)). The example quoted in the ACBL definition of RoC is opening a 14 point balanced hand 1NT, when, the convention card show the agreement to be 15-17 BAL. *This is not a psyche*, so the EBU system of psyche classification would not apply. 2) The ACBL RoC places the onus of proof clearly on the accused (see their fifth para). The EBU system of psyche classification has no onus of proof, the TD acts neutrally, seeking the truth rather than to prove a point. It is far too easy to criticise other regulators when one has no idea of the problems they face. I certainly do not intend the above to imply any criticism whatsover of the ACBL. I am sure they must have had a very serious problem indeed in order to introduce the RoC. In the UK, we have not, so far as I am aware, found the same need. The correct treatment, IMO, for those who systematically deceive their opponents as to the meaning of their bids is far more serious than a score adjustment on a board. >In both cases the immediate >evidence is circumstantial (further off the player or pair might >be shown to have a record which indicated a pattern of behaviour); >if the circumstantial evidence is weighty enough the player needs >to defend his action in bridge terms. > It does seem to me that identification of collusion, >which is what we are talking about, hangs (I use the word advisedly) >on a basis of bridge judgement - has the player, whose call >successfully protects the partnership from harm opposite grossly >abnormal action by partner, chosen action for which the player is >unable to present a persuasive bridge argument. I think the EBU >accepts that a persuasive defence should be allowed; am I to >understand from what I read on BLML that the ACBL does not? > May I suppose that in both hemispheres the concept of >natural justice ensures that the player is told of what he is >accused and is allowed to defend his actions? I expect this is the case, but I repeat my point above. IMO there is no comparison of the ACBL's RoC, and the EBU's system of psyche classifaction. They are chalk and cheese. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 01:55:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:55:30 +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 BAA22406 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:55:22 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa28517; 9 Oct 97 8:54 PDT To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 09 Oct 1997 12:35:45 PDT." Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 08:54:23 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710090854.aa28517@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Pool wrote: > > How do you rule ? . . . > > > > W opens 1N P 2D P > > 2H P 2S P > > 4H P P P > > > > The 2D bid was alerted and S immediately asked and was told > > transfer to H's. N led a C . . . > > > Thanks for all the replies. It seems pretty conclusive that you all > think W has no cause for complaint, but wait, S is an experienced player > and has no reason to ask, I'd have to object right here. To me, the fact that someone alerted is reason enough to ask, regardless of how experienced one is. Now, it's arguable that if South *normally* does not ask the same question in the exact same situation---i.e. when playing against other pairs who are just as well-known or non-well-known to South, and whose convention cards are just as clearly marked---then one could conclude that South might be behaving unethically. However, South also has to have a certain guileful character to pull this off. As you said, South asked about the bid immediately, which means that if he's being unethical, he would have had to think about this sort of strategy beforehand. And someone like that would have most likely displayed a past tendency to approach or exceed the limits of ethical behavior. So I could see a reason to rule against South, but only if he has exhibited a pattern of using this sort or similar sorts of unethical tactics. Certainly, the facts of this one hand are not nearly enough to convict South of any wrongdoing. We'd have to see a pattern, and we'd probably have to know the fellow personally so that we could know what kind of character he is. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 02:01:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:01:58 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22619 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:01:52 +1000 Received: from cs18.bu.edu (metcalf@CS18.BU.EDU [128.197.10.117]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id MAA04826 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:01:35 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by cs18.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id MAA24297; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:01:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710091601.MAA24297@cs18.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Card Design To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:01:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton said: |Various suggestions have been made in the last few days. I have |objections to most. | |The best (I thought) attempt I've seen was a deck where the minor suit |symbols were hollow. Everybody hated them. (Tradition, I think). |I suspect with time even bridge players might get used to them. From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) >>I have a couple packs of these. I think they were >>called "True-vu" or something like that. They are >>ghastly. I keep them as a curiosity, but they >>absolutely fail as playing cards. It's just too >>hard to see the outline shapes from across the table. Someone (I believe David Stevenson) suggested hollow minor suit symbols shaded with diagonal lines. If the lines were such that the symbol was at 50% density of color (or higher) , I wonder if that would improve the visibility from across the table. This idea is more in line with tradition than changing colors, and so might be more easily accepted. This was IMO the best idea that I have seen on the topic. David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 02:24:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:24:36 +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 CAA22753 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:24:29 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29882; 9 Oct 97 9:23 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Card Design In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 09 Oct 1997 12:01:29 PDT." <199710091601.MAA24297@cs18.bu.edu> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:23:54 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710090923.aa29882@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Richard Lighton said: > |Various suggestions have been made in the last few days. I have > |objections to most. > | > |The best (I thought) attempt I've seen was a deck where the minor suit > |symbols were hollow. Everybody hated them. (Tradition, I think). > |I suspect with time even bridge players might get used to them. > > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > >>I have a couple packs of these. I think they were > >>called "True-vu" or something like that. They are > >>ghastly. I keep them as a curiosity, but they > >>absolutely fail as playing cards. It's just too > >>hard to see the outline shapes from across the table. > > Someone (I believe David Stevenson) suggested hollow minor suit > symbols shaded with diagonal lines. If the lines were such that > the symbol was at 50% density of color (or higher) , I wonder if that > would improve the visibility from across the table. This idea is more > in line with tradition than changing colors, and so might be > more easily accepted. This was IMO the best idea that I have seen > on the topic. It should also be noted that the topic originally started because someone missorted their cards. Any solution to prevent missorting really only has to involve the card symbols in the corners of the cards, since those are the only ones you see when you're holding your hand (except for the card in front). So if those symbols were displayed in outline or cross-hatched, while the suit symbols in the middle of the card were left the way they are, there probably would be no problem seeing them from across the table (with the possible exception of kings, queens, and jacks, which might have to be redesigned to make the suit symbols in the middle of the card more prominent). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 04:48:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:48:57 +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 EAA23457 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:48:50 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-3.star.net.il [195.8.208.3]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA19544; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:47:29 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343D2730.5FDDE162@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:49:20 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Pool CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: How do you rule ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by apm12.star.net.il. id UAA19544 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SGkgTWFydGluDQoNCk1heWJloCBJIGRpZG4ndCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoYXQgd2FzIHRoZSBF LVcgY29tcGxhaW4uLi4uLi4NCkFzIG11Y2ggYXMgSSByZWFkIC2gIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBub3Ro aW5nIHRvIHRoaW5rIGV2ZW4gISEhIQ0KSW4gTVAgdGhleSBtdXN0IHNheSAidGhhbmsgR29k IiBOIGRpZG4ndCBsZWFkIEEgU3AuLi4NCklmoCB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBhcHBlYWwgdGhpcyAo IGFzIEkgdW5kZXJzdG9vZCBmcm9tIHlvdXIgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24pDQp0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBs b3N0IGRlcG9zaXQgYXQgbXkgQUMuLi4NCklmIEkgZGlkbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlaXIg cHJvYmxlbSB0cnkgdG8gcmVkZXNjcmliZSBpdA0KDQpGcmllbmRseQ0KRGFueQ0KDQpNYXJ0 aW4gUG9vbCB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBIb3cgZG8geW91IHJ1bGUgPw0KPg0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBNjMNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKAgVDc2NQ0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCA4NjMN Cj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgNTMyDQo+DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgIEo1oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBLUTg0DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgIFEzoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS0o5Mg0KPiCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS1E3NDKgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgOTUNCj4goKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKAgOTg2oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIFE3DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBUOTcyDQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoCA4NA0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgSlQN Cj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIEFLSlQ0DQo+DQo+IFcgb3Bl bnMgMU6gIFCgIDJEoCBQDQo+IKCgoKCgoKAgMkigIFCgIDJToCBQDQo+IKCgoKCgoKAgNEig IFCgoCBQoCBQDQo+DQo+IFRoZSAyRCBiaWQgd2FzIGFsZXJ0ZWQgYW5kIFMgaW1tZWRpYXRl bHkgYXNrZWQgYW5kIHdhcyB0b2xkIHRyYW5zZmVyIHRvIEgncy4NCj4gTiBsZWQgYSBDLCBT IGNhc2hlZCB0aGUgQUsgYW5kIGxlZCBhIEQuIEUvVyBtYWRlIDExIHRyaWNrcy4gVyB0aGVu IGFza2VkIGZvcg0KPiBhbiBhZGp1c3RlZCBzY29yZSBhcyB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24gcmVnYXJk aW5nIEQncyBtZWFudCB0aGF0IE4gbGVhZCBhIEMgd2hlbg0KPiB3aXRoIG5vIHF1ZXN0aW9u IHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHRpbWUgaGUgd2FzIGxpa2VseSB0byBsZWFkIGEgRC4gVGhlIEQgbGVh ZA0KPiBoYWQgYmVlbiBwcmVjbHVkZWQgYnkgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uLg0KDQqgDQo= From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 04:52:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:52:06 +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 EAA23479 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:51:59 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-3.star.net.il [195.8.208.3]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA19630; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:50:53 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343D27FC.D4DC0C06@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:52:44 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id UAA19630 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bon soir Laval I arose the problem of impossible situations for offended side , when such an infraction occurred during the auction that doesn't allow any "tool" for the offended side but "the coin" method. In those cases , as I defined - 4th up level bidding hesitations or proprieties violation and/or a very=A0 coarse mistaken explanation or coarse/dirty violation of a law - I should stop auction and decide for the score after a deep consultation ( other TDs , players of same level , score-sheets and results , etc......) The Majority of BLML members don't agree with my opinion . I agree with the principle that a TD should act as much as possible to let auction and play go on after an infraction/law violation occurred, but don't rub off totally the "halt" in the specific situations . I did it in some occasions (5 times world level AC and 3 of them the ECTD presented the appeal and twice myself - always AC accepted my judgment ) Now I"ll exercise my duties by 97 Law83 and shall appeal by myself , when a relevant event will occur. Now to the concrete case: 1) IMHO there was an "ugly"=A0 violation of law by the guest , but now I"ll let auction and play go on and decide for the best adjusted score for non-offended side (choose the best score for the non-offended side between what was achieve at table and what should be the rectified contract , if at all ....). 2) If the case will go to an AC - the AC's decision must consider that there was a violation of laws , but AC is sovereign to adjust score , as a bridge judgment - it isn't an overruling of laws' interpretations. Dany Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Name: BDY.RTF > =A0=A0 BDY.RTF=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Encoding: quoted-printable =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 04:53:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:53:26 +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 EAA23499 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:53:20 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS1-3.star.net.il [195.8.208.3]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA19634; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:52:16 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343D284E.65E4A0AC@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:54:07 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A bit of frivolity References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id UAA19634 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David Here is a case of "situation and environment"=A0 : a)No doubt=A0 , the "by the book" decision is very clear UI . b)IMHO the TD should consider the opponents' complain , but in a very careful way , according to the tournament definition and the offended pair involved. If it was a final of national champ. or a very important international tournament , it should be taken seriously. Otherwise .... If the offended pair is at a "great gap" level below the "ladies" I"ll try to act in a way they should know there is no "blue blood" at the bridge table . >From my experience , when we play in an homogenous high level field, when we know the personalities and mood of every other player , we - as players -=A0 know where and when can afford laugh and joking and when not !!!! Dany David Burn wrote: > One of our leading ladies pairs once had this incident: > > The bidding had gone 1NT-3NT. West considered her opening lead for some > considerable time. It was now discovered that she had left a card in th= e > board. East immediately burst out laughing, and said: "Well, now I know= my > partner has a 4-3-3-3 shape!" Obviously, the reason for West's trance w= as > that she could not find the fourth highest card of her longest suit, > because until the discovery of her 13th card, she had no fourth highest > card of any suit. > > Is this authorised information? =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 05:57:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 05:57:09 +1000 Received: from m9.sprynet.com (m9.sprynet.com [165.121.2.209]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA23683 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 05:57:04 +1000 Received: from robin (hd52-166.hil.compuserve.com [199.174.232.166]) by m9.sprynet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA18108 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:56:58 -0700 Message-ID: <343D36B2.F9DB12EA@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:55:30 -0400 From: Robin Wigdor Reply-To: rwigdor@sprynet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: laws Subject: OKbridge laws X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm developing a revised form of the Laws for internet bridge play on OKbridge, and have reached the point where reviewers, preferably familiar with the mechanics of OKbridge play, to critique the draft, would be of substantial help. If you're intrigued by the challenge of adapting the Laws, or otherwise willing to lend a hand, please let me know. The current draft is a WORD97 file, revision marked against the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, European version. If you need attached files UUCODED rather than MIME, or if you need the file put through an export filter to convert it into the format of a different word processor, please indicate this in your response. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 06:22:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 06:22:04 +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 GAA23767 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 06:21:57 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id VAA08842 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 21:22:03 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 97 21:20 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Dummy answers 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: > Borrowed from RGB > > > The following auction takes place: > > > > Pro Partner Client Me > > > > P P 3S Dbl > > 4D P 4S P > > P P > > > > Before leading, I ask client "What is the 4D bid?" Now, to almost any > > good player, 4D HAS to show spades. But suppose that before Client > > can say anything, Pro says "We have no agreement" before their partner > > can start to say something like "Well, we've never discussed it, but I > > don't think he'd bid unless he could stand to hear me bid spades > > again." If indeed that is the truth, he's not obligated to say that > > much, but the pro is trying to make sure he doesn't. > > > > What do you think? If it is an infraction it is probably a very minor one (I can't see any equity to restore). Personally I think it comes within dummy's right to attempt to prevent a possible infraction (ie MI) by declarer. However, if on questionning the client/examining CC I discover that there was an agreement then a gigantic PP is about to descend! Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 06:42:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 06:42:36 +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 GAA23885 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 06:42:23 +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 NAA13090 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:44:07 -0700 Received: from erebor.ikos.com (erebor [149.172.67.5]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA07320; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:42:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199710092042.NAA07320@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Thu Oct 9 12:35 PDT 1997 > > I arose the problem of impossible situations for offended side , when > such an infraction occurred during the auction that doesn't allow any > "tool" for the offended side but "the coin" method. [Dany, it is important that you avoid the terms "offended" and "non-offended" and use instead the terms "offending" and "non-offending", because with your terms we are unable to understand whether you mean "the side which offended" or "the side which was offended" except to guess from your context, which in general leads to confusion and misunderstandings. An offense remains an offense, and though it may be forgotten it never becomes "past tense".] [Because of my resulting confusion, I suspect that Dany is responding to the same thread I wrote on recently, and I have more to say. If my remarks should not be applied to Dany's, please don't refute them on that basis, but apply them instead to the other thread.] [_I'm_ offended by the idea that anyone might apply the term "offender" in a situation where one side asked an ordinary question and made an ordinary lead. When there is a complaint without any clear offense, I recommend that you refer instead to "complainant" and "defenders". ("complainant" and "declarer" in the case of a complaint by a defender.)] Point 1: An ordinary question must not be deemed an offense, and while it may limit partner's choices, it must never be thought to leave partner with no choice of non-offending plays. A proper question must never be deemed a violation of law. Point 2: Moreover, even in the presence of extreme UI, no player should be thought to have no proper play as a result. It is impossible that every play is suggested over another play, because "suggested over" must be considered a transitive operation. If you think that play A is suggested over play B, and play B is suggested over play C, and play C is suggested over play A, you must never infer that none are proper, and you must instead infer that your logic is flawed. Point 3: Regardless of how you describe them, I will believe that when a complainant's logic leaves a defender no proper play, the _complainant_is_the_offender_, and the offenses are taking a double-shot and intimidating opponents by _egregious_ lawyering. It is unacceptable to believe that any UI could leave a player with no proper play -- that logic must be deemed faulty and is _worse_than_frivolous_, actually prima facie _malicious_. IMHO, Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 07:03:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:03:28 +1000 Received: from m9.sprynet.com (m9.sprynet.com [165.121.1.209]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23957 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:03:22 +1000 Received: from robin (hd52-166.hil.compuserve.com [199.174.232.166]) by m9.sprynet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15011 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:03:16 -0700 Message-ID: <343D463C.757246EA@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 17:01:48 -0400 From: Robin Wigdor Reply-To: rwigdor@sprynet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: laws Subject: OKbridge laws X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm developing a revised form of the Laws for internet bridge play on OKbridge, and have reached the point where reviewers, preferably familiar with the mechanics of OKbridge play, to critique the draft, would be of substantial help. If you're intrigued by the challenge of adapting the Laws, or otherwise willing to lend a hand, please let me know. The current draft is a WORD97 file, revision marked against the 1997 Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, European version. If you need attached files UUCODED rather than MIME, or if you need the file put through an export filter to convert it into the format of a different word processor, please indicate this in your response. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 08:09:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:09:42 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1c.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA24270 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:09:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1412470; 9 Oct 97 22:58 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:48:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Pool wrote: > Thanks for all the replies. It seems pretty conclusive that you all > think W has no cause for complaint, but wait, S is an experienced player > and has no reason to ask, N is an ethical player and said I didnot know > which minor to lead but then I could not lead D's because of partners > question. If no question had been asked then some of the time a D would > have been led. Therefore the defence takes more tricks because of the > question. Is this right ? I am surprised by the other posters' replies. West is merely worried by the possibility of a very simple form of cheating, and for him to be worried seems not unreasonable. I merely explain the dangers to South and take note. If he would always ask, then there is no problem, but I do see the problem you see and other posters are not worried by. It is merely some evidence which we add to anything else we know about the pair. >Where on the convention card does one put this new lead directing gadget ? Hehe. >Is it similar to a competitve auction where wiyh a good holding in the >opposition suit pass slowly to stop partner saving ? Yes: it probably is very rare, and it is very difficult to catch when it occurs. For the TDs to tell West off for calling them as other posters suggested is unlikely to make it much easier to catch them! -- 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 Oct 10 08:51:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:51:26 +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 IAA24418 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:51:19 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22128; 9 Oct 97 15:50 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 09 Oct 1997 14:48:27 PDT." Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:50:40 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710091550.aa22128@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Martin Pool wrote: > > > Thanks for all the replies. It seems pretty conclusive that you all > > think W has no cause for complaint, but wait, S is an experienced player > > and has no reason to ask, N is an ethical player and said I didnot know > > which minor to lead but then I could not lead D's because of partners > > question. If no question had been asked then some of the time a D would > > have been led. Therefore the defence takes more tricks because of the > > question. Is this right ? > > I am surprised by the other posters' replies. West is merely worried > by the possibility of a very simple form of cheating, and for him to be > worried seems not unreasonable. Speaking as one of the ones who lambasted West, I think what triggered it for me was the phrase in Martin's original post, "W then asked for an adjusted score." Quite possibly I'm reading far too much into the wording, but the impression I got was that West felt that he was *entitled* to an adjusted score because of the question---not just that he had a worry about possible cheating. If my impression is correct--that West thinks he's entitled--then I do think West is guilty of egregious bridge-lawyering. Perhaps if the phrasing had been "West asked for a ruling" or "West called the director to protect himself in case there was a problem", I would have reacted entirely differently. Then again, it's possible that West asked for an adjustment because he had some other indication that South was cheating, that wasn't mentioned in the facts as presented. I think I should be more careful about assessing other peoples' tone or motives when I wasn't there at the table. Still, I've seen and heard about many, many more cases of frivolous director calls and lawyering than I have about deliberately transmitting UI to stop partner from taking a certain action, so I'm somewhat more sensitive to the over-lawyering problem. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 09:30:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:30:08 +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 JAA24631 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:30:02 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xJS9j-0006d9-00; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:38:11 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.53.247] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xJS2Z-0007by-00; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:30:47 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:28:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01bcd50b$1712dd00$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This question [snipped because by now we all know what it is] highlights an old problem in a new guise. You can, if you like, play "reverse hesitations [and reverse questions]" - doubling slowly when you want partner to pass, asking questions about a diamond bid when you want a club lead, and so forth. The notion is that you can play these methods only once, and then we [the police] will get wise to you. The practicality is that you can play them to infinity, for we [the police] are trusting souls. About ten years ago, I said in the English Laws and Ethics Committee that in order to ensure a fair game, all alerted calls should be followed by a question and an explanation. That flew in the face of the then (and still) current Directive that you should only ask if the answer will affect your next action. To do otherwise, I was informed, would slow the game down. It still seems to me that pairs who play "we always ask" are going to solve far more problems than they create. On the hand in question, it is entirely possible that South was being devious knowing that North would be "ethical". On the other hand.. In the words of the great Bob Dylan, "I was so much older then - I'm younger than that now." I will watch developments with interest. There is, though, nothing new under the sun, and we've certainly had this problem before. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 10:14:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:14:32 +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 KAA24754 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:14:25 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1420788; 10 Oct 97 0:39 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:27:49 +0100 To: Reg Busch Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Law 50 and UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971008104443.006be784@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Trial Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19971008104443.006be784@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch writes >South is in 4S. East makes the opening lead OOT of the HK (by their methods >showing also the HA. South prohibits a heart lead from West, and the HK is >returned to hand. West leads a club, won in dummy, and declarer finesses a >spade to West's king. West now plays a heart, and declarer of course calls >the Director. >West's explanation: I was not using the UI that partner held the HK and >probably the HA. I was using the AI that declarer prohibited a heart lead >from me. Therefore a heart lead now seems likely to be profitable. > Do you accept this? > >Law 50D1: The requirement that offender must play the card is authorised >information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing >of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner. > >Does 'other information' include declarer's prohibition of a heart lead >from West? I find it hard to fault West's argument. Surely the Law doesn't >intend to make declarer's choice of penalty UI to West? >Reg Busch. > Is there any difference here to the position where the drunk at the next table leans over and says "Did you get to cash the AK of Hearts?". I'm clearly not entitled to that. But I got it. Or do you feel that because the penalties have been paid I can use my knowledge of the Heart lead ban? IMO the "other information" includes the ban on the Heart lead in this situation. This one fascinates me. -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 10:54:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:54:44 +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 KAA24877 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:54:26 +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 RAA14195 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:56:04 -0700 Received: from erebor.ikos.com (erebor [149.172.67.5]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA16202; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:54:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199710100054.RAA16202@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From [BLML contributor David Stevenson] Thu Oct 9 16:02 PDT 1997 > > Martin Pool wrote: > > > It seems pretty conclusive that you all > > think W has no cause for complaint, but wait, S is an experienced player > > and has no reason to ask, N is an ethical player and said I didnot know > > which minor to lead but then I could not lead D's because of partners > > question. If no question had been asked then some of the time a D would > > have been led. Therefore the defence takes more tricks because of the > > question. Is this right ? No, declarer got all of his 11 tricks. But apart from that, the complaint is still egregiously wrong. How can you judge that South has no reason to ask? Perhaps South thought he remembered one of his opponents playing Forcing Stayman with another partner some years back, but perhaps has his opponent confused with someone else entirely. PRESUME INNOCENCE: Presume that South has some fair reason to ask, however obscure, and has no ulterior motive. Now whyever should West get a double shot by lawyering? > I am surprised by the other posters' replies. West is merely worried > by the possibility of a very simple form of cheating, and for him to be > worried seems not unreasonable. I disagree! West is using the director like a puppet, to take a double shot, based on the apparent reasoning that the question suggests a diamond lead, therefore it suggests avoiding a diamond lead. That's what's egregious. The question could suggest one or the other, but West can't have it both ways! Furthermore, asking an ordinary question should not be grounds for the same treatment as an exposed card, after which West might have his choice of requiring or forbidding a diamond lead. (We must preserve the rights of players to ask questions as needed, and a proper question must not be deserving of such a penalty. It's bad enough that asking a question might limit partner's actions. ASKING A PROPER QUESTION MUST NOT SUBJECT A PLAYER TO A LIKELY LOSS. Not even if the player is so experienced that he surely knows the answer!) We surely do not want West, holding DAKQxxx, to then decide what the question might suggest. Thus it must fall to the directors and committees to rule about what the question might suggest, and they must so rule independently of the actual holdings. Furthermore, capricious decisions would invite a 50% double-shot -- no matter what card is led, declarer could appeal if it worked and hope for a favorable ruling. So the best solution I can envision is that when declarer suspects UI, he would have to summon the director before the lead and get an immediate, on-the-spot, _unappealable_ ruling on what the UI suggests; that if declarer failed to do so, he would forfeit any right of appeal regarding that UI, because appealing afterwards is NOT BRIDGE; appealing afterwards is trying to win by lawyering what was lost at the table, and should be roundly condemned! > Yes: it probably is very rare, and it is very difficult to catch when > it occurs. For the TDs to tell West off for calling them as other > posters suggested is unlikely to make it much easier to catch them! If it's a hole in the laws, it's the fault of the lawmakers, but even so we must not tolerate players shooting to winning by lawyering what was lost by proper bridge, nor tolerate intimidating their opponents with undue director scrutiny over an ordinary question. To make special note of ordinary actions by N-S as a result of West's call is a form of intimidation by West, and would drive players away from the game in droves if it were tolerated. So I'm fighting in this forum for the right to play a sensible game of bridge before this kind of lawyering is allowed to spoil the game. > From [BLML contributor snow.btinternet.com] Thu Oct 9 17:01 PDT 1997 > > This question [snipped because by now we all know what it is] > highlights an old problem in a new guise. You can, if you like, play > "reverse hesitations [and reverse questions]" - doubling slowly when > you want partner to pass, asking questions about a diamond bid when > you want a club lead, and so forth. The notion is that you can play > these methods only once, and then we [the police] will get wise to > you. The practicality is that you can play them to infinity, for we > [the police] are trusting souls. Yes, players can get away with playing "reverse questions" unless procedures are changed or lawyering is accepted. But in this country, we are taught from childhood that people should be presumed innocent. (Then we're taught that lawyers are scum :) Hence my revulsion at anyone's undue concern that the asking of a question is by itself cause to investigate whether a player is trying to use the question to obtain a favorable lead from his partner. If you don't want players getting away with playing "reverse questions", don't spoil the game over it! The idea that a player might only be allowed to ask a question in situations in which he always asks that question is NOT an improvement. Then someone would decide that everyone must bid with the same style in situations where questions won't be asked :P The idea that players should be allowed a double shot because there might perhaps possibly have been ulterior motive to a question is NOT BRIDGE. If you don't like my suggestion, find another, but meanwhile just _put_up_with_the_possibility_ that someone could be cheating through this loophole and _trust_ that the _vast_ majority of players are much too ethical for that. And teach _ethics_. Amateur bridge lawyer only to defend myself against others' lawyering, Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 18:21:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:21:55 +1000 Received: from hqinbh3.ms.com (firewall-user@hqinbh3.ms.com [144.14.128.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA25878 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:21:48 +1000 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by hqinbh3.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id EAA05270 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 04:21:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by hqinbh3.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma005225; Fri, 10 Oct 97 04:21:31 -0400 Received: from lnsun39.morgan.com (lnsun39.morgan.com [140.14.98.39]) by cwmail1.morgan.com (8.8.5/hub v1.50) with ESMTP id JAA06958 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:20:14 +0100 (BST) From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id JAA09536 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:20:14 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:20:14 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <9710100920.ZM9534@ms.com> In-Reply-To: Everett Boyer "Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il)" (Oct 9, 10:54pm) References: <199710092042.NAA07320@d2.ikos.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Oct 9, 10:54pm, Everett Boyer wrote: > Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) [snip] > Point 3: Regardless of how you describe them, I will believe that when a > complainant's logic leaves a defender no proper play, the > _complainant_is_the_offender_, and the offenses are taking a double-shot > and intimidating opponents by _egregious_ lawyering. It is unacceptable > to believe that any UI could leave a player with no proper play -- that > logic must be deemed faulty and is _worse_than_frivolous_, actually > prima facie _malicious_. I think you miss the point. Asking about the 2D bid effectively prevents partner from leading a diamond. But a diamond would be a bad lead for the asker's side, so asking the question has given him an advantage. It is not the lead which might be at fault, but the question. I can understand why declarer feels aggrieved. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 18:40:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:40:05 +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 SAA25929 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:39:51 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id CAA12678; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma012403; Fri, 10 Oct 97 02:15:45 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA24409 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710100838.BAA24409@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 09:04:04 GMT Subject: Re: Law 50 and UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk dh @ star.net.il @ Internet wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >> South is in 4S. East makes the opening lead OOT of the HK (by their methods >> showing also the HA. South prohibits a heart lead from West, and the HK is >> returned to hand. West leads a club, won in dummy, and declarer finesses a >> spade to West's king. West now plays a heart, and declarer of course calls >> the Director. >> West's explanation: I was not using the UI that partner held the HK and >> probably the HA. I was using the AI that declarer prohibited a heart lead >> from me. Therefore a heart lead now seems likely to be profitable. >>  Do you accept this? >> >> Law 50D1: The requirement that offender must play the card is authorised >> information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing >> of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner. >> >> Does 'other information' include declarer's prohibition of a heart lead >> from West? I find it hard to fault West's argument. Surely the Law doesn't >> intend to make declarer's choice of penalty UI to West? >FIRST : Law 50D1 DOES NOT  apply here because there is >NO penalty card  = by Law 50D2a , the moment declarer prohibited >lead of suit of the penalty card , the card is no longer a penalty card >and is picked up ! =  Law 50D1 applies only when there is a >penalty card. I agree that the card is no longer a penalty card, but it seems to me to be possible to interpret the bracketed part of L50D1 so as to impose a UI requirement even after the penalty card has ceased to be one. Indeed given that it is placed in L50D1 (offender to play) rather than L50D2 (offender's partner to lead) I think that is perhaps the better view. I'd value other thoughts. >SECONDLY : The prohibition stands as long as the offender's partner >retains the lead (see again 50D2a  !!) ; the moment someone else is >to lead the prohibition "vanishes". See above. >THIRD : There is no reference to Law16 in this context >(the Law 16 applies only about a minor penalty card - see 50C- >which is not the case here ). I don't think we need a reference to L16C2 for it to apply. A play has been withdrawn to rectify an irregularity, and that seems to be enough to lead to L16C2 applying. >Nothing wrong , the second lead is legal As noted above I think L16C2 (or the bracketed part of L50D1) applies. To me the key question is whether the information that declarer prohibited a H lead is "arising from" the LOOT. I find it very difficult. I am surprised there have been so few comments to the original question. Have BLML discussed this before, and I missed it? > But .......... >The TD is allowed to apply his discretionary powers if he deems >(better say = almost sure ) that the infraction produced a total distortion >of the play - e.g. the only way to give W possibility to play H as a total >abnormal play (all other pairs didn't do it) . >In case I use my "dictatorial" rights - using again the 97 Laws - I "ll >appeal to AC to check again the bridgistic considerations. I don't understand how this is legal. Under what Law is this proposed adjustment given? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 19:40:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:40:54 +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 TAA26064 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:40:42 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-199.innet.be [194.7.10.199]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA10235; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:35:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <343D164E.7DCBB708@innet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:37:18 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Volhejn , Jack Kryst , "D.D.O. Bridge Club" , Sergei Litvak , Dany Haimovici , Nancy Dressing , Herman De Wael , Tony Musgrove , Igor Temirov , R Pewick , Stefanie Rohan , Bridge Laws Subject: BLML-SSFinland - participating centers X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Update : As of now we have : Australia - NSW - Sydney - Port Hacking BC (Tony) Belgium - Antwerpen - Squeeze BC (Herman) Czech Rep. - Praha - Bridge Centrum Praha (Jan) Reunion - Saint Denis - ARB (Jacques) Russia - Nizhny Novgorod (Sergei) (please no revokes from there!) Russia - Stavropolsky region - Pyatigorsk (Igor) USA - NC - Southern Pines - Elks Club (Nancy) USA - Alaska - Fairbanks - Farthest North BC (Gordon) for a total of some 65 tables (estimate) and serious intrest from Israel, Moskva and Texas. Israel will make it 5 continents !! There's still three weeks to enter! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 20:23:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:23:39 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA26139 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:23:31 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-244.innet.be [194.7.10.244]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA22090 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:23:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <343E09D1.7738DCC8@innet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:56:17 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: How do you rule ? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [I hope you know which thread this is about] I've been following this thread and I am surprised no-one mentioned L16. Surely this is a case where the new wording comes into play. Of course the question about 2D is UI. But in order for there to be a transgression of the Laws, we should be able to established which of the LA's to partner (leading any of his thirteen cards) is "demonstrably" suggested by the UI. If we maintain that by asking a question, the lead in that suit becomes demonstrably suggested (which we might), then we cannot also maintain that all other leads have also become "demonstrably suggested". I a of course not commenting on a side that has the explicit agreement : If I don't ask - lead the suit, if I do - lead something else. Those are cheats and as DB said, even if we cannot easily catch them, they should hang. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 22:40:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:40:00 +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 WAA26534 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:39:53 +1000 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-91.inhouse.compuserve.com [149.174.64.210]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA17584.; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:57:09 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA1494; Fri, 10 Oct 97 08:39:16 -0400 Message-Id: <9710101239.AA1494@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC125652C00381668; Fri, 10 Oct 97 08:39:15 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 10 Oct 97 13:05:46 Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I think you miss the point. Asking about the 2D bid effectively prevents partner from leading a diamond. But a diamond would be a bad lead for the asker's side, so asking the question has given him an advantage. It is not the lead which might be at fault, but the question. I can understand why declarer feels aggrieved. << There is a certain extent to which it is sensible to try to stop unethical play. If you move too far, you will seriously damage the game and do more damage than you will prevent. Bridge is a _GAME_ and is supposed to be _FUN_. Fun means: No TD unless a real infraction happens or help is needed. No rules unless necessary. No penalties unless absolutely necessary. If we loose the fun-factor, we will also loose the players. Anyway: If somebody wants to cheat, he can do so anyway without any possibility for the TL to get aware of it. Just my 2c worth, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 22:41:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:41:21 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26551 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:41:15 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic101.cais.com [207.226.56.101]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA14241 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:41:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971010084200.006cc34c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:42:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <5ez9zWB7oiO0Ew$X@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:25 PM 10/7/97 +0100, David wrote: > Last named denomination? My Law book says "Last denomination named"! > > 1H P 3S=splinter, willing to play in the last denomination named, so >natural. Yes? > > No, of course not, conveys a meaning other than "willingness to play >in the last denomination named", so long as it is understood that other >than is the same as additional to, which is obvious ... perhaps. > > 1H P 3S=raise in hearts, showing no other feature, willing to play >in the last denomination named, so natural. Yes? > > Looks that way. Perhaps we can now have the people who claim that >natural is not the same as non-conventional. Well, if you insist, this >sequence is not conventional. Perhaps I'm being a bit simpleminded, but I take what I consider to be an obvious reading: On the auction 1H-P-3S, the "last denomination named" is spades. Anything else strikes me as doing violence to the English language. MY lawbook says "the denomination named (or the last denomination named)". I have no problem reading this as I believe it was intended to be read: "the denomination named (or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named)". 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 Oct 10 22:54:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:54:26 +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 WAA26607 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:54:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1115028; 10 Oct 97 13:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:28:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 50 and UI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Is there any difference here to the position where the drunk at the next >table leans over and says "Did you get to cash the AK of Hearts?". I'm >clearly not entitled to that. But I got it. The difference is that there is a Law [L16B] to cover the drunk case and tell the TD what to do. -- 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 Oct 10 23:13:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:13:35 +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 XAA26728 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:13:29 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-82.ime.net [209.90.193.112]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA09838; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971010091639.08d7c3f6@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: Edward Sheldon , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Asking question to prevent lead? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:20 AM 10/10/97 +0100, Edward Sheldon wrote: >> Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) > >[snip] > >> Point 3: Regardless of how you describe them, I will believe that when a >> complainant's logic leaves a defender no proper play, the >> _complainant_is_the_offender_, and the offenses are taking a double-shot >> and intimidating opponents by _egregious_ lawyering. It is unacceptable >> to believe that any UI could leave a player with no proper play -- that >> logic must be deemed faulty and is _worse_than_frivolous_, actually >> prima facie _malicious_. IMO, it is not the complainant's logic that is at fault, but rather the Laws or alert procedure. If a defender has no proper play, how is that the complainant's fault? I agree the situation given should not arise, but if I was south and west called the director, I would understand that the whole point of the call was to bring to light what appears to be a problem with the alert procedure and how UI is handled. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 23:21:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:21:34 +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 XAA26768 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:21:26 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-82.ime.net [209.90.193.112]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA11250; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971010092435.08d738fe@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: How do you rule ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:56 AM 10/10/97 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >But in order for there to be a transgression of the Laws, we should be >able to established which of the LA's to partner (leading any of his >thirteen cards) is "demonstrably" suggested by the UI. > >If we maintain that by asking a question, the lead in that suit becomes >demonstrably suggested (which we might), then we cannot also maintain >that all other leads have also become "demonstrably suggested". Is this to mean that two different actions cannot be "demonstrably suggested" by UI? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 23:31:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:31:12 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26840 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:31:07 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic101.cais.com [207.226.56.101]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA16449 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971010093149.006d2048@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:31:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Splinters In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:59 PM 10/8/97 BST-1, twm wrote: >Or perhaps the equity of "LHO made an error which gave you a chance at a >top but since you made the egregious error of not properly examining >dummy you blew it!" - result stands. My instinct is very much to rule this way, and I have always been a determined opponent of the "Kaplan doctrine". But my opposition has always been based on the exercise of bridge judgment required to determine that an error is "egregious". Here there is no bridge judgment involved; you made a wrong play because you misperceived the identity of a card that was sitting face-up on the table in front of you, notwithstanding the fact that dummy had mis-positioned it. In a context where you don't have the right to an adjustment because, in the opinion of a few AC members, you failed to make an obvious shift on defense, how can we grant an adjustment when you erred because you mistook a heart for a diamond? Dummy has indeed violated L41D, and may well be subject to a PP for doing so, but I don't see how your side is entitled to any redress in equity. I would take this position even if I felt that dummy had mis-sorted deliberately in an attempt to gain advantage -- then there'd be a VERY large PP indeed, but still nothing for the opposing side. That heart, after all, when all was said and done, was in plain view, and I have no problem holding everyone at the table responsible for identifying face-up cards. 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 Oct 10 23:44:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:44:33 +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 XAA26900 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:44:26 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-82.ime.net [209.90.193.112]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA15313; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971010094734.3f9f50d4@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:42 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >MY lawbook says "the denomination named (or the last denomination named)". >I have no problem reading this as I believe it was intended to be read: >"the denomination named (or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the >last denomination named)". Why read it they way you think it was intended rather than the way it was written? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 10 23:48:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:48:24 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26941 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:48:14 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic101.cais.com [207.226.56.101]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA17294 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971010094859.006d48f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:48:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dummy answers In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:22 AM 10/9/97 +0100, David wrote: >> The following auction takes place: >> >> Pro Partner Client Me >> >> P P 3S Dbl >> 4D P 4S P >> P P >> >> Before leading, I ask client "What is the 4D bid?" Now, to almost any >> good player, 4D HAS to show spades. But suppose that before Client >> can say anything, Pro says "We have no agreement" before their partner >> can start to say something like "Well, we've never discussed it, but I >> don't think he'd bid unless he could stand to hear me bid spades >> again." If indeed that is the truth, he's not obligated to say that >> much, but the pro is trying to make sure he doesn't. >> >> What do you think? The pro responded to a question which was properly and appropriately addressed to his partner, not to him. He is out of line. Depending on circumstances, his action may warrant a PP. He has violated L74B2, and possibly L73B1 as well. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 00:11:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:11:17 +1000 Received: from smurfy.gen.nz (root@smurfy.gen.nz [203.29.160.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27379 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:10:54 +1000 Received: from PATRICKC (p3-max14.auck.ihug.co.nz [207.213.218.3]) by smurfy.gen.nz (8.8.7/8.8.3) with SMTP id DAA23373 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:14:48 +1300 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:14:48 +1300 Message-Id: <199710101414.DAA23373@smurfy.gen.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: Law16 Benchmark Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The New Zealand Contract Bridge Association is reviewing some of it's regulations in light of the new Laws. While Law 16 has been changed only by the addition of the word demonstrably, which has already been debated here, it has also been decided to have another look at what we use as our 'benchmark' for deciding what bid is so clear as to have no logical alternatives. That benchmark has two parts to it: 1. What percentage of players would need to make the bid in order for it to be so clear as to be permitted in order to be allowed, despite it being suggested by some unauthorised information. eg. at the moment we require the committee or director to consider this to be a bid that would be chosen by 75%. 2. What standard of player do you make this assessment on. Here as far as I can see there are 4 possibilities: A) What would members of the appeal committee do? B) What would players of the same standard do? C) What would be done by the general standard of the field? D) Some combination of the above. eg: general standard of the field unless the player in question is known to be signifcantly better than that standard. I believe there are no guidelines in the area of part 2, but it would be nice if there was a global consistency, so before recommending a change, if any, to our current nationally prescribed guideline I would like to know how this is handled in other parts of the world. Patrick Carter Chairman Laws & Ethics Committee NZCBA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 00:17:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:17:51 +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 AAA29316 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:17:06 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:15:32 +0100 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 15:15:30 BST Message-Id: <28124.9710101415@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, timg@ime.net Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Is this to mean that two different actions cannot be "demonstrably > suggested" by UI? > > Tim > I think that two different actions A, B "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" (viz. C). I don't think two actions A, B are such that each could demonstrably have been suggested over the other. i.e. A could demonstrably have been suggested over B; and B could demonstrably have been suggested over A. Under 1987 Laws, I heard arguments that, on the auction 1S - 3S (slow), both 4S could reasonably have been suggested over Pass and Pass could reasonably have been suggested over 4S. Depending on how the AC wanted to rule. Under 1997 Laws, I hope we have (demonstrably) got away from this madness. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 00:27:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:27:12 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA29368 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:27:07 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic101.cais.com [207.226.56.101]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA19470 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971010102752.006d6d04@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:27:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971010094734.3f9f50d4@ime.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:44 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Tim wrote: >At 08:42 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>MY lawbook says "the denomination named (or the last denomination named)". >>I have no problem reading this as I believe it was intended to be read: >>"the denomination named (or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the >>last denomination named)". > >Why read it they way you think it was intended rather than the way it was >written? Come on, Tim. "The way it was written" is obviously ambiguous, and what we do here at BLML is to try to figure out what ambiguously written wordings mean. So forget intent, and consider instead the finer points of English punctuation. Words that might turn a passage totally unambiguous are often elided but suggested by construction or, as in this case, by punctuation. Parenthesized "or"s imply secondary rather than equal alternatives. If the passage read "the denomination named or the last demonination named" that would suggest the elision of "either"; the fact that someone deliberately chose to use parentheses suggests the elision of "otherwise". "A or B" usually means "either A or B". "A (or B)" usually means "A, if applicable, otherwise B". So, with nothing but the exact wording and punctuation to go on, I take the latter meaning here. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 02:16:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:16:00 +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 CAA00192 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:15:52 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id JAA25791; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma025446; Fri, 10 Oct 97 09:51:51 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id JAA19759 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710101614.JAA19759@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 17:01:25 GMT Subject: Re: Law16 Benchmark Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Patrick Carter wrote: > The New Zealand Contract Bridge Association is reviewing some of it's >regulations in light of the new Laws. While Law 16 has been changed only by >the addition of the word demonstrably, which has already been debated here, >it has also been decided to have another look at what we use as our >'benchmark' for deciding what bid is so clear as to have no logical >alternatives. That benchmark has two parts to it: > >1. What percentage of players would need to make the bid in order for it to >be so clear as to be permitted in order to be allowed, despite it being >suggested by some unauthorised information. eg. at the moment we require the >committee or director to consider this to be a bid that would be chosen by 75%. Generally in England we stick to the EBL's "Commentary on the [1987] Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge". We also have our own "EBU Supplement to the EBL Tournament Directors' Guide", which mostly supplements the EBL commentary, but occasionally departs in minor ways from it. In this instance I think the EBU do follow EBL guidance, so that in a case where there are, in effect, only two alternatives, we say that there is a logical alternative if 30% or more would make the alternative call. As far as I know the EBU have no published guidance on cases where there are in effect 3 or more alternatives: TDs and ACs just have to use their judgment in the light of what L16 says. >2. What standard of player do you make this assessment on. Here as far as I >can see there are 4 possibilities: > >A) What would members of the appeal committee do? >B) What would players of the same standard do? >C) What would be done by the general standard of the field? >D) Some combination of the above. eg: general standard of the field unless >the player in question is known to be signifcantly better than that standard. > > I believe there are no guidelines in the area of part 2, but it would be >nice if there was a global consistency, so before recommending a change, if >any, to our current nationally prescribed guideline I would like to know how >this is handled in other parts of the world. Again the EBU do not depart from the EBL Commentary, but I was slightly surprised with what it said. It says "of equal ability to the player whose call is in question" (see 16.6, p49). Later, at 16.20 (vii), p61) it uses the phrase "comparable ability", with, I think, the same meaning, but then goes on to say "Where is is not easy to determine the standard of a player he should be treated as being of the general standard of the competition in which he is playing". My surprise was because the EBL guide was, I believe, based on the 1987 edition of the EBU's "A Director's Guide", indeed you might judge how closely from the fact that the guidance with which we are concerned is in identical paragraph numbers (16.20(vii)) in each. In fact there was a slight change, which I had forgotten about. The guidance in the 1987 edition of the EBU's "A Director's Guide" said to use "the general standard of the competition unless the player in question is known to be of significantly greater expertise than this would imply". This older guidance is thus different as regards players known to be of a weaker standard than the field. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 02:21:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:21:32 +1000 Received: from ime.net (root@ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA00284 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:21:26 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-57.ime.net [209.90.193.87]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA10923; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971010122433.3f9f6552@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:27 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:44 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Tim wrote: > >>At 08:42 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>MY lawbook says "the denomination named (or the last denomination named)". >>>I have no problem reading this as I believe it was intended to be read: >>>"the denomination named (or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the >>>last denomination named)". >> >>Why read it they way you think it was intended rather than the way it was >>written? > >Come on, Tim. "The way it was written" is obviously ambiguous, and what we >do here at BLML is to try to figure out what ambiguously written wordings >mean. If what you say it true (about elisions and parentheticals) why would you say that what is written is "obviously ambiguous?" I'm not really interested in arguing about what was actually intended -- I think we all KNOW that there is a missing phrase (... in the case of a pass, double or redouble ...) that would have removed any ambiguity. I'm also willing to accept you explanation. I have two questions: 1. If what is written is ambiguous, what should be done? It can't be right to wait 10 years until the next revision to remedy the situation. But, to my knowledge, there is no way of amending or correcting the ambiguity in the interim. There is also no official body which can put forth an interpretation. One SO may interpret the Law one way, while another interprets it another. Or, am I wrong, can the Laws Commission (or another body) put forth some official interim rulings? 2. How did the ambiguity slip into the Laws in the first place? The new Laws were quite a secret before they were released. I recall David Stevenson saying on more than on occasion that he could not divulge information concerning the new Laws before a certain date. The ambiguity the prompted this discussion would appear to me to be something that should not have slipped through the review process. Perhaps there should be a more intensive review process? Tim >So forget intent, and consider instead the finer points of English >punctuation. Words that might turn a passage totally unambiguous are often >elided but suggested by construction or, as in this case, by punctuation. >Parenthesized "or"s imply secondary rather than equal alternatives. If the >passage read "the denomination named or the last demonination named" that >would suggest the elision of "either"; the fact that someone deliberately >chose to use parentheses suggests the elision of "otherwise". > >"A or B" usually means "either A or B". "A (or B)" usually means "A, if >applicable, otherwise B". So, with nothing but the exact wording and >punctuation to go on, I take the latter meaning here. > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 03:03:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:03:58 +1000 Received: from sparc22.tx.ncsu.edu (sparc22.tx.ncsu.edu [152.1.129.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA00566 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:03:52 +1000 From: jzli@tx.ncsu.edu Received: (from jzli@localhost) by sparc22.tx.ncsu.edu (8.8.4/TC02Jan97) id NAA16357 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:03:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710101703.NAA16357@sparc22.tx.ncsu.edu> Subject: Please take my emaill off the mail list To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:03:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24/POP] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Owner-bnridge-laws, Please take my email address off the mail list (jzli@tx.ncsu.edu). Thanks. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 04:19:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:19:59 +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 EAA00805 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:19:32 +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 LAA17587; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:21:14 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA08804; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199710101819.LAA08804@d2.ikos.com> To: sheldone@ms.com Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Oct 10 02:13 PDT 1997 > > > Point 3: Regardless of how you describe them, I will believe that when a > > complainant's logic leaves a defender no proper play, the > > _complainant_is_the_offender_, and the offenses are taking a double-shot > > and intimidating opponents by _egregious_ lawyering. It is unacceptable > > to believe that any UI could leave a player with no proper play -- that > > logic must be deemed faulty and is _worse_than_frivolous_, actually > > prima facie _malicious_. > > I think you miss the point. Asking about the 2D bid effectively prevents > partner from leading a diamond. But a diamond would be a bad lead for the > asker's side, so asking the question has given him an advantage. It is not > the lead which might be at fault, but the question. I can understand why > declarer feels aggrieved. A QUESTION IS NOT A VIOLATION! Write that 100 times on your chalkboard :) The Laws give South the right to ask about the auction at his turn. I understand too why declarer feels aggrieved--he knew _from_his_holding_ that the South didn't have the diamond stack that the question commonly suggests--but declarer is WRONG to act on his feelings, and it's _you_ who has missed the point. WHY does the question prevent partner from leading a diamond? Because the consensus says that it suggests leading a diamond! But now, you say it suggests NOT leading a diamond! YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! Trying after is hand to have it both ways is a 100% DOUBLE SHOT, NOT BRIDGE and truly reprehensible! So after the question, but before the lead, get the director to tell you _without_looking_at_the_hands_ what the question suggests. Furthermore, if you fail to do this, IMHO it is UNETHICAL to call the director when you think the lead was a success (even if it wasn't) unless you are accepting the consensus interpretation. Game theory says that it should get to a point where the director tosses a coin to decide whether to say that the question suggests a diamond or suggests avoiding a diamond; then asker would never profit from considering his holding and be left to ask merely because he wants to know the answer; and then the director should frequently rule that the question suggests nothing about South's hand. I hope I've made my point by now :) Everett From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 05:17:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:17:33 +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 FAA01005 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:17:25 +1000 Received: from default (client8404.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.4]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA25702; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:22:49 +0100 Message-Id: <199710101922.UAA25702@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Eric Landau" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:10:25 +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 : The two answers are easy: Part of the WBF Laws Committee's ongoing remit is to interpret the laws it has prepared. Since it saw no ambiguity in what was written, considering the relevance of the parenthesis to what did not fit the main stream of the law to be evident, it is unlikely to require long deliberation in order to issue a direction on the subject. Do not suppose that because you find something 'ambiguous' that the question was not considered by the Laws Committee and not so regarded. > From: Tim Goodwin > To: Eric Landau ; Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card > Date: 10 October 1997 17:21 > > At 10:27 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 09:44 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Tim wrote: > > > >>At 08:42 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote> and Tim Goodwin wrote: \\\snipped/// > I have two questions: > > 1. If what is written is ambiguous, what should be done? It can't be right > to wait 10 years until the next revision to remedy the situation. But, to > my knowledge, there is no way of amending or correcting the ambiguity in the > interim. There is also no official body which can put forth an > interpretation. One SO may interpret the Law one way, while another > interprets it another. Or, am I wrong, can the Laws Commission (or another > body) put forth some official interim rulings? > > 2. How did the ambiguity slip into the Laws in the first place? The new > Laws were quite a secret before they were released. I recall David > Stevenson saying on more than on occasion that he could not divulge > information concerning the new Laws before a certain date. The ambiguity > the prompted this discussion would appear to me to be something that should > not have slipped through the review process. Perhaps there should be a more > intensive review process? > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 05:17:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:17:34 +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 FAA01006 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:17:27 +1000 Received: from default (client8404.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.4]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA25712; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:22:57 +0100 Message-Id: <199710101922.UAA25712@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Edward Sheldon" , , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Asking question to prevent lead? Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:18:03 +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 : On the matter in question my mind is meditating on this: when a player sufficiently experienced to understand the effect upon a highly ethical partner asks this question, and the hand supports the view that he would welcome a lead in another suit, should I consider that the UI suggests the lead of the other suit? -- > From: Tim Goodwin > To: Edward Sheldon ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Asking question to prevent lead? > Date: 10 October 1997 14:13 > > At 09:20 AM 10/10/97 +0100, Edward Sheldon wrote: > >> Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) > > > >[snip] > > IMO, it is not the complainant's logic that is at fault, but rather the Laws > or alert procedure. If a defender has no proper play, how is that the > complainant's fault? I agree the situation given should not arise, but if I > was south and west called the director, I would understand that the whole > point of the call was to bring to light what appears to be a problem with > the alert procedure and how UI is handled. > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 05:17:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:17:43 +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 FAA01004 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:17:25 +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 MAA17807; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:19:08 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA10719; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199710101917.MAA10719@d2.ikos.com> To: timg@ime.net Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Oct 10 07:36 PDT 1997 > > >But in order for there to be a transgression of the Laws, we should be > >able to established which of the LA's to partner (leading any of his > >thirteen cards) is "demonstrably" suggested by the UI. > > > >If we maintain that by asking a question, the lead in that suit becomes > >demonstrably suggested (which we might), then we cannot also maintain > >that all other leads have also become "demonstrably suggested". > > Is this to mean that two different actions cannot be "demonstrably > suggested" by UI? No, but no two actions can be demonstrably suggested over each other. Everett From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 05:37:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:37:37 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01098 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 05:37:32 +1000 Received: from ip29.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net (ip29.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.29]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA10894; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ip29.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BCD592.7A98B160@ip29.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net>; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:37:55 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCD592.7A98B160@ip29.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Subject: RE: How do you rule ? Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:35:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In his series on the AC, Edgar Kaplan recognized a distinction between = two types of UI (BW, April 1982), and it seems to me this distinction = might usefully be applied to this and related UI situations.=20 Kaplan states that UI arising from improprieties or infractions (e.g., = variations in tone or tempo, failure to alert when required, = mis-explanations, etc.) impose a comparatively severe restriction on the = offending side, while UI arising from the normal exercise of a players = rights or responsibilities (asking a proper question about an alerted = call, correctly responding to opponents inquiries) impose a less severe = restriction. To be specific, in the former case, the offending side = should not be permitted to take any action which the UI renders more = attractive than a logical alternative. In the latter type of UI = situation, the "offenders" are merely restricted from taking otherwise = bizarre actions which might be suggested by the UI.=20 In the original example, W receives no redress (applying this theory), = since S's question is legal and proper and therefore places no = restriction on the toss-up choice between clubs and diamonds. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 06:06:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:06:59 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01277 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:06:52 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00470; 10 Oct 97 13:06 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: How do you rule? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:20:14 PDT." <9710100920.ZM9534@ms.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:06:13 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710101306.aa00470@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I think you miss the point. Asking about the 2D bid effectively prevents > partner from leading a diamond. But a diamond would be a bad lead for the > asker's side, so asking the question has given him an advantage. It is not > the lead which might be at fault, but the question. I can understand why > declarer feels aggrieved. The problem is that this sets up a Catch-22. Suppose the hands were the same except with the minor suits reversed. South asks the same question about the 2D call. North decides to choose a diamond lead, and the defense cashes their tricks. If this West felt aggrieved in the actual situation Martin posted, he would certainly feel aggrieved here. He would call the director and complain that the question suggested a diamond lead, and ask for an adjustment. So if you're right, the situation is this: (1) If South asks a question about a suit bid, North leads that suit, and it works, West has a legitimate complaint. (2) If South asks a question about a suit bid, North leads a different suit, and it works, West has a legitimate complaint. Logically, what follows from these is that if South asks a question, and North finds the right lead, West has a legitimate complaint regardless of which suit is led! Or, in effect, that once a defender asks a question about a suit bid, then if the result depends on the opening lead, you might as well just go ahead and award declarer average-plus without playing the hand. Sorry, this isn't bridge. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 06:32:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:32:07 +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 GAA01348 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:31:55 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02260; 10 Oct 97 13:30 PDT To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:35:10 PDT." <01BCD592.7A98B160@ip29.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:30:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710101330.aa02260@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In his series on the AC, Edgar Kaplan recognized a distinction between > two types of UI (BW, April 1982), and it seems to me this distinction > might usefully be applied to this and related UI situations. > > Kaplan states that UI arising from improprieties or infractions (e.g., > variations in tone or tempo, failure to alert when required, > mis-explanations, etc.) impose a comparatively severe restriction on the > offending side, while UI arising from the normal exercise of a players > rights or responsibilities (asking a proper question about an alerted > call, correctly responding to opponents inquiries) impose a less severe > restriction. To be specific, in the former case, the offending side > should not be permitted to take any action which the UI renders more > attractive than a logical alternative. In the latter type of UI > situation, the "offenders" are merely restricted from taking otherwise > bizarre actions which might be suggested by the UI. I've thought for a while that the Laws should make a distinction between these two types of UI. It probably isn't technically necessary, and I think that the distinction can be derived from the existing Laws. But having the Laws recognize it explicitly might make things clearer for people. A couple of thoughts: (1) While a correct response to an opponent's inquiry belongs in the latter category, I think it can belong in the former category if the explainer's partner has forgotten the system. Thus, if I made the wrong bid because I forgot what we were playing, and I heard partner explain the system correctly, I need to restrict my actions just as much as if I got the system right and my partner mis-explained it. (2) Variations in tempo might possibly belong in an in-between category. While most of the things in the "improprieties" category are clearly things that you must not do (i.e. you're supposed to know your own system, and you definitely are not allowed to make loud doubles), variations in tempo are inevitable for most of us. Bridge is still a game of thinking, and sometimes players have to do just that. You can't "ban" tempo variations the way you can ban misexplanations and extraneous remarks; but tempo variations are clearly not as benign as correct explanations and normal questions. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 06:34:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:34:31 +1000 Received: from emout39.mail.aol.com (emout39.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA01365 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:34:25 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout39.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA05829 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971010162836_441629641@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L20F Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Everett Boyer (everett@ikos.com) wrote: >A QUESTION IS NOT A VIOLATION! Write that 100 times on your chalkboard :) The Laws give South the right to ask about the auction at his turn.< I disagree with the general assertion that a question is not a violation, but recognize that my interpretation of L20F1 is not a popular one. I believe that questioning a particular call is analogous to questioning what a certain bid was during the auction, about which the footnote to L20B says, "A player may not ask for a partial restatement of previous calls and may not halt the review before it has been completed." I read L20F1 as having a similar intention: "...a player...may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction..." To me, that means the proper way to seek information is to say "Please explain your auction," not "What did the 2D bid mean?" Of course it can then become necessary to seek more information about a particular call, but the explainers can try to make explanations as detailed as possible to avoid the necessity for such questioning, which I acknowledge is permitted by L20F1. However, as a TD I would require that the further questioning concerning a particular call be really necessary, holding L16 over the questioner like a club. L20F2 uses essentially the same words in regard to a defender's questioning, saying he/she "may request an explanation of opposing auction," but note the last sentence: "...DECLARER may request an explanation of a defender's call..." This says (despite recent assertions to the contrary in regard to other Laws) that defenders may not ask about a particular call. Surely 20F2 legitimizes my interpretation of L20F1. The title of L20F ("Explanation of Calls") is not accurate. Both L20F1 and L20F2 mainly concern explanations of the opposing auction, not of particular calls, which is a sub-topic, and the title should reflect that ("Explanation of Opposing Auction"). The current title leads TDs to reject my interpretation more quickly than they might if L20F were correctly titled. Note that Everett used the right words, even though he was referring to the questioning of a particular call (2D). South indeed has a right to ask about the auction, but not about the 2D bid. Of course my interpretation often doesn't make a difference, when it is obvious what call the questioner is interested in. However, I have often been victimized by a needless question concerning a particular call, and no TD in this part of the U. S. will apply L16. The TDs' invariable response is "The opponents have a right to question any call." In the old days we used to send partner away from the table before asking a question that might give, or be interpreted as giving, UI. That always seemed like a good idea to me. We even did that on occasion when answering a question. The ACBL no longer endorses this practice, probably for security reasons, afraid that partner might do some sightseeing while standing around. I could be wrong about that, does anyone know? Although I remember reading it in the BULLETIN many years ago, I can't seem to find it in the current ACBL regulations. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 06:47:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:47:15 +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 GAA01454 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:47:10 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1401292; 10 Oct 97 21:39 BST Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:37:22 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Re: How do you rule ? To: Bridge Laws 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 As DB wrote there is a directive in force(in UK) that states "Don't ask unless you need to know". Initially N has 4 possible leads but after the question only 3 ( can't lead D's as partner has shown interest). Initially 2 leads were good for declarer and 2 bad, but now 1 good and 2 bad. The odds have been altered by the question, regardless of intent. It cannot be right for the innocent side to suffer. Martin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 06:56:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:56:55 +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 GAA01515 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:56:48 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1401280; 10 Oct 97 21:39 BST Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:19:41 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: How do you rule ? To: adam@flash.irvine.com Cc: Bridge Laws 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 Sorry Adam, I so impressed myself with getting the hand down correctly that I didnot write the last bit very carefully. West didnot say "I want an adjusted score" but "I think I'd like to call the director". Martin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 06:57:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:57:20 +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 GAA01520 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:56:54 +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 NAA18192; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:58:37 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA14309; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:56:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199710102056.NAA14309@d2.ikos.com> To: gester@globalnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Asking question to prevent lead? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Oct 10 13:14 PDT 1997 > > On the matter in question my mind is meditating on this: > when a player sufficiently experienced to understand > the effect upon a highly ethical partner asks this question, > and the hand supports the view that he would welcome a > lead in another suit, should I consider that the UI suggests > the lead of the other suit? Just in case your mind might lean to the affirmative, I'll answer again. No, taking questioner's hand into account results in too severe a penalty for the exercise of his legal right to ask, because you are in effect promising to adjust the hand whenever his partner finds a successful lead to questioner's defensive values no matter where they are: As soon as you start ruling like this, then his highly ethical partner would tend to lead the former suit, and you'll want to accuse the sufficiently experienced questioner when he has a holding in that suit. That kind of witch hunt would spoil the game, because it always penalizes legal questions, encouraging everyone to just guess at what any call might mean. I'm now resigned to believe that it is against my best interests to even touch my cards before my first turn to call, because of the UI price of questions I might want to ask; I hope I can decisively defeat any complaint that I conveyed UI about cards I hadn't even touched :P Your "the hand supports the view" would be then laughable if there weren't so many BLML subscribers (a generally well-informed lot IMHO) willing to investigate me for cheating; instead it's very sad. Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 07:29:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:29:27 +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 HAA01632 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:29:21 +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 RAA15967 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:29:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA20768; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:29:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:29:26 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710102129.RAA20768@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: How do you rule ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > In his series on the AC, Edgar Kaplan recognized a distinction between = > two types of UI (BW, April 1982), and it seems to me this distinction = > might usefully be applied to this and related UI situations.=20 It might be useful, but it no longer applies. The AC booklets were based on the 1975 Laws, but the 1987 Laws removed the distinction between two types of UI. I personally dislike the change, but Mr. Kaplan confirmed that it occurred. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 07:50:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:50:04 +1000 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01708 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 07:49:58 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (207-113-239-37.lightspeed.net [207.113.239.37]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA27244; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <343D555F.47B0@lightspeed.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:06:23 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Dummy answers References: <3.0.1.32.19971010094859.006d48f0@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 01:22 AM 10/9/97 +0100, David wrote: > > >> The following auction takes place: > >> > >> Pro Partner Client Me > >> > >> P P 3S Dbl > >> 4D P 4S P > >> P P > >> > >> Before leading, I ask client "What is the 4D bid?" Now, to almost any > >> good player, 4D HAS to show spades. But suppose that before Client > >> can say anything, Pro says "We have no agreement" before their partner > >> can start to say something like "Well, we've never discussed it, but I > >> don't think he'd bid unless he could stand to hear me bid spades > >> again." If indeed that is the truth, he's not obligated to say that > >> much, but the pro is trying to make sure he doesn't. > >> > >> What do you think? > > The pro responded to a question which was properly and appropriately > addressed to his partner, not to him. He is out of line. Depending on > circumstances, his action may warrant a PP. He has violated L74B2, and > possibly L73B1 as well. > I disagree. This comment by the pro meets no standard of "gratuitous" that I know. The pro is attempting to prevent a procedural violation by client. The client's proposed answer is not based on any agreement, nor (it seems) on any previous play with the pro. Therefore, the answer is inappropriate. I think the pro has an affirmative duty to stop an answer which may not be proper, when the pro knows the correct answer. Similar situation: Auction, unopposed, starting with client: 2N-3S/3N-P. Client is asked what 3S means. Pro says: "We have no agreement on 3S, but 3H would be a transfer to spades. We have played enough that I would never expect him to take 3S as natural. We play 2S over 1NT as a transfer to clubs, but that may not be the logical inference on this auction." This answer is not gratuitous, but appropriate. The pro knows his answer is going to be better than client's. If the asker, as I suspect, wants to know more about client's hand by finding out how he took 3S, pro's interruption has prevented that improper information from being released. Or, after a lebensohl sequence and a face-down opening lead, client is asked what pro's 2NT is. Client has been saying "Transfer to 3C" for the last year, despite pro's best effort. Pro says, "Relay to 3C, then my 3D is a signoff" (or whatever). This gets the proper information to the opponents as quickly as possible. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 08:21:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:21:48 +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 IAA01841 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:21:40 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-175.star.net.il [195.8.208.175]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04167; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:20:43 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343EAA7E.8C60EC37@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:21:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Pool CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Two dummies References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id AAA04167 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Martin Practically there is no difference which hand appeared=A0 first - in both cases the "genuine" declarer' s hand will stay spread as dummy and "genuine" dummy takes his cards back in his hand and plays the cards ..... The basic law is 54C - "if declarer could have seen any of dummy's cards (except cards exposed during auction -=A0 ^^which is not the case here^^) he MUST accept the lead " (^^out of turn^^). There is a strengthening consideration when "genuine" declarer's hand appears first -54A -=A0 but this is the minor consideration IMO =A0 Now I try to complicate the problem : ..........................Case A Let say that the other defender lead a card faced down simultaneously. Here is no problem - the "genuine" declarer saw dummy' cards and he must accept the lead OUT. ..........................Case B The other defender lead also a faced up card almost same time. Still the "genuine" declarer's hand will stay spread as dummy for the same reason ( Law 54C) but >>...!!! ........beyond this clear definition there can be a catch !!!!!!!! By law 48B2=A0 when declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of term, he may be deemed to have made a claim/concession=A0 !!!!!! In this case there deemed to be one more "move" after the opening lead so -=A0=A0 did the "legal" new declarer claim ????? (IMO=A0 non-sense but maybe someone will give "devil's advocate" opinion) Dany Martin Pool wrote: > How about this ? > > The opening lead is out of turn and face up. Two dummies appear, 1,the = correct > one first,=A0 2, the incorrect one first. What is the ruling in each ca= se ? =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 08:23:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:23:38 +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 IAA01876 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:23:30 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-175.star.net.il [195.8.208.175]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04433; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:22:33 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343EAAEE.E73737A8@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:23:42 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy answers References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id AAA04433 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You emphasized a very "painful" subject ... Here the Pros' play appeared only in the last few years and the TD have a lot of headache with some of their behavior. I must say again only few of them violate proprieties = , but there are many troubles with clients' answers and Pros' intervention during an investigation . IMHO , the fact that the pro didn't respect procedure - not only law - mu= st be considered very tough by the TD , because the Pro knows the regular procedures=A0 better than most players ... I read somewhere that a client refused to write the score decided by the = TD, in spite of the fact he wrote all scores "until the accident " because th= ey agreed that wrong things at table are the pro's responsibility !!! (something like....). If we'll try to arrive to a general accepted agreement here I propose tha= t a Pro should be treated as any other player but more severe when in doubt . Any objections ??? Dany David Stevenson wrote: > =A0 Borrowed from RGB > > > The following auction takes place: > > > > Pro=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Partner=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Client=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= Me > > > > P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 3S=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Dbl > > 4D=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 4S=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P > > P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P > > > > Before leading, I ask client "What is the 4D bid?"=A0 Now, to almost = any > > good player, 4D HAS to show spades.=A0 But suppose that before Client > > can say anything, Pro says "We have no agreement" before their partne= r > > can start to say something like "Well, we've never discussed it, but = I > > don't think he'd bid unless he could stand to hear me bid spades > > again."=A0 If indeed that is the truth, he's not obligated to say tha= t > > much, but the pro is trying to make sure he doesn't. > > > > What do you think? > > -- > David Stevenson=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Bridge=A0=A0 Cat= s=A0=A0 Railways=A0=A0 Logic=A0=A0=A0 /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 http://www.blakjak.demon.co= .uk=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk=A0=A0 Emails welcome=A0=A0=A0 bluejak on OKB= =A0=A0 =3D( + )=3D > Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412=A0=A0=A0=A0 Phone before Fax please=A0=A0=A0 R= TFLB=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ~ =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 08:22:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:22:49 +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 IAA01853 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:22:41 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-175.star.net.il [195.8.208.175]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04298; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:21:46 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343EAABF.13F45B8D@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:22:55 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: How do you rule ? References: <01bcd50b$1712dd00$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id AAA04298 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David I use your remarks in order to try to conclude these subject : POINTS TO REMEMBER: 1) IMO one should ask about an alerted call (or check the opps' CC), during the auction , only if he has any reasons to consider bid or double at that very moment ; it already may be suspected as an UI............. 2) Any defender is entitled to ask about ALL explanations of the bidding = - alerted or not , but ALL not a specific one - before he leads the opening lead. 3) Now Law41 : The declares LHO should lead the card faced down - here is the moment any player is entitled to call TD , if he thinks a "crime" was comitted ......when TD lands on or under the table (don't loose humor= ) ....the declarer may explain a wrong explanation during the auction or express his complaints about what defenders did or=A0 etc.....> By this law the opening lead may be withdrawn and=A0=A0 ... etc.=A0 etc.......... 4) DO=A0 believe that people are not "born cheaters" but many of them may have "bad/wrong knowledge " of laws , as we read some messages here in last days ( happened in top level in Danemark and some who heard P. Hackett saying "chr chr ... ... " - not important if Hackett said or the player didn't understand ...=A0=A0 etc.=A0 etc..) In order to give all players the same opportunity to be safe , I act this way and I propose to be accepted as an "uniform ruling" : PROPOSAL / CONCLUSION : A. Any player is entitled to ask about an opponent alerted or non-alerted call during the auction. B. If the declarer deems or thinks that the defenders' questions during the auction were not ethical he should ask the RHO to lead the card faced down , but not let it be "revealed !!!!!" and summon the TD . C. At the and of the play any player - including dummy by law 42B3 - may call TD and complain for any thing he wants..... D. TD=A0 would consider if an usual UI which deemed to occur during the auction was "published" in the right way described in "B" above. Any objections Dave and all collaborators ??? Dany =A0 David Burn wrote: > This question [snipped because by now we all know what it is] > highlights an old problem in a new guise. You can, if you like, play > "reverse hesitations [and reverse questions]" - doubling slowly when > you want partner to pass, asking questions about a diamond bid when > you want a club lead, and so forth. The notion is that you can play > these methods only once, and then we [the police] will get wise to > you. The practicality is that you can play them to infinity, for we > [the police] are trusting souls. > > About ten years ago, I said in the English Laws and Ethics Committee > that in order to ensure a fair game, all alerted calls should be > followed by a question and an explanation. That flew in the face of > the then (and still) current Directive that you should only ask if the > answer will affect your next action. To do otherwise, I was informed, > would slow the game down. > > It still seems to me that pairs who play "we always ask" are going to > solve far more problems than they create. On the hand in question, it > is entirely possible that South was being devious knowing that North > would be "ethical". On the other hand.. > > In the words of the great Bob Dylan, "I was so much older then - I'm > younger than that now." I will watch developments with interest. There > is, though, nothing new under the sun, and we've certainly had this > problem before. =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 08:25:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:25:49 +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 IAA01921 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:25:38 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS3-175.star.net.il [195.8.208.175]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA04718; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:25:16 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <343EAB91.30D849AA@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:26:25 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 50 and UI References: <199710100838.BAA24409@cactus.tc.pw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id AAA04718 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Stephen I=A0 read your considerations and must say they are very serious and deep thinking how to solve the problem. I read the 97 Law50 D many times and consulted some top players for their feelings , just to have some more information what=A0 should be bridgistic opinions, which we know we get 7 opinions form 3 world champs..... I believe 101% that the UI can't be linked to the 50D1 in this case , bec= ause I am not allowed to use 50D1 in this case . But I can't deny 101% that you may use those brackets as a corollary .. not sure it is right but can= 't swear it is wrong. Anyway a Laws' violation occurred for 102% !!! National champs told me that in the case with cards as discussed , one must be more than drunk not to be able to know that the LOOT player has a lot of honors in heart . The bridgistic question when the accident occurred is if a "that level" p= layer has indications to guide him to locate the board's missing points in his partner's hand. For sure the LOOT gives UI.....But we must investigate if= the bidding and very few tricks played may strengthen the indications..... This is why I choose to use Law 12 when in doubt !!! ( the discretionary powers of director to adjust score ) . As I put the question it is a brid= gistic decision and the 97 Laws makes it is easier for me - letting the TD himself to appeal - because as I wrote =3D 3 experts will show 7 opinions= !!!! I hope I answered your wondering about the Laws and the treatment of this case . Thank you for any further objections or approvals because I agree with your opinion it should be discussed and clarified. Dany Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > dh @ star.net.il @ Internet wrote: > > >Reg Busch wrote: > > >> South is in 4S. East makes the opening lead OOT of the HK (by their = methods > >> showing also the HA. South prohibits a heart lead from West, and the= HK is > >> returned to hand. West leads a club, won in dummy, and declarer fine= sses a > >> spade to West's king. West now plays a heart, and declarer of course= calls > >> the Director. > >> West's explanation: I was not using the UI that partner held the HK = and > >> probably the HA. I was using the AI that declarer prohibited a heart= lead > >> from me. Therefore a heart lead now seems likely to be profitable. > >>=A0 Do you accept this? > >> > >> Law 50D1: The requirement that offender must play the card is author= ised > >> information for his partner; however, other information arising from= facing > >> of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner. > >> > >> Does 'other information' include declarer's prohibition of a heart l= ead > >> from West? I find it hard to fault West's argument. Surely the Law d= oesn't > >> intend to make declarer's choice of penalty UI to West? > > >FIRST : Law 50D1 DOES NOT=A0 apply here because there is > >NO penalty card=A0 =3D by Law 50D2a , the moment declarer prohibited > >lead of suit of the penalty card , the card is no longer a penalty car= d > >and is picked up ! =3D=A0 Law 50D1 applies only when there is a > >penalty card. > > I agree that the card is no longer a penalty card, but it seems to me t= o be > possible to interpret the bracketed part of L50D1 so as to impose a UI > requirement even after the penalty card has ceased to be one.=A0 Indeed= given > that it is placed in L50D1 (offender to play) rather than L50D2 (offend= er's > partner to lead) I think that is perhaps the better view. > > I'd value other thoughts. > > >SECONDLY : The prohibition stands as long as the offender's partner > >retains the lead (see again 50D2a=A0 !!) ; the moment someone else is > >to lead the prohibition "vanishes". > > See above. > > >THIRD : There is no reference to Law16 in this context > >(the Law 16 applies only about a minor penalty card - see 50C- > >which is not the case here ). > > I don't think we need a reference to L16C2 for it to apply. A play has = been > withdrawn to rectify an irregularity, and that seems to be enough to le= ad to > L16C2 applying. > > >Nothing wrong , the second lead is legal > > As noted above I think L16C2 (or the bracketed part of L50D1) applies.=A0= To me > the key question is whether the information that declarer prohibited a = H lead > is "arising from" the LOOT.=A0 I find it very difficult.=A0 I am surpri= sed there > have been so few comments to the original question.=A0 Have BLML discus= sed this > before, and I missed it? > > > But .......... > >The TD is allowed to apply his discretionary powers if he deems > >(better say =3D almost sure ) that the infraction produced a total dis= tortion > >of the play - e.g. the only way to give W possibility to play H as a t= otal > >abnormal play (all other pairs didn't do it) . > >In case I use my "dictatorial" rights - using again the 97 Laws - I "l= l > >appeal to AC to check again the bridgistic considerations. > > I don't understand how this is legal.=A0 Under what Law is this propose= d > adjustment given? > > Steve Barnfield > Tunbridge Wells, England =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 08:56:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:56:48 +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 IAA02102 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:56:25 +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 PAA18539; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:58:09 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA17814; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:56:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199710102256.PAA17814@d2.ikos.com> To: msd@mindspring.com Subject: How do you rule, part II Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Oct 10 13:16 PDT 1997 > > In his series on the AC, Edgar Kaplan recognized a distinction between = > two types of UI (BW, April 1982), and it seems to me this distinction = > might usefully be applied to this and related UI situations.=20 > > Kaplan states that UI arising from improprieties or infractions (e.g., = > variations in tone or tempo, failure to alert when required, = > mis-explanations, etc.) impose a comparatively severe restriction on the = > offending side, while UI arising from the normal exercise of a players = > rights or responsibilities (asking a proper question about an alerted = > call, correctly responding to opponents inquiries) impose a less severe = > restriction. To be specific, in the former case, the offending side = > should not be permitted to take any action which the UI renders more = > attractive than a logical alternative. In the latter type of UI = > situation, the "offenders" are merely restricted from taking otherwise = > bizarre actions which might be suggested by the UI.=20 > > In the original example, W receives no redress (applying this theory), = > since S's question is legal and proper and therefore places no = > restriction on the toss-up choice between clubs and diamonds. > > Mike Dennis Good contribution, Mike, despite its apparent obsolescence, but by failing to address the question of what the UI demonstrably suggests and the abuse of the complaint process by West, you have failed to address the general case. (I'm not a fan of the Judicial System habit of ruling a case "moot" to avoid having to address the issues of real interest.) So next you should consider the case in which West claims, after the hand, that South asked a proper question because he wanted North to avoid making any bizarre lead, that South's holding provides evidence that an aggressive lead might be undesirable, and that without the question, some of the time, North might have made some bizarre lead which might have been more helpful for West. This West :) is on a witch hunt. That's a problem for the future of bridge, and if you're not part of the solution then you may be part of the problem. (Yes, it's actually an old problem that has been with us for a long time, but that doesn't argue to me that I should give up fighting it.) Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 09:23:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:23:02 +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 JAA02148 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:22:48 +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 QAA18650 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:24:32 -0700 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA18626 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:22:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199710102322.QAA18626@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L20F Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From [BLML contributor Marvin French] Fri Oct 10 14:48 PDT 1997 > > Everett Boyer (everett@ikos.com) wrote: > > >A QUESTION IS NOT A VIOLATION! Write that 100 times on your chalkboard :) > The Laws give South the right to ask about the auction at his turn.< > > I disagree with the general assertion that a question is not a violation, but > recognize that my interpretation of L20F1 is not a popular one. Semantics, Marv. We're in agreement. Of course an improper question can be a violation, so of course I don't mean that no question is a violation. I meant that it is not a violation solely by the fact of being a question. > [...] South indeed has a right to ask about > the auction, but not about the 2D bid. Okay, but even if South asks the improper but ordinary question about the 2D bid, the only penalty is that it's UI for North, and then the issue is what the UI demonstrably suggests, and that it should be determined independently of the actual holdings. It's still unfair and not bridge to look at South's hand and then rule that the question suggests something favorable for that hand. > Of course my interpretation often doesn't make a difference, when it is > obvious what call the questioner is interested in. However, I have often been > victimized by a needless question concerning a particular call, and no TD in > this part of the U. S. will apply L16. The TDs' invariable response is "The > opponents have a right to question any call." Perhaps you failed to present your case adequately. Have you tried demonstrating that the question suggests a heart lead, or whatever you think it suggests, when the lead appears, so that the director won't think you're taking a cheap double shot? Even so, as the victim, you unfortunately tend to know too much about the hand to present the impartial demonstration I would prefer. But this does suggest another solution. When declarer believes that the lead was suggested by the UI, and asks before playing to trick one, it could go in due time to the appeals committee in problem form -- given this auction, what does the UI suggest? -- and if the AC interpretation was effectively in agreement with declarer's, the AC could then decide the score adjustment appropriate to a non-suggested lead, even if the score adjustment would favor the defenders (hence not the cheap double shot). Does this seem fair, everyone? If so, could it be legal? > In the old days we used to send partner away from the table before asking a > question that might give, or be interpreted as giving, UI. That always seemed > like a good idea to me. We even did that on occasion when answering a > question. The ACBL no longer endorses this practice, probably for security > reasons, afraid that partner might do some sightseeing while standing around. > I could be wrong about that, does anyone know? Although I remember reading it > in the BULLETIN many years ago, I can't seem to find it in the current ACBL > regulations. This sounds to me like a potential good idea. Thanks, Marv, for reminding us of it. I hope it might be part of the solution I'm seeking. Everett From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 11:00:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:00:32 +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 LAA02419 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:00:24 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1024027; 11 Oct 97 1:51 BST Message-ID: <4rV1+SBPtnP0EwFY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:00:31 +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: <1.5.4.16.19971010122433.3f9f6552@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >I'm not really interested in arguing about what was actually intended -- I >think we all KNOW that there is a missing phrase (... in the case of a pass, >double or redouble ...) that would have removed any ambiguity. I'm also >willing to accept you explanation. > >I have two questions: > >1. If what is written is ambiguous, what should be done? It can't be right >to wait 10 years until the next revision to remedy the situation. But, to >my knowledge, there is no way of amending or correcting the ambiguity in the >interim. There is also no official body which can put forth an >interpretation. One SO may interpret the Law one way, while another >interprets it another. Or, am I wrong, can the Laws Commission (or another >body) put forth some official interim rulings? > >2. How did the ambiguity slip into the Laws in the first place? The new >Laws were quite a secret before they were released. I recall David >Stevenson saying on more than on occasion that he could not divulge >information concerning the new Laws before a certain date. The ambiguity >the prompted this discussion would appear to me to be something that should >not have slipped through the review process. Perhaps there should be a more >intensive review process? I do not think that is what I said, and it is certainly not what I meant. I was given a copy of the Laws [marked "Final Draft"] and was told I could quote from it so long as I included a disclaimer because there were likely to be a few more minor changes. In the event there were some late changes, the most obvious ones being the first few words of L25B where the time limit was only put in at the last minute, and L17D which was improved quite a lot in the last few months. In the more general matter of how the Laws are reviewed and/or amended, there are various authorities. Since the Laws are promulgated by the WBF, they could, if they wished, issue amendments. Generally such action is avoided since supplements are often unsatisfactory. Within the last few months I have found that some English TDs have 1987 Law books without the amendments published by the WBF in 1988. At least one of these amendments was *never* published in NAmerica. In the case of the definition of Convention, from what I have heard there was much discussion about it before the Law book was issued, and I doubt that our opinion that the result is imperfect would lead to unanimity now being obtained. Certainly there are other authorities. Basically it is a pecking order. If the WBF state officially that there should be a change, or if they issue an official interpretation, then that must be followed: if not then a Zonal authority, like the ACBL or the EBL, could give an official interpretation, or just give an opinion. I could go on, but saying that "they" should do something, or should have done something, gets us not very far. If you think an official interpretation is needed, then approach whatever level seems suitable. These days some of the senior laws personnel do read BLML, so if they think anything needs doing then they will no doubt take such action. -- 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 Oct 11 12:36:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:36:31 +1000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net (punt-1d.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02572 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:36:24 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab0904794; 11 Oct 97 3:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:15:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L20F In-Reply-To: <971010162836_441629641@emout19.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Everett Boyer (everett@ikos.com) wrote: > >>A QUESTION IS NOT A VIOLATION! Write that 100 times on your chalkboard :) >The Laws give South the right to ask about the auction at his turn.< > >I disagree with the general assertion that a question is not a violation, but >recognize that my interpretation of L20F1 is not a popular one. > >I believe that questioning a particular call is analogous to questioning >what a certain bid was during the auction, about which the footnote to L20B >says, "A player may not ask for a partial restatement of previous calls and >may not halt the review before it has been completed." LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS F. Explanation of Calls 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made, or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). In the 1987 Laws it did appear that questions about individual calls might have been illegal: there was more than one interpretation. It soon became clear that this was just not practical. After 18 rounds of a Precision auction there had to be an easier way of finding out whether 4NT was Blackwood or RKCB than explaining the *whole* auction. As a result in the 1997 Laws they included "questions may be asked about calls actually made" and this apparently legitimises asking about individual calls. >Of course my interpretation often doesn't make a difference, when it is >obvious what call the questioner is interested in. However, I have often been >victimized by a needless question concerning a particular call, and no TD in >this part of the U. S. will apply L16. The TDs' invariable response is "The >opponents have a right to question any call." The fact that a player has a right to question a particular call does not mean that he asks without risk of UI, and L16 seems quite clear on this subject. >In the old days we used to send partner away from the table before asking a >question that might give, or be interpreted as giving, UI. That always seemed >like a good idea to me. We even did that on occasion when answering a >question. The ACBL no longer endorses this practice, probably for security >reasons, afraid that partner might do some sightseeing while standing around. >I could be wrong about that, does anyone know? Although I remember reading it >in the BULLETIN many years ago, I can't seem to find it in the current ACBL >regulations. This practice creates some UI problems as well as solving others. -- 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 Oct 11 12:45:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:45:44 +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 MAA02627 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:45:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id ac1219346; 11 Oct 97 3:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:15:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <9710101306.aa00470@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> I think you miss the point. Asking about the 2D bid effectively prevents >> partner from leading a diamond. But a diamond would be a bad lead for the >> asker's side, so asking the question has given him an advantage. It is not >> the lead which might be at fault, but the question. I can understand why >> declarer feels aggrieved. > >The problem is that this sets up a Catch-22. Suppose the hands were >the same except with the minor suits reversed. South asks the same >question about the 2D call. North decides to choose a diamond lead, >and the defense cashes their tricks. If this West felt aggrieved in >the actual situation Martin posted, he would certainly feel aggrieved >here. He would call the director and complain that the question >suggested a diamond lead, and ask for an adjustment. > >So if you're right, the situation is this: > >(1) If South asks a question about a suit bid, North leads that suit, > and it works, West has a legitimate complaint. > >(2) If South asks a question about a suit bid, North leads a different > suit, and it works, West has a legitimate complaint. > >Logically, what follows from these is that if South asks a question, >and North finds the right lead, West has a legitimate complaint >regardless of which suit is led! Or, in effect, that once a defender >asks a question about a suit bid, then if the result depends on the >opening lead, you might as well just go ahead and award declarer >average-plus without playing the hand. > >Sorry, this isn't bridge. Absolutely correct - so long as the questions are consistent. Suppose the defender will always ask the meaning of the 2D bid when he likes a club lead, but not if he likes a diamond lead [and before someone moans about cheating, he may do this totally subconsciously because of ethical considerations: with a diamond holding he thinks at a subconscious level that he must not ask about the 2D bid]. Is this bridge? When I answered the question first time, I merely suggested that we should explain the ethics and take note of the position. Nothing I have read suggests any other course of action would be preferable. Shooting declarer for "lawyering" suggests a basic lack of sympathy: the fact that one particular hand worries him does not mean that he acts like this all the time. The original problem might be a symptom of an unfortunate practice, consciously or not: it is reasonable to ask the TD to take a look. The comments from Adam above suggest that he believes that the TD will then forget the law book completely and act as a bull in a china shop. Why should he? It is extremely unlikely that there will be any adjustment on this hand but failure of the TD to look at it will mean that there is no chance of finding a pattern in this player's actions. -- 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 Oct 11 13:15:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:15:13 +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 NAA02681 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:15:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ac1124950; 11 Oct 97 3:18 BST Message-ID: <0SRmwDDcFuP0EwXd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:15:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) In-Reply-To: <199710101819.LAA08804@d2.ikos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Everett Boyer wrote: >A QUESTION IS NOT A VIOLATION! Write that 100 times on your chalkboard :) >The Laws give South the right to ask about the auction at his turn. >I understand too why declarer feels aggrieved--he knew _from_his_holding_ >that the South didn't have the diamond stack that the question commonly >suggests--but declarer is WRONG to act on his feelings, and it's _you_ >who has missed the point. > >WHY does the question prevent partner from leading a diamond? >Because the consensus says that it suggests leading a diamond! >But now, you say it suggests NOT leading a diamond! >YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! >Trying after is hand to have it both ways >is a 100% DOUBLE SHOT, NOT BRIDGE and truly reprehensible! Kindly grow up. >So after the question, but before the lead, get the director to tell you >_without_looking_at_the_hands_ what the question suggests. That is not what the TD is for. >Furthermore, if you fail to do this, IMHO it is UNETHICAL to call the >director when you think the lead was a success (even if it wasn't) >unless you are accepting the consensus interpretation. You really have no idea about the ethics of this game, have you? If you have a worry then you call the TD. To say that is unethical shows a complete lack of any understanding. >I hope I've made my point by now :) You have. -- 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 Oct 11 16:53:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:53:30 +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 QAA03160 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:53:16 +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 CAA21760; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA21169; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:53:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 02:53:30 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710110653.CAA21169@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: Dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > About ten years ago, I said in the English Laws and Ethics Committee > that in order to ensure a fair game, all alerted calls should be > followed by a question and an explanation. That flew in the face of > the then (and still) current Directive that you should only ask if the > answer will affect your next action. To do otherwise, I was informed, > would slow the game down. At least in a high level game, I think the best approach is to ask immediately whenever it is likely that you or your partner will need to know eventually. Of course "likely" should be determined by the auction without reference to the cards you actually hold, and "eventually" includes the play period as well as the auction. This approach leads to occasional unneeded questions, but it completely avoids any implications from questions that are asked in normal auctions. Of course forgetting to ask when you normally would do so definitely conveys UI, and pairs may have some practical difficulty convincing a TD that this really is their approach. I know the above suggestion is contrary to official recommendations in some jurisdictions. Players in those jurisdictions should take the official recommendations into account. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 17:02:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA03190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:02:22 +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 RAA03185 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:02:13 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0913190; 11 Oct 97 7:53 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:37:13 +0100 To: Reg Busch Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Law 50 and UI In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971008104443.006be784@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19971008104443.006be784@ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch writes ........cut.......... >Does 'other information' include declarer's prohibition of a heart lead >from West? I find it hard to fault West's argument. Surely the Law doesn't >intend to make declarer's choice of penalty UI to West? Labeo: I would think West has gained the advantage of being pointed to declarer's tender spot = which he might have worked out for himself, but now has a certainty of without thought -and has it because of partner's infraction. This is a sound basis, surely, for preventing him from using the information? There is a move in this set of laws to tighten up on use of information gained in consequence of infractions and I think it very likely this is intended to be UI; also that the Law says it is. --Labeo } From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 19:51:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:51:06 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA03521 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:50:59 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-67.innet.be [194.7.10.67]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA14765 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:50:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <343F4C2A.811B408E@innet.be> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:51:38 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: How do you rule ? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19971010092435.08d738fe@ime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 11:56 AM 10/10/97 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >But in order for there to be a transgression of the Laws, we should be > >able to established which of the LA's to partner (leading any of his > >thirteen cards) is "demonstrably" suggested by the UI. > > > >If we maintain that by asking a question, the lead in that suit becomes > >demonstrably suggested (which we might), then we cannot also maintain > >that all other leads have also become "demonstrably suggested". > > Is this to mean that two different actions cannot be "demonstrably > suggested" by UI? > > Tim Oh no it doesn't mean that. Of course there will be cases where two out of three LA's might well be deemed demonstrably suggested. But here we have a case where, going from complainants point of view, all thirteen possible actions (the possible leads) are to be considered "demonstrably suggested". Now that cannot be true. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 22:33:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:33:55 +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 WAA03923 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:33:48 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id NAA22339 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:33:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 13:32 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: How do you rule ? 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: <199710110653.CAA21169@cfa183.harvard.edu> Notwithstanding the many arguments this case has raised the one point that gives me the greatest cause for concern is North's belief that a simple question of an alerted bid effectively bans a lead in the suit concerned. As we have seen the ramifications of this assumption are pretty dreadful. I cannot be alone in using the time in the auction to build up a picture of opponents hands, identify whether partner or I will probably be on lead, whether an active or passive defence is going to be appropriate, if a potential sacrifice/lead should be suggested etc. Thus the EBU directive on only asking "if you need to know" is almost irrelevant. If I fail to ask on the rare occasion that I genuinely don't need to know I make available potentially significant UI to partner. (I don't regard "asking" as being any different to looking at their CC since, given the size of type commonly in use, the latter action is just as noticeable as the former.) OTOH I do acknowledge that questions can provide UI, particularly persistent or assumptive ("transfer to hearts?") questions or those with peculiar tone/emphasis. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 11 23:00:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:00:16 +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 XAA03988 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:00:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1212272; 11 Oct 97 13:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:40:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: A present MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In my wandering around the Internet, I find myself offering help and advice to a large number of people, many of them in their early days on the Internet when everything is a bit confusing. On my cats newsgroups, for example, I send newcomers a Welcome! email. I helped a lady in New York, who is interested in cats, and has some bridge friends, and she reckons I set her straight in a number of things and made the Internet a much more enjoyable place for her. It is lovely to hear from people I have helped. This lady has a niece, and the niece found an old bridge book for her aunt, and she decided it would be nice to send it to me as a thank-you present. Since one of her bridge-playing friends was the author, a couple of months ago she got him to autograph it. I hope you can all imagine what I felt this morning to receive a packet containing [amongst other things] the book COMPETITIVE BIDDING in modern Bridge [1965] personally autographed by the author Edgar Kaplan Thankyou very much, Margaret. -- 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 Oct 12 08:17:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 08:17:00 +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 IAA07964 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 08:16:46 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA25367 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA21498; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:16:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:16:53 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710112216.SAA21498@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan [about two categories of UI; I call them "invidious" and "normal"] > (1) While a correct response to an opponent's inquiry belongs in the > [normal] category, I think it can belong in the [invidious] category if > the explainer's partner has forgotten the system. While perhaps now of only historical interest, the 1975 Laws considered a correct answer "normal" UI even if partner had forgotten. Kaplan's rationale was that someone who had forgotten the system was fairly likely to remember anyway, and thus a heavy UI burden was not justified. An *incorrect* explanation, OTOH, was invidious UI. Absent the explanation, most of the time there would be no reason in the world to suspect partner had forgotten the system. The 1987 Laws in effect put all UI in the "invidious" category. > (2) Variations in tempo might possibly belong in an in-between > category. That's an interesting thought, but is it really necessary? Some tempo variation is normal, depending on the complexity of the auction. The Laws refer to "undue" haste or hesitation, clearly contemplating these normal variations. In most cases, they don't suggest one alternative over another, although a slow double (or similar action where there could have been only one alternative) will always be a problem. Still and all, it might be nice to have some middle course between "no suggestion, do whatever you want" and "UI present, severe restrictions apply." I suppose this might take the form of varying the definition of LA depending on the outrageousness of the UI. ("Lead a spade" incurring heavy restrictions; an 11-second pause after a skip bid incurring only the mildest.) I suspect some AC's do this in practice, even though the Laws provide no basis for it. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 08:36:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 08:36:06 +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 IAA08014 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 08:36:00 +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 SAA25908 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA21513; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:36:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:36:16 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710112236.SAA21513@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Asking questions (was How do you rule ?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This thread tempts me to bring up a related question that we discussed some time ago but never resolved. When does a question or the absence of a question suggest one alternative over another? Suppose the auction goes 1S-x-2D!-2H. Advancer might or might not have asked about the alerted 2D bid before bidding 2H. What restrictions (if any) would apply to doubler in either case? (The 1S bid was five cards in the context of a strong club system; double was normal takeout.) Looking for a pattern is unlikely to be helpful; this auction will come up only every couple of years even if you play a lot. Is there a practical alternative to prevent playing two meanings for the 2H bid, depending on whether a question is or is not asked? I am NOT talking about deliberate cheating. If advancer asks, he will find that 2D shows hearts. A heart bid will then be a cue. But if advancer holds hearts, nothing could be more natural than to bid them without asking about 2D. In neither case is there an obvious infraction, yet the result is clearly wrong. Maybe there is no good solution except screens. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 09:48:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 09:48:15 +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 JAA08163 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 09:48:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0610766; 12 Oct 97 0:38 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:07:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: Quango Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <4rV1+SBPtnP0EwFY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From Herman de Wael Hello all, After all that has been said on this subject, I'd like to take a poll of your opinion on the subject. David S has gratiously accepted to act as polling officer. Simply hitting reply should send your answer to him. Question : A player has a habit, described as 'when in third seat, non vulnerable against vulnerable, holding 0-3 HCP, he will frequently open his shorter major'. Partner may or may not be aware of this habit, but will not let this influence his subsequent action, and the partnership certainly has no ways of discovering the situation. This habit, which may have become a partnership understanding, might be considered an illegal system. A) Reading the WBF systems policy as it is, do you think this habit is to be classed as a 'Highly Unusual Method'? YES NO B) If you could rewrite the systems policy, broadly keeping the idea of the WBF policy, would you consider this habit a 'Highly Unusual Method'? YES NO -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= Polling @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) officers =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 11:12:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 11:12:41 +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 LAA08374 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 11:12:29 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (HZ-pri-AS2-77.star.net.il [195.8.208.77]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA22137; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:10:37 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <344023FE.3D900624@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 03:12:30 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Quango CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by apm12.star.net.il. id DAA22137 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rm9yIHRoZSBQT0xMDQoNCmEpIHllcw0KYikgeWVzDQoNCkZvciB0aGUgbGlmZaAgLCBhZ2Fp biAtIGlmIGl0IGhhcHBlbnMgYW5kIGRvZXNuJ3QgYXBwZWFyIG9uIENDIGFzIGENCmNvbnZl bnRpb24NCml0IGlzoCAxMjMloKAgQyBQIFWgoCAhISEhITENCg0KRGFueQ0KoA0KDQpEYXZp ZCBTdGV2ZW5zb24gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4gPkZyb20gSGVybWFuIGRlIFdhZWwNCj4NCj4gSGVs bG8gYWxsLA0KPg0KPiBBZnRlciBhbGwgdGhhdCBoYXMgYmVlbiBzYWlkIG9uIHRoaXMgc3Vi amVjdCwgSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gdGFrZSBhIHBvbGwgb2YNCj4geW91ciBvcGluaW9uIG9uIHRo ZSBzdWJqZWN0Lg0KPg0KPiBEYXZpZCBTIGhhcyBncmF0aW91c2x5IGFjY2VwdGVkIHRvIGFj dCBhcyBwb2xsaW5nIG9mZmljZXIuIFNpbXBseQ0KPiBoaXR0aW5nIHJlcGx5IHNob3VsZCBz ZW5kIHlvdXIgYW5zd2VyIHRvIGhpbS4NCj4NCj4gUXVlc3Rpb24gOg0KPg0KPiBBIHBsYXll ciBoYXMgYSBoYWJpdCwgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGFzICd3aGVuIGluIHRoaXJkIHNlYXQsIG5vbiB2 dWxuZXJhYmxlDQo+IGFnYWluc3QgdnVsbmVyYWJsZSwgaG9sZGluZyAwLTMgSENQLCBoZSB3 aWxsIGZyZXF1ZW50bHkgb3BlbiBoaXMgc2hvcnRlcg0KPiBtYWpvcicuDQo+IFBhcnRuZXIg bWF5IG9yIG1heSBub3QgYmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgdGhpcyBoYWJpdCwgYnV0IHdpbGwgbm90IGxl dCB0aGlzDQo+IGluZmx1ZW5jZSBoaXMgc3Vic2VxdWVudCBhY3Rpb24sIGFuZCB0aGUgcGFy dG5lcnNoaXAgY2VydGFpbmx5IGhhcyBubw0KPiB3YXlzIG9mIGRpc2NvdmVyaW5nIHRoZSBz aXR1YXRpb24uDQo+DQo+IFRoaXMgaGFiaXQsIHdoaWNoIG1heSBoYXZlIGJlY29tZSBhIHBh cnRuZXJzaGlwIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcsIG1pZ2h0IGJlDQo+IGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYW4gaWxs ZWdhbCBzeXN0ZW0uDQo+DQo+IEEpIFJlYWRpbmcgdGhlIFdCRiBzeXN0ZW1zIHBvbGljeSBh cyBpdCBpcywgZG8geW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgaGFiaXQgaXMNCj4gdG8gYmUgY2xhc3NlZCBh cyBhICdIaWdobHkgVW51c3VhbCBNZXRob2QnPw0KPg0KPiCgoKCgoKCgIFlFU6CgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgTk8NCj4NCj4gQikgSWYgeW91IGNvdWxkIHJld3JpdGUg dGhlIHN5c3RlbXMgcG9saWN5LCBicm9hZGx5IGtlZXBpbmcgdGhlIGlkZWEgb2YNCj4gdGhl IFdCRiBwb2xpY3ksIHdvdWxkIHlvdSBjb25zaWRlciB0aGlzIGhhYml0IGEgJ0hpZ2hseSBV bnVzdWFsIE1ldGhvZCc/DQo+DQo+IKCgoKCgoKAgWUVToKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoCBOTw0KPg0KPiAtLQ0KPiBIZXJtYW4gREUgV0FFTA0KPiBBbnR3ZXJwZW4gQmVs Z2l1bQ0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNsdWIuaW5uZXQuYmUvfnB1YjAyMTYzL2luZGV4Lmh0bQ0K Pg0KPiAtLQ0KPiBRdWFuZ2+goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIC9c Xy9coKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCAvXCAvXA0KPiCgoCBxdWFuZ29AYmxha2phay5kZW1vbi5j by51a6CgoKCgoKCgoCA9KCBeKl4gKT2goCBQb2xsaW5noKCgoKAgQCBADQo+IE5hbmtpIFBv b6CgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCAoIHwgfCApoKCgIG9mZmljZXJzoKAg PSggKyApPQ0KPiCgbmFua2lwb29AYmxha2phay5kZW1vbi5jby51a6CgoKCgoKCgoCAoX35e IF5+oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIH4NCg0KoA0KDQo= From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 15:27:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:27:36 +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 PAA08810 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:27:15 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1129304; 12 Oct 97 5:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:17:21 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Stevenson wrote: >>Neil Cohen wrote on RGB and I have borrowed it! >> > Law 74 - Conduct and Etiquette > .......(cut)....... > >Sergei Litvak wrote: >>Steve Willner wrote: > >>> Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original >>> example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show >>> declarer (but not partner) the other honor? > > > This one worries me. I am quite sure that it ought to be illegal: >showing your opponents your cards so that he will make a mistake is >surely not what Bridge is about. But is there a Law? > Labeo: It looks to me as though 73F2 covers this clearly enough. Remember that the headings of the laws are not considered part of the laws, which should be read with the headings blanked out. --Labeo Mrs Bertram: "That sounds like nonsense, my dear" Mr. Bertram: "Maybe so, my dear; but it may be very good law for all that." (Sir W. Scott) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 15:32:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:32:16 +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 PAA08821 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:32:09 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1423223; 12 Oct 97 5:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 05:40:52 +0100 To: Everett Boyer Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-Reply-To: <199710100054.RAA16202@d2.ikos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199710100054.RAA16202@d2.ikos.com>, Everett Boyer writes > >> From [BLML contributor David Stevenson] Thu Oct 9 16:02 PDT 1997 >> >> Martin Pool wrote: >> >> I am surprised by the other posters' replies. West is merely worried >> by the possibility of a very simple form of cheating, and for him to be >> worried seems not unreasonable. > >I disagree! West is using the director like a puppet, to take a double shot, >based on the apparent reasoning that the question suggests a diamond lead, >therefore it suggests avoiding a diamond lead. That's what's egregious. >The question could suggest one or the other, but West can't have it both ways! > Labeo: Now let me get this right. It is not reasonable for West to be worried about the motives for South's question, but it is reasonable for us to accuse West of having a motive for calling the Director that is not genuine. And we have much better grounds for this suspicion than West does for his. Is that what we are saying? It could not possibly be as right to take the one at face value as the other, on the evidence available examined dispassionately? --Labeo Mrs Bertram: "That sounds like nonsense, my dear" Mr. Bertram: "Maybe so, my dear; but it may be very good law for all that." (Sir W. Scott) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 15:35:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:35:44 +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 PAA08849 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:35:39 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0918734; 12 Oct 97 5:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:35:38 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-Reply-To: <01bcd50b$1712dd00$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bcd50b$1712dd00$LocalHost@default>, David Burn writes >This question [snipped because by now we all know what it is] >highlights an old problem in a new guise. ..... (lots cut and later too) ..... >About ten years ago, I said in the English Laws and Ethics Committee >that in order to ensure a fair game, all alerted calls should be >followed by a question and an explanation. That flew in the face of >the then (and still) current Directive that you should only ask if the >answer will affect your next action. To do otherwise, I was informed, >would slow the game down. Labeo: OK. So we tell the players .... "when you have something to disclose alert and, without waiting to be asked, announce whatever it is" - Yes? --Labeo Mrs Bertram: "That sounds like nonsense, my dear" Mr. Bertram: "Maybe so, my dear; but it may be very good law for all that." (Sir W. Scott) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 16:28:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:28:34 +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 QAA08916 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:28:24 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0520249; 12 Oct 97 7:22 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 06:36:38 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <199710110653.CAA21169@cfa183.harvard.edu> >Notwithstanding the many arguments this case has raised the one point >that gives me the greatest cause for concern is North's belief that a >simple question of an alerted bid effectively bans a lead in the suit >concerned. >As we have seen the ramifications of this assumption are pretty dreadful. > .....(cut)..... Labeo: There is a bridge judgement to be made whether the question demonstrably suggests a lead in one suit rather than another. If it does then the player on lead may only lead that suit if he has no logical alternative lead, based upon the knowledge he would have without the question having been asked. If the player can demonstrate that the lead would stand out anyway the laws allow him to make it. The fact of the alert may be taken into account when making the first bridge judgement above but it is a factor, not a complete absolution. The law refers to asking a question and does not limit this by exclusion of any circumstance such as an alert having been made. Asking a question when the answer will not affect his action in the auction can suggest that the player has a motive for doing so that has nothing to do with a need to know and this too may be taken into account when deciding whether the question conveys UI. It can be very hard, as we all understand, but this is how the law stands and if a question is asked it is specified that it *may* be deemed to carry UI to partner and so limit his choice of action, alert or no. ------Labeo---- Mrs Bertram: "That sounds like nonsense, my dear" Mr. Bertram: "Maybe so, my dear; but it may be very good law for all that." (Sir W. Scott) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 16:40:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:40:23 +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 QAA08965 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:40:16 +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 CAA26577 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 02:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA21768; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 02:40:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 02:40:11 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710120640.CAA21768@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >showing your opponents your cards so that he will make a mistake is > >surely not what Bridge is about. But is there a Law? > From: Labeo > Labeo: It looks to me as though 73F2 covers this clearly enough. > Remember that the headings of the laws are not considered > part of the laws, which should be read with the headings > blanked out. I don't think this does the job. While the headings are not part of the laws, the prefatory "When a violation of the proprieties described in this Law..." certainly is. That is, Law73F gives authority to adjust once something is determined to be wrong (and has caused damage), but it doesn't by itself tell us any specific act is wrong. Taking a contrary position is no good. Do you really wish to adjust the score if a player has a genuine problem, takes time to work it out, and an opponent goes wrong by misjudging what the problem was? That is undoubtedly "deceptive tempo" under L73F2, but fortunately taking time to think is not a violation of the proprieties. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 17:04:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA09018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:04:28 +1000 Received: from MajorD.xtra.co.nz (terminator.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA09013 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:04:21 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (p40-m2-mdr1.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.177.104]) by MajorD.xtra.co.nz (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA09242 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:03:45 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <34419090.5222@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:08:00 -0700 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: dummy revokes (was splinters) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All I'm relatively new to this group and to directing in general. I'm sorry if this has been discussed before (as I'm sure it has) but it has come up several tomes at our club recently with some heated debate. What about the situation where a card is stuck behind another (in Dummy) and nobody notices until that card is played (yes it does happen perhaps not at high level tournaments but amongst club players). The hidden card is of a suit that has been played and it is an established revoke. Is there penalty and if so under what laws? If not how is equity restored if necessary? thanks Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 17:57:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA09094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:57:56 +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 RAA09089 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 17:57:51 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1404679; 12 Oct 97 7:22 BST Message-ID: <7b3bBFAatGQ0EwvA@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 07:16:58 +0100 To: Quango Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > >From Herman de Wael > >Hello all, > >After all that has been said on this subject, I'd like to take a poll of >your opinion on the subject. > >David S has gratiously accepted to act as polling officer. Simply >hitting reply should send your answer to him. > >Question : > >A player has a habit, described as 'when in third seat, non vulnerable >against vulnerable, holding 0-3 HCP, he will frequently open his shorter >major'. >Partner may or may not be aware of this habit, but will not let this >influence his subsequent action, and the partnership certainly has no >ways of discovering the situation. > >A) Reading the WBF systems policy as it is, do you think this habit is >to be classed as a 'Highly Unusual Method'? >B) If you could rewrite the systems policy, broadly keeping the idea of >the WBF policy, would you consider this habit a 'Highly Unusual Method'? > Labeo: (A) Yes (B) Yes, even more so if I thought anyone wanted to do this habitually without being deemed to develop partnership agreement. What partner will do has no bearing on whether it is an illegal partnership agreement. And how can anyone say that it will not affect partner's play as a defender subsequently or that it is not a partnership understanding that an opposing declarer is entitled to know about? ------Labeo---- Mrs Bertram: "That sounds like nonsense, my dear" Mr. Bertram: "Maybe so, my dear; but it may be very good law for all that." (Sir W. Scott) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 21:24:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:24:25 +1000 Received: from smurfy.gen.nz (root@smurfy.gen.nz [203.29.160.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA09487 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:24:20 +1000 Received: from PATRICKC (p47-max12.auck.ihug.co.nz [209.76.151.239]) by smurfy.gen.nz (8.8.7/8.8.3) with SMTP id AAA26882 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:28:26 +1300 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:28:26 +1300 Message-Id: <199710121128.AAA26882@smurfy.gen.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: re: dummy revokes Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm relatively new to this group and to directing in general. I'm sorry if this has been discussed before (as I'm sure it has) but it has come up several times at our club recently with some heated debate. What about the situation where a card is stuck behind another (in Dummy) and nobody notices until that card is played (yes it does happen perhaps not at high level tournaments but amongst club players). The hidden card is of a suit that has been played and it is an established revoke. Is there penalty and if so under what laws? If not how is equity restored if necessary? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is a fairly straightforward ruling: Firstly, Law 64(b)3 states that there is no PENALTY for playing a card faced on the table, including a card in dummy's hand. Secondly, Law 64(c) says that after any revoke (including those that are not penalised) the director should make sure that the non-offending side are not disadvantaged. So although there is no penalty, the director needs to look at the hand and the way it was played at this table to ascertain whether he needs to adjust the result IN ORDER TO PROVIDE EQUITY. Note that if the offending side are the ones who are disdvantaged, then no adjustment is made. Finally, Law 41(d) requires dummy to face their hand properly, so if the opponents are disadvantaged by not seeing a card in dummy (e.g. There are really 2 clubs in dummy but only one is faced and the defender who has led the AC now switches and they never make their 2nd club trick) then I would use my discretionary powers under Law 84(e) to restore equity, so that the offending side cannot profit from failing to properly follow Law 41(d) Law 84(e) says that where an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by Law, the director can award an adjusted score if there is a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged. Patrick Carter Director Auckland Bridge Club Chairman Laws & Ethics NZCBA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 21:28:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:28:38 +1000 Received: from smurfy.gen.nz (root@smurfy.gen.nz [203.29.160.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA09497 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:28:33 +1000 Received: from PATRICKC (p47-max12.auck.ihug.co.nz [209.76.151.239]) by smurfy.gen.nz (8.8.7/8.8.3) with SMTP id AAA26983 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:32:50 +1300 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:32:50 +1300 Message-Id: <199710121132.AAA26983@smurfy.gen.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: RE: dummy revokes Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce Small wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm relatively new to this group and to directing in general. I'm sorry if this has been discussed before (as I'm sure it has) but it has come up several times at our club recently with some heated debate. What about the situation where a card is stuck behind another (in Dummy) and nobody notices until that card is played (yes it does happen perhaps not at high level tournaments but amongst club players). The hidden card is of a suit that has been played and it is an established revoke. Is there penalty and if so under what laws? If not how is equity restored if necessary? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is a fairly straightforward ruling: Firstly, Law 64(b)3 states that there is no PENALTY for playing a card faced on the table, including a card in dummy's hand. Secondly, Law 64(c) says that after any revoke (including those that are not penalised) the director should make sure that the non-offending side are not disadvantaged. So although there is no penalty, the director needs to look at the hand and the way it was played at this table to ascertain whether he needs to adjust the result IN ORDER TO PROVIDE EQUITY. Note that if the offending side are the ones who are disdvantaged, then no adjustment is made. Finally, Law 41(d) requires dummy to face their hand properly, so if the opponents are disadvantaged by not seeing a card in dummy (e.g. There are really 2 clubs in dummy but only one is faced and the defender who has led the AC now switches and they never make their 2nd club trick) then I would use my discretionary powers under Law 84(e) to restore equity, so that the offending side cannot profit from failing to properly follow Law 41(d) Law 84(e) says that where an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by Law, the director can award an adjusted score if there is a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged. Patrick Carter Director Auckland Bridge Club Chairman Laws & Ethics NZCBA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 12 22:31:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:31:36 +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 WAA09609 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 22:31:29 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xKNJ1-0003Wa-00; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 12:39:35 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.47.102] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xKNBr-0001is-00; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:32:11 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: How do you rule ? Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 13:30:08 +0100 Message-ID: <01bcd70a$93720820$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >In message <01bcd50b$1712dd00$LocalHost@default>, David Burn > writes >>This question [snipped because by now we all know what it is] >>highlights an old problem in a new guise. > ..... (lots cut and later too) ..... >>About ten years ago, I said in the English Laws and Ethics Committee >>that in order to ensure a fair game, all alerted calls should be >>followed by a question and an explanation. That flew in the face of >>the then (and still) current Directive that you should only ask if the >>answer will affect your next action. To do otherwise, I was informed, >>would slow the game down. > >Labeo: OK. So we tell the players .... "when you have something to > disclose alert and, without waiting to be asked, announce > whatever it is" - Yes? > No (though that would actually be a lot better from the legal point of view than the present situation, in which it is impossible to ask a proper question without somebody somewhere thinking that you have passed UI thereby). The ACBL notion of announcing "Transfer", or "Stayman", or whatever, is a step in the right direction. What I think ought to happen from a practical point of view may best be illustrated by an example. I happen to play that a double of a splinter asks for the lead of the lower-ranking unbid suit - i.e. if my opponents start 1S-4C (splinter), double shows diamonds. But if 4C were Swiss, then double would show clubs (and if 4C were pre-emptive, double would be takeout for the red suits etc.) Now, when the auction starts in this fashion, I am fixed. If I ask a question, hear "Swiss" and then pass, partner knows I have diamonds. If I ask, hear "Splinter" and then pass, partner knows I have clubs. If I don't ask at all, partner knows that if I have anything, it's hearts. The same situation might occur against a pair playing forcing Stayman. If 1N-2D is a transfer, then my double shows a hand that would double 1N. But if it's forcing Stayman, double just shows diamonds. Once again, I cannot ask a proper question - to which I certainly need to know the answer - without prejudicing my side's position. This is simply intolerable. It should be open to pairs who know that their methods will place them in this invidious situation to say: "In sequences such as the above, where there is a possibility that we will be fixed if we ask and fixed if we don't, we should simply always ask a question - whether we have clubs, diamonds or the usual blizzard." In that way, there can be no question of pairs transmitting UI either directly - by asking about a club bid with clubs - or in the ingenious fashion suggested in the original message by asking about a club bid when they have diamonds. David Burn "Those who like sausages and admire the law should never watch either of them being made." Winston Churchill From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 00:40:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:40:34 +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 AAA12165 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:40:12 +1000 Received: from default (client8746.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.70]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA04797; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:45:22 +0100 Message-Id: <199710121445.PAA04797@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Edward Sheldon" , , "Tim Goodwin" Subject: Re: Asking question to prevent lead? Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:39:07 +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 : There seems to be a lot of mumbling going on here. Neither the laws nor a ruling under them leave a defender without a proper play. Someone needs to spell out law 16 to somebody. The player who has unauthorised information is required not to take action which is judged to be suggested over logical alternative action by the UI. Primarily therefore he is required to choose amongst logical alternatives the one least suggested by the UI. Two possibilities need further comment: (A) That there is no logical alternative to the call/play he wants to make. He may make the call or play. (B) In a rare situation two or more calls/plays may be adjudged to be equally suggested by the UI and there are no other logical alternatives that are less suggested. He may make either (any) of the calls/plays that are equally suggested since amongst them no LA is suggested less than another. ---- > From: Tim Goodwin > To: Edward Sheldon ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Asking question to prevent lead? > Date: 10 October 1997 14:13 > > At 09:20 AM 10/10/97 +0100, Edward Sheldon wrote: > >> Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) > > > >[snip] > > > >> Point 3: Regardless of how you describe them, I will believe that when a > >> complainant's logic leaves a defender no proper play, the > >> _complainant_is_the_offender_, \\snip// > > IMO, it is not the complainant's logic that is at fault, but rather the Laws > or alert procedure. If a defender has no proper play, how is that the > complainant's fault? > \\snip// From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 00:50:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:50:51 +1000 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12190 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:50:31 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA13338; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:49:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:49:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971012104924_-728189474@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: maryamo@coupeville.net, david@blakjak.demon.co.uk, discuss@okbridge.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridgelaws) Subject: Selassie Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps David's friend would like to read this article, soon to be published in the Post Mortem, the journal of the GNYBA (Greater New York Bridge Association) as part of a memorial issue honoring Edgar Kaplan. Karen .............................................................................. ............................... Selassie, Edgar Kaplan's cat, is twelve years old, so there must have been a time that I visited Edgar over the thirty or so years that we were friends when there wasn't a Selassie, but some other cat; Edgar having always been very fond of cats. I, however, can't really remember there not being Selassie at Edgar's house. When Edgar first became ill, we moved our Laws Commission Drafting Committee meetings to his home to make it easier for him to attend them. Selassie became the unofficial kibitzer of the meetings, sitting on a spare chair and partaking of our snacks. He is a philosophical cat, unperturbable and utterly irresistable when he asks for a share of your snack. He seemed to add a certain je ne sais qua to our meetings, interjecting an occasional comment when we were at a loss for a way to phrase a Law. When we lost our beloved Edgar, several of his friends had serious concerns about what Selassie's fate would be. George Rapee came weekly to visit the little guy and feed him special treats, but George's cats in Florida were all outdoors cats equipped with front claws and Selassie had no claws and is an indoors cat, so that home would not do for him. Gail Greenberg spoke to numerous other friends of Edgar's but many, like Robin Kay (daughter of Edgar's long-time partner and friend, Norman) are allergic to cats and while they would try to take him, would not be comfortable with a cat in their house. I have three cats of my own and that seemed too hectic a cat household for this genteel old boy so I looked around for a suitable bridge-playing home for Selassie. I found a perfect one in Toronto, where Edgar's niece lives and his sister-in-law visits, so Selassie can have some family attention. He's gone to live with a Canadian international player, who has a collection of Bridge World Magazines and spends a great deal of time at home with her other small cat, Maggie. Selassie came with me one Wednesday night. He spent the night at my place, then we were off to Toronto. He made friends with the flight attendants on Air Canada and eventually jumped out of his carry case in Toronto, looked around, rubbed up against his new mistress's legs and announced "I'm here and happy to be here." Edgar, you can be peaceful about Selassie; he has a lovely new home and a pair of charming companions.. and lots of bridge activity to keep him interested. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 01:28:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 01:28:31 +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 BAA12580 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 01:28:20 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1221654; 12 Oct 97 16:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:56:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >David Stevenson writes >>Sergei Litvak wrote: >>>Steve Willner wrote: >>>> Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original >>>> example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show >>>> declarer (but not partner) the other honor? >> This one worries me. I am quite sure that it ought to be illegal: >>showing your opponents your cards so that he will make a mistake is >>surely not what Bridge is about. But is there a Law? >Labeo: It looks to me as though 73F2 covers this clearly enough. > Remember that the headings of the laws are not considered > part of the laws, which should be read with the headings > blanked out. It is not a *false* inference. In fact L73F2 does not tell a player what to do: it tells a TD what to do if a player infracts. Generally infractions of L73C are dealt with under L73F1, and infractions of L73D are dealt with under L73F2. So is this an infraction under L73D? Perhaps it is. Surely a defender's normal manner of playing the cards includes not showing them to Declarer. L73D1 says that "unvarying manner" is "desirable" and continues by warning players about positions "in which variations may work to the benefit of their side". It then says "Otherwise ...". to show your cards to declarer when normally you don't is a change of manner, and it is a variation for the defender's benefit. Thus it is a violation of procedure. Unfortunately, the Law does not seem to quite say what to do when declarer has drawn a true inference from the violation of procedure, rather than a false one. L90 is always there, of course ... If you show your hand to declarer, or at least part of it, so as to tell him the truth for your own benefit, the score stands because L73F2 does not apply, so I shall merely fine the defender sufficient to discourage him from doing it again under L90. Well? -- 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 Oct 13 09:03:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:03:37 +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 JAA13755 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:03:30 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xKXAm-00027f-00; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:11:44 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.52.102] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xKX3d-0007Tc-00; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:04:21 +0100 From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" , "David Stevenson" Subject: Re: Selassie Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:02:41 +0100 Message-ID: <01bcd762$f1248300$663463c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen I often wondered how Law 25B came into being. Thanks to your message, now I know: >When Edgar first became ill, we moved our Laws Commission Drafting Committee >meetings to his home to make it easier for him to attend them. Selassie >became the unofficial kibitzer of the meetings, sitting on a spare chair and >partaking of our snacks. He is a philosophical cat, unperturbable and >utterly irresistable when he asks for a share of your snack. He seemed to >add a certain je ne sais qua to our meetings, interjecting an occasional >comment when we were at a loss for a way to phrase a Law. 25B: Delayed or Purr-puss-full Correction... Best wishes David (Pedantic note: that's actually "je ne sais quoi". I remember with affection a French teacher who used to describe my work as being "dashed off with a certain je ne sais pas".) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 09:24:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:24:06 +1000 Received: from pacs04.infoave.net (pacs04.InfoAve.Net [165.166.0.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13816 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:23:59 +1000 From: LJHALL@InfoAve.Net Received: from LOCALNAME (dial-4.r4.nccrty.InfoAve.Net) by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.1-8 #23426) with ESMTP id <01IOQB6ACTF8931JNT@InfoAve.Net> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:23:22 EDT Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:19:11 -0700 Subject: Re: Accomodations at St Louis Nationals To: bridge-lawsoctaviaanueduau Reply-to: LJHALL@InfoAve.Net Message-id: <3441851E.E125824C@InfoAve.Net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win16; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <343AC796.990FB15A@InfoAve.Net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > TO: All bridge afficados > > If you are considerig the possibilities of playing any in St. Louis, > but > think that the Adam's Mark is to expensive for your tastes, you may > want > to check following via Bridge Pro Travel > > http://web.wt/bridgepro/welcome.htm > > Judi@wt.net or 1-800-925-1895 > > Accomodations are next to site at Holiday Inn Riverfront > > large accomodations and all have kitchens > > ALL FOR $69 PER NIGHT > > Understand now that all rooms are KING Size or contain TWO Double Beds and that Rollways will be available, some possibly at no charge. > For more info contact Juid or the Holliday Inn (1-800-525-1395) but > mention Bridge Pro Travel > > Best of all Judi is an OKB subscriber! > > See you in St. Louis > > Fun-pro From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 09:31:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:31:17 +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 JAA13878 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:31:10 +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 TAA29699 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA22220; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:31:05 -0400 Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 19:31:05 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710122331.TAA22220@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Surely a defender's normal manner of playing the cards > includes not showing them to Declarer. L73D1 says that "unvarying > manner" is "desirable" and continues by warning players about positions > "in which variations may work to the benefit of their side". It then > says "Otherwise ...". to show your cards to declarer when normally you > don't is a change of manner, and it is a variation for the defender's > benefit. Thus it is a violation of procedure. Although I find the above a strained interpretation, at least it doesn't do violence to logic or language. In particular, I approve of treating the matter as a procedural violation if you insist on treating it as a violation at all. I don't see why a declarer who has extra, true information and then goes wrong is entitled to any redress. (It suddenly occurs to me that possibly we are considering two different things. My original question contemplated showing declarer a card in such manner as to make it obvious that revealing the card is intentional. "Accidentally" allowing declarer to "sneak a peek" is definitely not bridge, and a procedural penalty -- if not more severe action -- seems entirely appropriate. The difference, it seems to me, is that there is no *deception* involved in the first case. In the "accidental" viewing, the deception is that the viewing purports to be accidental when it really is deliberate. Redress to declarer when there is deception is worthy of consideration.) Interestingly enough, I think David's interpretation makes it legal to show declarer some cards in the more common case where declarer is contemplating which finesse to take but all options lose. The variation in manner is not for defender's benefit; it just speeds up the game. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 12:04:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:04:06 +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 MAA14229 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:03:59 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1027043; 13 Oct 97 2:56 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 02:40:40 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote: >>David Stevenson writes >>>Sergei Litvak wrote: >>>>Steve Willner wrote: > >>>>> Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original >>>>> example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show >>>>> declarer (but not partner) the other honor? > .......................(much cutting).............. > > If you show your hand to declarer, or at least part of it, so as to >tell him the truth for your own benefit, the score stands because L73F2 >does not apply, so I shall merely fine the defender sufficient to >discourage him from doing it again under L90. > Labeo: The WHOLE truth is that? Or are we talking about a possibly misleading partial truth that the defender could have known to be capable of working for his benefit? Is the player not indicating, perhaps falsely, the expectation of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed? - see 74C3. If he is then 73F2 certainly applies. ------Labeo---- Mrs Bertram: "That sounds like nonsense, my dear" Mr. Bertram: "Maybe so, my dear; but it may be very good law for all that." (Sir W. Scott) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 12:17:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:17:41 +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 MAA14251 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:17:35 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0915452; 13 Oct 97 2:56 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 02:18:34 +0100 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: How do you rule ? In-Reply-To: <01bcd70a$93720820$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bcd70a$93720820$LocalHost@default>, David Burn writes >Labeo wrote: > > >>In message <01bcd50b$1712dd00$LocalHost@default>, David Burn >> writes >> ..... (lots cut and later too) ..... >>>About ten years ago, I said in the English Laws and Ethics Committee >>>that in order to ensure a fair game, all alerted calls should be >>>followed by a question and an explanation. >>Labeo: OK. So we tell the players .... "when you have something to >> disclose alert and, without waiting to be asked, announce >> whatever it is" - Yes? >No (though that would actually be a lot better from the legal point of >view than the present situation, ...... > >What I think ought to happen from a practical point of view may best >be illustrated by an example. I happen to play that a double of a >splinter asks for the lead of the lower-ranking unbid suit - i.e. if >my opponents start 1S-4C (splinter), double shows diamonds. But if 4C >were Swiss, then double would show clubs (and if 4C were pre-emptive, >double would be takeout for the red suits etc.) Now, when the auction >starts in this fashion, I am fixed. Labeo: Players who have alternative meanings for their action - especially double - that depend on the methods of opponents might consider establishing what, relevantly, are the methods of opponents before they occur. But I suppose your CC in defence is made up almost entirely of the like? The example you give no doubt has its superiors because as a matter of course you would expect to find these sequences on opponents' CC at the beginning of the round. ------Labeo---- Mrs Bertram: "That sounds like nonsense, my dear" Mr. Bertram: "Maybe so, my dear; but it may be very good law for all that." (Sir W. Scott) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 19:37:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 19:37:54 +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 TAA15157 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 19:35:36 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:32:27 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:35:30 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---- From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer /// skip \\\ >>Labeo: It looks to me as though 73F2 covers this clearly enough. >> Remember that the headings of the laws are not considered >> part of the laws, which should be read with the headings >> blanked out. > > It is not a *false* inference. In fact L73F2 does not tell a player >what to do: it tells a TD what to do if a player infracts. Generally >infractions of L73C are dealt with under L73F1, and infractions of L73D >are dealt with under L73F2. So is this an infraction under L73D? > David, what is a false inference in your opinion? IMO, inference is a term applying to my playing plan. I have some plans. I observe some action of opponent (pause, unusual remark or showing his cards). I choose my plan based on this action (it is my rights). This is means that I have the inference. If my plan loses - I have false inference. There is _no sence_ about type of opponent's action, that has a true information or false. Now TD MAY apply 73F2 (without tie to L73D because "intentional" not present in this Law). He MUST apply this Law if he decide that this action is deliberate according to Law 73D. /// skip \\\ > If you show your hand to declarer, or at least part of it, so as to >tell him the truth for your own benefit, the score stands because L73F2 >does not apply, so I shall merely fine the defender sufficient to >discourage him from doing it again under L90. > > Well? > See above From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 20:56:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:56:30 +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 UAA15284 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 20:56:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1423672; 13 Oct 97 11:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 01:13:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: (untitled from dh@star.net.il) In-Reply-To: <0SRmwDDcFuP0EwXd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Kindly grow up. ... and various other things. I think there is just a faint chance that I have departed from the normally accepted level of good taste normally found on this mailing list, and I apologise to everyone. -- 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 Oct 13 21:06:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:06:44 +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 VAA15336 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:06:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0916616; 13 Oct 97 11:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:49:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Selassie In-Reply-To: <971012104924_-728189474@emout08.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen Allison wrote: >Perhaps David's friend would like to read this article, soon to be published >in the Post Mortem, the journal of the GNYBA (Greater New York Bridge >Association) as part of a memorial issue honoring Edgar Kaplan. My friend subscribes to Post-Mortem, so she will see this article. I should like to thank Karen for permission to put this article on my web site [and David Burn for unconscious permission for his bit!]. The Bridgepage is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm and the whole site contains about 111 articles, over half about Bridge. Quango and Nanki Poo are pleased that Selassie has found a new and suitable home. In between snacks, Quango said "Brooowww!!!!!" and I think that just about sums it up. Nanki Poo was unavailable for comment, because he was asleep! -- 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 Oct 13 22:29:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:29:18 +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 WAA15552 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:29:11 +1000 Received: from default (client8783.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.131]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA24499; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:34:36 +0100 Message-Id: <199710131234.NAA24499@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Everett Boyer" , Cc: Subject: Re: How do you rule, part II Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:18:33 +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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : But only if the laws recognize the distinction. Guru as he was, Edgar's views were still his personal opinions and were not invariably agreed in committee. Furthermore we are on our second set of laws since then. ---------- > From: Everett Boyer > To: msd@mindspring.com > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: How do you rule, part II > Date: 10 October 1997 23:56 > > > > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Oct 10 13:16 PDT 1997 > > > > In his series on the AC, Edgar Kaplan recognized a distinction between = > > two types of UI (BW, April 1982), and it seems to me this distinction = > > might usefully be applied to this and related UI situations.=20 > > \\\snipped/// From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 13 23:36:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:36:41 +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 XAA15762 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:36:35 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1025429; 13 Oct 97 14:05 BST Message-ID: <$NSMnqAGxhQ0EwfH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:04:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >David Stevenson writes >>Labeo wrote: >>>>>Steve Willner wrote: >>>>>> Now a slightly different question. Is it permissible, in the original >>>>>> example where East is about to play an honor from JTx, simply to show >>>>>> declarer (but not partner) the other honor? >> If you show your hand to declarer, or at least part of it, so as to >>tell him the truth for your own benefit, the score stands because L73F2 >>does not apply, so I shall merely fine the defender sufficient to >>discourage him from doing it again under L90. >Labeo: The WHOLE truth is that? Or are we talking about a possibly > misleading partial truth that the defender could have known > to be capable of working for his benefit? > Is the player not indicating, perhaps falsely, the > expectation of winning or losing a trick that has not been > completed? - see 74C3. If he is then 73F2 certainly applies. The stated problem concerned giving declarer correct information by showing him part of your hand. It is true, so the "false inference" of L73F2 applies. The truth is the truth, I fear. L74C3 refers to expectation of winning or losing a trick. A player who shows his opponents the jack and ten of hearts has shown no such expectation. Even if he had, there is no link in the Laws to suggest that L73F2 follows from L74[any]. What I want to do is to stop a player doing a practice that seems to me very unhealthy for the game. I would like L73F2 to apply, but the wording means that it does not if the inference drawn is correct. I do not believe that L74C3 stops him either: if it did it would be via L90, L84E or L12A1, surely? I do not like my earlier suggestion of L73D1 very much. However, I have seen nothing else so far that seems to stop this practice according to the letter of the Laws. -- 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 Oct 14 00:12:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:12:41 +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 AAA16811 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:12:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1100979; 13 Oct 97 14:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:50:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deliberate pause to inform declarer In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alexey Gerasimov wrote: >From: David Stevenson >>>Labeo: It looks to me as though 73F2 covers this clearly enough. >>> Remember that the headings of the laws are not considered >>> part of the laws, which should be read with the headings >>> blanked out. >> It is not a *false* inference. In fact L73F2 does not tell a player >>what to do: it tells a TD what to do if a player infracts. Generally >>infractions of L73C are dealt with under L73F1, and infractions of L73D >>are dealt with under L73F2. So is this an infraction under L73D? >David, what is a false inference in your opinion? IMO, inference is a term >applying to my playing plan. I have some plans. I observe some action of >opponent (pause, unusual remark or showing his cards). I choose my plan based >on this action (it is my rights). This is means that I have the inference. If >my plan loses - I have false inference. There is _no sence_ about type of >opponent's action, that has a true information or false. Now TD MAY apply >73F2 (without tie to L73D because "intentional" not present in this Law). He >MUST apply this Law if he decide that this action is deliberate according to >Law 73D. I would be happy to rule under L73F2, but unfortunately I am not convinced. A false inference is one where declarer decides something from the pause/remark/showing cards, and then acts on it, and the conclusion he made originally is wrong because he has been misled. If you hesitate with nothing to think about, and declarer goes wrong because he infers that you had something to think about, then we adjust. *But* if you hesitate because you do not know whether to cover the jack with the queen, and declarer goes wrong because he assumes you have the ace not the queen for your hesitation, then we do not adjust. He was not misled: you had something to think about: the pause was fair. The correct inference is that you had something to think about. If you show declarer your hand or part of your hand so as to tell him the *truth* because it is to your benefit, he draws a true inference, namely that that is what you have. It does not seem to me a false inference because he then goes wrong: the inference was true. -- 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 Oct 14 00:39:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:39:49 +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 AAA18187 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:39:42 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0901398; 13 Oct 97 13:54 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:53:17 +0100 To: Quango Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > >From Herman de Wael > >Hello all, > >After all that has been said on this subject, I'd like to take a poll of >your opinion on the subject. > >David S has gratiously accepted to act as polling officer. Simply >hitting reply should send your answer to him. > >Question : > >A player has a habit, described as 'when in third seat, non vulnerable >against vulnerable, holding 0-3 HCP, he will frequently open his shorter >major'. >Partner may or may not be aware of this habit, but will not let this >influence his subsequent action, and the partnership certainly has no >ways of discovering the situation. > >This habit, which may have become a partnership understanding, might be >considered an illegal system. > >A) Reading the WBF systems policy as it is, do you think this habit is >to be classed as a 'Highly Unusual Method'? > > > YES NO > > NO - No one has raised the point Herman that what you are suggesting is not a sytem at all - if your method was that you opened all 0-3s in third 1 Heart - it might be a system method which could be called a HUM - what you are proposing is a random choice either to open or not open - IMHO this is simply an ilegal agreement >B) If you could rewrite the systems policy, broadly keeping the idea of >the WBF policy, would you consider this habit a 'Highly Unusual Method'? > > > YES NO > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm > > > -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 14 03:54:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:54:21 +1000 Received: from mailhost.math.auc.dk (root@mailhost.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA18819 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:54:10 +1000 Received: from bohr.math.auc.dk (nwp@bohr.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.5]) by mailhost.math.auc.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA27241 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 19:53:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from nwp@localhost) by bohr.math.auc.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA23104; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 19:53:58 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 19:53:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710131753.TAA23104@bohr.math.auc.dk> From: Niels Wendell Pedersen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Laws '97 on WWW Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear subscriber of BLML, I've just finished (I think) the English version of The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 for WWW (with much help from David Stevenson). The URL is: http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/ Before I make it 'really public', I would appreciate having some comments/criticisms from you. What I need to know is: 1. General comments/criticisms, 2. Errors in the text, 3. Wrong / not working links, 4. Should some entries be added to the index? - as it is now, it's the same as in the printed English version published by the EBU with minor changes/additions. Please, also give a reference to the relevant Law. 5. The edition, you prefer most (see below). This probably depends on your browser, but also on your screen resolution. The 4 editions are: Edition 1: Using frames and Java Script, Edition 2: Using frames but not Java Script, Edition 3: Using Java Script, but not frames, Edition 4: Usin neither frames nor Java Script. In the frames editions you can see the edition number at the upper left corner. In the non-frames versions the edition number is on the first page of that edition. These numbers will later be removed. Also, if - in the frames editions - the left (or upper) frame takes up too much space, please move the border between this frame and the main frame. This depends on the size of the font you are using. Your answer to 5. can give me an idea of which edition should be made default (as it is now, it's edition 1). In case you have problems in navigating between the different editions, please let me know. Please do not send your comment to BLML, but to nwp@math.auc.dk. Thank you. Niels PS. I would also appreciate having linguistic errors pointet out. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 14 05:28:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:28:16 +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 FAA19092 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:27:53 +1000 Received: from default (cph62.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.62]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA15831 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:27:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710131927.VAA15831@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:27:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: dummy revokes (was splinters) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 20:08:00 -0700 > From: B A Small > Reply-to: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: dummy revokes (was splinters) > Hi All > > I'm relatively new to this group and to directing in general. I'm sorry > if this has been discussed before (as I'm sure it has) but it has come > up several tomes at our club recently with some heated debate. > What about the situation where a card is stuck behind another (in Dummy) > and nobody notices until that card is played (yes it does happen perhaps > not at high level tournaments but amongst club players). The hidden card > is of a suit that has been played and it is an established revoke. Is > there penalty and if so under what laws? No penalty (L64B3). > If not how is equity restored > if necessary? Dummy has committed an infraction (of L41D). It is not punishable as such (since L41D prescribes procedure without the use of modal verbs like "must" or "shall"). If the defenders are damaged by this infraction, equity is restored by means of L12A1. Always nice to make new friends; don't worry about boring us with a simple old straightforward ruling. We never know which of these become the source of new debate and sometimes even new knowledge. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 14 07:44:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 07:44:06 +1000 Received: from mimas.glo.be (dns.glo.be [206.48.177.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA19444 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 07:44:00 +1000 Received: from phobos.glo.be (phobos.glo.be [206.48.176.11]) by mimas.glo.be (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA32604 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:43:53 +0200 Received: from gi31451 (p9-24.z03.glo.be [206.48.176.56]) by phobos.glo.be (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA28757 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:43:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710132143.XAA28757@phobos.glo.be> From: "Fornoville Norbert" To: Subject: Re: dummy revokes (was splinters) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:38:57 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1132 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Jens & Bodil > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > I'm relatively new to this group and to directing in general. I'm sorry > > if this has been discussed before (as I'm sure it has) but it has come > > up several tomes at our club recently with some heated debate. > > What about the situation where a card is stuck behind another (in Dummy) > > and nobody notices until that card is played (yes it does happen perhaps > > not at high level tournaments but amongst club players). The hidden card > > is of a suit that has been played and it is an established revoke. Is > > there penalty and if so under what laws? > > No penalty (L64B3). > Someone told me my views on this one are ridiculous but nevertheless ... Can you apply Law 64B3 ? This law clearly deals with revoking with cards wich are visible to all players (faced up on the table); For what concerns " belonging to an hand faced on the table" IMVHO this is not the case here. Definition of hand " the cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining portion thereofl" As a card is missing, " the hand is not faced" on the table and I should rule is as a missing card, restituted to dummy.. I should apply Law 14B3.. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 14 11:46:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:46:48 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA20130 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:46:35 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001611; 14 Oct 97 2:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 01:12:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dummy revokes (was splinters) In-Reply-To: <34419090.5222@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: >I'm relatively new to this group and to directing in general. I'm sorry >if this has been discussed before (as I'm sure it has) but it has come >up several tomes at our club recently with some heated debate. Hi Bruce. Feel free to ask whatever you want and do not worry about whether we have discussed it previously. Just plunge in! -- 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 Oct 14 11:53:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:53:18 +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 LAA20148 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:53:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0520235; 14 Oct 97 2:49 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:52:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dummy revokes (was splinters) In-Reply-To: <199710132143.XAA28757@phobos.glo.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fornoville Norbert wrote: >> > I'm relatively new to this group and to directing in general. I'm sorry >> > if this has been discussed before (as I'm sure it has) but it has come >> > up several tomes at our club recently with some heated debate. >> > What about the situation where a card is stuck behind another (in >Dummy) >> > and nobody notices until that card is played (yes it does happen >perhaps >> > not at high level tournaments but amongst club players). The hidden >card >> > is of a suit that has been played and it is an established revoke. Is >> > there penalty and if so under what laws? >> >> No penalty (L64B3). >Someone told me my views on this one are ridiculous but nevertheless ... >Can you apply Law 64B3 ? >This law clearly deals with revoking with cards wich are visible to all >players (faced up on the table); >For what concerns " belonging to an hand faced on the table" IMVHO this is >not the case here. >Definition of hand " the cards originally dealt to a player, or the >remaining portion thereofl" >As a card is missing, " the hand is not faced" on the table and I should >rule is as a missing card, restituted to dummy.. >I should apply Law 14B3.. You have only quoted part of the law. If you look at the actual wording ... Law 64 - Procedure after Establishment of a Revoke B. No Penalty Assessed The penalty for an established revoke does not apply: 3. Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand. ... it does not say the card has to be faced on the table: it is enough that it is belonging to a hand faced on the table, and if that is not clear, it goes on to say that this includes dummy's hand. It is a card belonging to a hand faced on the table, whether it is visible or not, and so is covered by this law. -- 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 Oct 14 21:39:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:39:41 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA21449 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:39:30 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-81.innet.be [194.7.10.81]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29511 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:39:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <344362C8.DBDF1A99@innet.be> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:17:12 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Laws '97 on WWW X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199710131753.TAA23104@bohr.math.auc.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > PS. I would also appreciate having linguistic errors pointet out. ^^^d like that one ? Sorry - it's not good netiquette to point to typographical errors, but I just couldn't resist -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 14 21:39:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:39:40 +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 VAA21448 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:39:30 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-81.innet.be [194.7.10.81]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29496 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:39:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3443624B.4786912@innet.be> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:15:07 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: dummy revokes (was splinters) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199710132143.XAA28757@phobos.glo.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fornoville Norbert wrote: > > ---------- > > Someone told me my views on this one are ridiculous but nevertheless ... Who dared say such a thing ? > Can you apply Law 64B3 ? > This law clearly deals with revoking with cards wich are visible to all > players (faced up on the table); > For what concerns " belonging to an hand faced on the table" IMVHO this is > not the case here. > Definition of hand " the cards originally dealt to a player, or the > remaining portion thereofl" > As a card is missing, " the hand is not faced" on the table and I should > rule is as a missing card, restituted to dummy.. > I should apply Law 14B3.. You are partly correct Norbert, you will certainly apply 14B3 but it does not end there. 14B3 directs you back to revoke, which you then read and come again to 64B3, no penalty. And again we arrive at 64C! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 14 22:55:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:55:46 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA21691 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:55:40 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp12.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.12]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA03736 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971014085556.006cf898@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:55:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971010122433.3f9f6552@ime.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:21 PM 10/10/97 -0400, Tim wrote: >At 10:27 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>Come on, Tim. "The way it was written" is obviously ambiguous, and what we >>do here at BLML is to try to figure out what ambiguously written wordings >>mean. > >If what you say it true (about elisions and parentheticals) why would you >say that what is written is "obviously ambiguous?" Well, when I first read it, I didn't think it was ambiguous at all. What is obvious, however, is that if we here on BLML don't agree on its meaning, then it must be ambiguously written, however clear I may have thought it to be on first reading. 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 Oct 14 23:39:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:39:12 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA21814 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:39:06 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp12.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.12]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA05803 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971014093923.006d1c9c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:39:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Dummy answers In-Reply-To: <343D555F.47B0@lightspeed.net> References: <3.0.1.32.19971010094859.006d48f0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:06 PM 10/9/97 -0700, John wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> At 01:22 AM 10/9/97 +0100, David wrote: >> >> Before leading, I ask client "What is the 4D bid?" Now, to almost any >> >> good player, 4D HAS to show spades. But suppose that before Client >> >> can say anything, Pro says "We have no agreement" before their partner >> >> can start to say something like "Well, we've never discussed it, but I >> >> don't think he'd bid unless he could stand to hear me bid spades >> >> again." If indeed that is the truth, he's not obligated to say that >> >> much, but the pro is trying to make sure he doesn't. >> >> >> >> What do you think? >> >> The pro responded to a question which was properly and appropriately >> addressed to his partner, not to him. He is out of line. Depending on >> circumstances, his action may warrant a PP. He has violated L74B2, and >> possibly L73B1 as well. > >I disagree. This comment by the pro meets no standard of "gratuitous" >that I know. The pro is attempting to prevent a procedural violation by >client. The client's proposed answer is not based on any agreement, nor >(it seems) on any previous play with the pro. Therefore, the answer is >inappropriate. > >I think the pro has an affirmative duty to stop an answer which may not >be proper, when the pro knows the correct answer. When asked about a bid about which one's partnership has no agreement, it is ethical and proper to elaborate upon "no agreement" by offering full disclosure of any other agreements or practices that may be relevant to the interpretation of the particular bid about which one has no explicit agreement. To do so is anything but a "procedural violation". In this case, there is no reason whatsoever why the partner of the player who is obligated to respond to the question should be allowed to substitute his judgment about what may constitute relevant disclosure for his partner's. Put more simply, it may not be required for a player to add additional commentary to his response to a question about a call, but it is hardly a violation to do so. In effect, the pro was clearly trying to prevent his partner from being actively ethical by offering a "fuller" disclosure of his bidding methods than the letter of the law might strictly require. His response was equivalent to "you don't have to tell them that if you don't want to, and it might help them, so keep your mouth shut." Moreover, the pro had no reason to anticipate ANY particular answer from his partner, appropriate or not, nor any justification for trying to foist on the table his own (presumably narrower than his partner's) view of what consitutes a minimally appropriate response to a request for disclosure. I see nothing whatsoever in this situation to which an "[attempt] to prevent a procedural vioation" is at all applicable. 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 Oct 15 01:10:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:10:34 +1000 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA24407 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:10:22 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp12.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.12]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id LAA07010 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971014111040.006d69e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:10:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Accomodations at St Louis Nationals In-Reply-To: <3441851E.E125824C@InfoAve.Net> References: <343AC796.990FB15A@InfoAve.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:19 PM 10/12/97 -0700, LJHALL wrote: > >> TO: All bridge afficados >> >> If you are considerig the possibilities of playing any in St. Louis, >> but >> think that the Adam's Mark is to expensive for your tastes, you may >> want >> to check following via Bridge Pro Travel >> >> http://web.wt/bridgepro/welcome.htm >> >> Judi@wt.net or 1-800-925-1895 >> >> Accomodations are next to site at Holiday Inn Riverfront >> >> large accomodations and all have kitchens >> >> ALL FOR $69 PER NIGHT >> >> > >Understand now that all rooms are KING Size or contain TWO Double Beds >and that Rollways will be available, some possibly at no charge. > > >> For more info contact Juid or the Holliday Inn (1-800-525-1395) but >> mention Bridge Pro Travel >> >> Best of all Judi is an OKB subscriber! >> >> See you in St. Louis >> >> Fun-pro Until this poster arrived on the scene, BLML had been blissfully spam-free. Someone is trying to change this. This is the second message from this poster on this subject, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the laws of bridge, and is clearly commercial in intent. Since we have never had a policy regarding spamming, I suggest that, effective immediately, anyone who attempts to spam BLML shall be removed from the list and refused any participation at any time in the future. Uninvited commercial spamming is reprehensible, and should not be tolerated, even from one of our own. 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 Oct 15 05:51:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 05:51:32 +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 FAA25802 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 05:51:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1403957; 14 Oct 97 18:55 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:01:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws '97 on WWW In-Reply-To: <344362C8.DBDF1A99@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >> PS. I would also appreciate having linguistic errors pointet out. > ^^^d >like that one ? > >Sorry - it's not good netiquette to point to typographical errors, but I >just couldn't resist > *I* resisted Herman - but I was sorely tempted! -- 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 Oct 15 14:56:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:56:44 +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 OAA27228 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:54:57 +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 HAA00418; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:53:50 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199710150453.HAA00418@adm.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Cc: Subject: Law 69 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:50:43 +0300 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 This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. Last round of elimination W plays 4NT after N opened 1h xx AKQxxx AQx x Jxx AQx Q109xx Kxx N sx *sA sx sx E *sK sx sx sx E cx cx cQ *cA N cx cx cJ* cx At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: "Just made even without diamond finess". Both sides put their card into the board and write to scoresheets 630 for EW. After the end of the match NS side find out that declaer had only 9 tricks at the moment of claim. They called for TD. What is your ruling ? (If it is interesting dK is onside, so finess in diamonds works.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 15 17:29:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:29:04 +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 RAA27545 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:28:53 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA15732; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma015654; Wed, 15 Oct 97 01:06:36 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA20115 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710150729.AAA20115@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 15 Oct 97 08:23:37 GMT Subject: Re: Law 69 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can we see the remaining hands, the spot cards and the auction please? Assuming the withdrawal of the acquiescence took place within the L79C time limit, the question of what is "normal play" (L69B) will arise. The EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws, at 69.7, goes as far as to suggest that unless the TD can hear both sides, "or if doubts remain in his mind as to the facts, he can only let the score stand". What facts did the TD find, and from what questions? >This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. > >Last round of elimination >W plays 4NT after N opened 1h > >xx AKQxxx >AQx x >Jxx AQx >Q109xx Kxx > >N sx *sA sx sx >E *sK sx sx sx >E cx cx cQ *cA >N cx cx cJ* cx > >At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: >"Just made even without diamond finess". >Both sides put their card into the board and write to scoresheets 630 for >EW. > >After the end of the match NS side find out that declaer had only 9 tricks >at the moment of claim. >They called for TD. > >What is your ruling ? (If it is interesting dK is onside, so finess in >diamonds works.) Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 16 03:08:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 03:08:46 +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 DAA01616 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 03:07:27 +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 NAA13049; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710151707.NAA16856@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: sergei.litvak@writeme.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, coval@saturn.silk.org In-reply-to: <199710150453.HAA00418@adm.sci-nnov.ru> (sergei.litvak@writeme.com) Subject: Re: Law 69 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. > Last round of elimination > W plays 4NT after N opened 1h > xx AKQxxx > AQx x > Jxx AQx > Q109xx Kxx > N sx *sA sx sx > E *sK sx sx sx > E cx cx cQ *cA > N cx cx cJ* cx > At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: > "Just made even without diamond finess". > Both sides put their card into the board and write to scoresheets 630 for > EW. > After the end of the match NS side find out that declaer had only 9 tricks > at the moment of claim. > They called for TD. Is there a normal line of play consistent with declarer's statement on which he makes ten tricks? I would have to see South's hand. If a heart return by South is the only normal return, then declarer has said he will decline the diamond finesse and must clearly decline the heart finesse as well, so he runs his nine tricks and North gets his two red kings. In that case, I would adjust the score, and I think this is the likely ruling. If a club or spade return would be normal for South, then declarer might take 11 tricks by running the clubs, so the claim of ten tricks stands. -- 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 Oct 16 09:30:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:30:12 +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 JAA03330 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:30:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id ab1401255; 15 Oct 97 23:55 BST Message-ID: <0one+DBXgUR0Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 23:47:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bbbrrrrrrrooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!!!!!! The score so far: >A) Reading the WBF systems policy as it is, do you think this habit is >to be classed as a 'Highly Unusual Method'? >B) If you could rewrite the systems policy, broadly keeping the idea of >the WBF policy, would you consider this habit a 'Highly Unusual Method'? A] No B] No 6 votes A] Yes B] Yes 3 votes A] Abstain B] No 1 vote A] Yes B] No 1 vote -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= Polling @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) officers =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 16 13:48:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:48:58 +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 NAA04017 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:48:44 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:46:43 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Law 69 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 07:50:00 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---- From: David Grabiner Subject: Re: Law 69 >You write: > >> This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. > >> Last round of elimination >> W plays 4NT after N opened 1h > >> xx AKQxxx >> AQx x >> Jxx AQx >> Q109xx Kxx > >> N sx *sA sx sx >> E *sK sx sx sx >> E cx cx cQ *cA >> N cx cx cJ* cx > >> At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: >> "Just made even without diamond finess". >> Both sides put their card into the board and write to scoresheets 630 for >> EW. > >> After the end of the match NS side find out that declaer had only 9 tricks >> at the moment of claim. >> They called for TD. > >Is there a normal line of play consistent with declarer's statement on >which he makes ten tricks? I would have to see South's hand. If a >heart return by South is the only normal return, then declarer has said >he will decline the diamond finesse and must clearly decline the heart >finesse as well, so he runs his nine tricks and North gets his two red >kings. In that case, I would adjust the score, and I think this is the >likely ruling. After heart return declarer will play Q, N will get this trick and return to heart. So declarer will unblock by cK and will make +630. This is normal play, IMO. > >If a club or spade return would be normal for South, then declarer might >take 11 tricks by running the clubs, so the claim of ten tricks stands. > >-- >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 Oct 16 21:58:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:58:47 +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 VAA04819 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:58:38 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-49.star.net.il [195.8.208.49]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10650; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:57:45 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34460180.7A863444@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:58:56 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Litvak CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, coval@saturn.silk.org Subject: Re: Law 69 References: <199710150453.HAA00418@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by borg.star.net.il id NAA10650 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello=A0=A0 Serghey The case is very simple for the TD=A0 , difficult for AC -=A0 ah ??? Background : 1) By law 69B -...."but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick = his side actually won " (my remark : the defenders in this kind of troubles ) "or in the loss of=A0 trick that could not , in the TD' judgment , be los= t by any normal play of the remaining cards ....." (my remark : both declar= er and defenders in this kind of trouble ). 2) Remember the footnote for Laws 69-71 (...."careless or inferior ...."). TD=A0 decision and reasons : 1) Score stands ! 2) Even if South outstanding=A0 return is Heart (98.97% obvious for playe= rs' level "minus 2" !!) the fact is he acquiesced !!! So=A0 he could play careless... AC=A0 problems : A. "wondering about..." 1) No doubt : there can't be any finesse . 2) Advantage for declarer : South can play careless (1st preference) a black suit (or as a mistaken judgment - 2nd preference ..) 3) Advantage for Defenders : Even if South played a spade , Declarer already showed he doesn't know to play safety - he didn't cash K Cl=A0 - which gives him 11 tricks at least ( 6Sp+1H + 1D +3Cl ) , so he may play again careless and stacked in dummy , loosing 2 red Kings. B. " THE PROBLEM "=A0 in my opinion : "What was first Egg or Chicken ? " C. If I should be=A0 the furniture ... I mean Chair (man) of the appeal committee , would be guided by the fact that defenders made first "careless" play or acquiescence - SCORE STANDS. But as I say every time : 3 experts fight for 7 "no doubt " opinions. Your friend Dany Sergei Litvak wrote: > This problem arised at MIXT teams National=A0 in Russia. > > Last round of elimination > W plays 4NT after N opened 1h > > xx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AKQxxx > AQx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 x > Jxx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AQx > Q109xx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Kxx > > N sx *sA sx sx > E *sK sx sx sx > E cx cx cQ *cA > N cx cx cJ* cx > > At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: > "Just made even without diamond finess". > Both sides put their card into the board and write to scoresheets 630 f= or > EW. > > After the end of the match NS side find out that declaer had only 9 tri= cks > at the moment of claim. > They called for TD. > > What is your ruling ? (If it is interesting dK is onside, so finess in > diamonds works.) =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 16 23:41:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:41:39 +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 XAA05195 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:41:33 +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 JAA13494; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:41:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710161341.JAA02820@goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: gerasimov@sapr.gaz.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (gerasimov@sapr.gaz.ru) Subject: Re: Law 69 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > ---- > From: David Grabiner > Subject: Re: Law 69 >> You write: >> >>> This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. >> >>> Last round of elimination >>> W plays 4NT after N opened 1h >>> xx AKQxxx >>> AQx x >>> Jxx AQx >>> Q109xx Kxx >>> N sx *sA sx sx >>> E *sK sx sx sx >>> E cx cx cQ *cA >>> N cx cx cJ* cx >>> At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: >>> "Just made even without diamond finess". >> Is there a normal line of play consistent with declarer's statement on >> which he makes ten tricks? I would have to see South's hand. If a >> heart return by South is the only normal return, then declarer has said >> he will decline the diamond finesse and must clearly decline the heart >> finesse as well, so he runs his nine tricks and North gets his two red >> kings. In that case, I would adjust the score, and I think this is the >> likely ruling. > After heart return declarer will play Q, N will get this trick and return to > heart. So declarer will unblock by cK and will make +630. This is normal > play, IMO. I don't think this is consistent with declarer's statement. If declarer loses the heart finesse and North returns a black suit, declarer is locked in dummy and cannot directly cash the nine tricks he intended to take. (He can get them by leading DA and DQ as long as he hasn't already thrown a diamond on the black suits, but this play was not included in his statement.) -- 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 Oct 17 02:25:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:25:28 +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 CAA08249 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:25:20 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23557; 16 Oct 97 9:24 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Law 69 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:41:16 PDT." <199710161341.JAA02820@goldschlager.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:24:42 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710160924.aa23557@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >> You write: > >> > >>> This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. > >> > >>> Last round of elimination > >>> W plays 4NT after N opened 1h > > >>> xx AKQxxx > >>> AQx x > >>> Jxx AQx > >>> Q109xx Kxx > > >>> N sx *sA sx sx > >>> E *sK sx sx sx > >>> E cx cx cQ *cA > >>> N cx cx cJ* cx > > >>> At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: > >>> "Just made even without diamond finess". > > >> Is there a normal line of play consistent with declarer's statement on > >> which he makes ten tricks? . . . > > After heart return declarer will play Q, N will get this trick and return to > > heart. So declarer will unblock by cK and will make +630. This is normal > > play, IMO. > > I don't think this is consistent with declarer's statement. If declarer > loses the heart finesse and North returns a black suit, declarer is > locked in dummy and cannot directly cash the nine tricks he intended to > take. (He can get them by leading DA and DQ as long as he hasn't already > thrown a diamond on the black suits, but this play was not included in > his statement.) If he does this, the DK is the setting trick. (The defense has already taken two clubs and a heart.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 17 03:21:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:21:19 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08673 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:21:11 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA11390; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:20:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.45) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009012; Thu Oct 16 12:01:08 1997 Received: by har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCDA33.17A35A60@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:57:43 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCDA33.17A35A60@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com> From: rts48u To: "gerasimov@sapr.gaz.ru" , "'David Grabiner'" Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Law 69 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:57:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk One aspect of this hand I have not seen addressed is whether on a heart = lead, declarer's FAILURE to finesse (takes ace) would be merely careless = or inferior or if it would be irrational. It would appear from the = wording of the claim that declarer may not have noticed that the clubs = are blocked...he certainly could have worded the claim with greater = clarity. Can the same sort of "carelessness" let him eschew the heart = finesse, thinking {to use the word loosely :-)} that his tricks are = running? ---------- From: David Grabiner[SMTP:grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 1997 5:41 AM To: gerasimov@sapr.gaz.ru Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 69 You write: > ---- > From: David Grabiner > Subject: Re: Law 69 >> You write: >>=20 >>> This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. >>=20 >>> Last round of elimination >>> W plays 4NT after N opened 1h >>> xx AKQxxx >>> AQx x >>> Jxx AQx >>> Q109xx Kxx >>> N sx *sA sx sx >>> E *sK sx sx sx >>> E cx cx cQ *cA >>> N cx cx cJ* cx >>> At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: >>> "Just made even without diamond finess". >> Is there a normal line of play consistent with declarer's statement = on >> which he makes ten tricks? I would have to see South's hand. If a >> heart return by South is the only normal return, then declarer has = said >> he will decline the diamond finesse and must clearly decline the = heart >> finesse as well, so he runs his nine tricks and North gets his two = red >> kings. In that case, I would adjust the score, and I think this is = the >> likely ruling. > After heart return declarer will play Q, N will get this trick and = return to > heart. So declarer will unblock by cK and will make +630. This is = normal > play, IMO. I don't think this is consistent with declarer's statement. If declarer loses the heart finesse and North returns a black suit, declarer is locked in dummy and cannot directly cash the nine tricks he intended to take. (He can get them by leading DA and DQ as long as he hasn't = already thrown a diamond on the black suits, but this play was not included in his statement.) --=20 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 Oct 17 03:23:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:23:04 +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 DAA08698 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:22:53 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-6.star.net.il [195.8.208.6]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06401; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:21:08 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34464D7E.94DB50D2@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:23:10 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Dummy answers References: <3.0.1.32.19971010094859.006d48f0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19971014093923.006d1c9c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id TAA06401 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good evening Eric I don't think that a Pro should be treated better or worse that any other= player =2E One thing is to be considered to=A0 his "disadvantage" : he knows the rul= es better than most of the players - accordingly a TD should be more severe with a Pro 's violation of laws . An answer given to TD by a player not inquired is A PRIORI an "ugly" ( must find a better definition ) violation of proprieties Law 74 = and UI by Law 16 . >From the other point of view I agree not to SHOT=A0 the Pro "on the SPOT"= , maybe nothing=A0 hurts the opponents , but still keeping him as a violato= r a priori. =A0 I didn't change my mind since my first answer to this subject and in Isra= el I am known as a 101% non-compromising TD in this domain - most of Pros here even thanked me - a posteriori..... Dany =A0 =A0 Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:06 PM 10/9/97 -0700, John wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > >> At 01:22 AM 10/9/97 +0100, David wrote: > > >> >> Before leading, I ask client "What is the 4D bid?"=A0 Now, to alm= ost any > >> >> good player, 4D HAS to show spades.=A0 But suppose that before Cl= ient > >> >> can say anything, Pro says "We have no agreement" before their pa= rtner > >> >> can start to say something like "Well, we've never discussed it, = but I > >> >> don't think he'd bid unless he could stand to hear me bid spades > >> >> again."=A0 If indeed that is the truth, he's not obligated to say= that > >> >> much, but the pro is trying to make sure he doesn't. > >> >> > >> >> What do you think? > >> > >> The pro responded to a question which was properly and appropriately > >> addressed to his partner, not to him.=A0 He is out of line.=A0 Depen= ding on > >> circumstances, his action may warrant a PP.=A0 He has violated L74B2= , and > >> possibly L73B1 as well. > > > >I disagree. This comment by the pro meets no standard of "gratuitous" > >that I know. The pro is attempting to prevent a procedural violation b= y > >client. The client's proposed answer is not based on any agreement, no= r > >(it seems) on any previous play with the pro. Therefore, the answer is > >inappropriate. > > > >I think the pro has an affirmative duty to stop an answer which may no= t > >be proper, when the pro knows the correct answer. > > When asked about a bid about which one's partnership has no agreement, = it > is ethical and proper to elaborate upon "no agreement" by offering full > disclosure of any other agreements or practices that may be relevant to= the > interpretation of the particular bid about which one has no explicit > agreement.=A0 To do so is anything but a "procedural violation".=A0 In = this > case, there is no reason whatsoever why the partner of the player who i= s > obligated to respond to the question should be allowed to substitute hi= s > judgment about what may constitute relevant disclosure for his partner'= s. > > Put more simply, it may not be required for a player to add additional > commentary to his response to a question about a call, but it is hardly= a > violation to do so.=A0 In effect, the pro was clearly trying to prevent= his > partner from being actively ethical by offering a "fuller" disclosure o= f > his bidding methods than the letter of the law might strictly require.=A0= His > response was equivalent to "you don't have to tell them that if you don= 't > want to, and it might help them, so keep your mouth shut."=A0 Moreover,= the > pro had no reason to anticipate ANY particular answer from his partner, > appropriate or not, nor any justification for trying to foist on the ta= ble > his own (presumably narrower than his partner's) view of what consitute= s a > minimally appropriate response to a request for disclosure.=A0 I see no= thing > whatsoever in this situation to which an "[attempt] to prevent a proced= ural > vioation" is at all applicable. > > Eric Landau=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc.=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (301) 5= 89-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607=A0=A0=A0=A0 Fax (301) 589-4618 =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 17 03:23:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:23:54 +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 DAA08714 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:23:40 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-6.star.net.il [195.8.208.6]) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06409; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:22:21 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34464DC7.69A8AB2D@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:24:23 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Splinters References: <4qt9edBArmO0Ewco@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id TAA06409 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read a lot of answers since this "incident" published and I wrote my first simple reaction........ I try to conclude my detailed opinion to this EXACT case : 1. There was a Law violation ( Law 41D)=A0 by Dummy. 2. There were not any violations : ----a) The bid was wrong , but nothing illegal . ----b) No revoke problems , because the defender switched ( maybe there could happen a later play of the H as a D - it wasn't told but still not relevant to the described disaster's "core" ) . 3. The defender didn't inspect the dummy after the opening lead - he is "co-producer" of the accident . If no other important/meaningful information was obtained after the investigation of this "David's chef d'oevre " my decision should be 1) split score: 6S made for defenders. 1 down for declarer 2) refer the matter to AC myself (Law 83 - 97 version ) Dany =A0 David Stevenson wrote: > =A0 1S by RHO, 4H splinter [singleton or void + spade support] by LHO, = 6S > by RHO.=A0 You lead the heart ace [from ace-king] and dummy is 4=3D1=3D= 4=3D4. > You switch to a trump and 6S makes. > > =A0 *But* one of dummy's small diamonds is a heart and you could have > cashed a second heart! > > -- > David Stevenson=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Bridge=A0=A0 Cat= s=A0=A0 Railways=A0=A0 Logic=A0=A0=A0 /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 http://www.blakjak.demon.co= .uk=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk=A0=A0 Emails welcome=A0=A0=A0 bluejak on OKB= =A0=A0 =3D( + )=3D > Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412=A0=A0=A0=A0 Phone before Fax please=A0=A0=A0 R= TFLB=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ~ =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 17 04:46:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 04:46:55 +1000 Received: from E-MAIL.COM (e-mail.com [204.146.168.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA09071 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 04:46:49 +1000 From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Message-Id: <199710161846.EAA09071@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 5438; Thu, 16 Oct 97 14:46:42 EDT Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:46:32 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: unreadable BLML contributions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although I usually do not contribute to discussions in BLML, and restrict myself to reading the mails, I hope this plea for compassion will not go unnoticed. Some BLML contributors dispatch their mails in such a way that those mails reach me in an unreadable format, like the one quoted below. Would you please, from now on, send your mails in such a way that I can read them too ? Thanks, Jac Fuchs =============================================================================== Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:23:10 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Dummy answers This mail item was sent in SMTP/MIME format, and may have contained encoded binary body parts. Any such body parts have been extracted and sent to you as individual items. << Extracted and sent as PART0001 PLAINBIN A5 >> ---- End of mail text Additional SMTP headers from original mail item follow: Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Thu, 16 Oct 97 14:15:21 EDT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA0 8703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:23:04 +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 DAA08698 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:22:53 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-6.star.net.il {195.8.208.6}) by apm12.star.net.il. (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA06401; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:21:08 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34464D7E.94DB50D2@star.net.il> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 {en} (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3.0.1.32.19971010094859.006d48f0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.199710140 93923.006d1c9c@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il. id TA A06401 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 17 06:46:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:46:03 +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 GAA09441 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 06:45:58 +1000 Received: from default (client8276.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.118]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA27885; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:51:53 +0100 Message-Id: <199710162051.VAA27885@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Law 69 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:35:29 +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 : Author's comment: we were concerned that Directors should not easily accept as fact what they hear from only one of the parties; we believe that the opponents ought to have their opportunity to comment. Even some of the most obvious 'facts' can sometimes take an unexpected turn when you hear them from the other angle. I pass no comment on this particular case. > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 69 > Date: 15 October 1997 09:2> \\snip// > The EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws, at 69.7, goes as far as to suggest that > unless the TD can hear both sides, "or if doubts remain in his mind as to the > facts, he can only let the score stand". What facts did the TD find, and from > what questions?> > > \\snip// >> >> > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 17 16:38:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA11062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:38:55 +1000 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA11057 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:37:26 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.70.58]) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id JAA24644 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:33:23 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199710170633.JAA24644@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Law69 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:30:12 +0300 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 The problem is known and so I don't repeat hand. We are looking at the "normal play" by defenders. But should we take into account claimer line of play? I didn't find anything about it in Law69. And should it be the different ruling if declarer simlpy claims for ten tricks without any additional statement about diamonds? What is lawmakers' opinion? Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 17 17:53:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:53:49 +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 RAA11204 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:53:37 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA29618; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:32:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma029565; Fri, 17 Oct 97 01:31:41 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA10843 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710170754.AAA10843@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 17 Oct 97 08:45:07 GMT Subject: Re: Law69 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvack said: >We are looking at the "normal play" by defenders. But should we take into >account claimer line of play? I didn't find anything about it in Law69. I agree with the doubts expressed. L69B requires consideration of "normal play", and does not appear to require adherence to L70's rules. FWITW I think one might infer something about declarer's intention from the statement of claim (perhaps not in this case, since it didn't really convey any useful information). Apart from that it is just "normal play". >And >should it be the different ruling if declarer simlpy claims for ten tricks >without any additional statement about diamonds? To be honest I didn't think the statement about diamonds added very much, so I think the position is the same. >What is lawmakers' opinion? You may have to wait a bit for that, since I suspect most of them have now gone to Hammammet. PS. I see you aren't giving away the full hand! Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 18 04:06:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 04:06:37 +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 EAA15672 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 04:06:26 +1000 Received: from s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru (foxy.p2p [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id WAA07208; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:01:18 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199710171801.WAA07208@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: , Subject: Re: Law69 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:29:31 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Sergei Litvack said: > > >We are looking at the "normal play" by defenders. But should we take into > >account claimer line of play? I didn't find anything about it in Law69. > > I agree with the doubts expressed. L69B requires consideration of "normal > play", and does not appear to require adherence to L70's rules. FWITW I think > one might infer something about declarer's intention from the statement of > claim (perhaps not in this case, since it didn't really convey any useful > information). Apart from that it is just "normal play". > > >And > >should it be the different ruling if declarer simlpy claims for ten tricks > >without any additional statement about diamonds? > > To be honest I didn't think the statement about diamonds added very much, so I > think the position is the same. > > >What is lawmakers' opinion? > > You may have to wait a bit for that, since I suspect most of them have now gone > to Hammammet. > > PS. I see you aren't giving away the full hand! For your request: Board 4 s 8x W, all h KJ98x d Kxx c A8x s 10x s AKQxxx h AQx h x d J10x d AQx c K109xx c Qxx s Jxx h 10xxx d xxxx c Jx Bidding: N E S W pass 1h double pass 3NT pass 4NT pass pass pass > Steve Barnfield > Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 18 12:12:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:12:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA16958 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:11:59 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013932; 18 Oct 97 3:07 BST Message-ID: <2FGUDKAh1$R0Ew2F@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 01:05:53 +0100 To: Sergei Litvak Cc: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Law69 In-Reply-To: <199710171801.WAA07208@adm.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199710171801.WAA07208@adm.sci-nnov.ru>, Sergei Litvak writes >> Sergei Litvack said: >> >> >We are looking at the "normal play" by defenders. But should we take >into >> >account claimer line of play? I didn't find anything about it in Law69. >> >> I agree with the doubts expressed. L69B requires consideration of >"normal >> play", and does not appear to require adherence to L70's rules. FWITW I >think >> one might infer something about declarer's intention from the statement >of >> claim (perhaps not in this case, since it didn't really convey any useful > >> information). Apart from that it is just "normal play". >> >> >And >> >should it be the different ruling if declarer simlpy claims for ten >tricks >> >without any additional statement about diamonds? >> >> To be honest I didn't think the statement about diamonds added very much, >so I >> think the position is the same. >> >> >What is lawmakers' opinion? >> >> You may have to wait a bit for that, since I suspect most of them have >now gone >> to Hammammet. >> >> PS. I see you aren't giving away the full hand! >For your request: > Board 4 s 8x > W, all h KJ98x > d Kxx > c A8x > s 10x s AKQxxx > h AQx h x > d J10x d AQx > c K109xx c Qxx > s Jxx > h 10xxx > d xxxx > c Jx > >Bidding: > N E S W > pass > 1h double pass 3NT > pass 4NT pass pass > pass > >> Steve Barnfield >> Tunbridge Wells, England Am I missing something here? doesn't the heart return to the K and third club from North defeat the contract? I'd be ruling down 1. Declarer makes 6S, 1C, 2D, but the oppo already have 2C, 1H and the KD to come. Declarer's already butchered the club suit. Surely you don't expect him to rise with the A of Hearts and hook the Diamond. If he's careless he won't. -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 00:46:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:46:39 +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 AAA25857 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:46:30 +1000 Received: from default (cph39.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.39]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA11926 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 16:46:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710191446.QAA11926@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 16:46:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a recent thread, the sequence below was discussed: W: (1NT) - N: pass - E: (2D!) - S: ? pass with 2D artificial, transfer to hearts, and a question before the pass. The question is, of course, UI, and as such limits North's actions. In the thread, it seemed to be widely accepted that South's question and subsequent pass suggests a good holding in diamonds. I don't think so. Good bridge players would be likely to have the agreement that over 2D (transfer), double is lead-directing and 2H is for take-out. They might also have the agreement that over 2D (artificial, say two-way Stayman), double is lead-directing and 2H is natural. With agreements like this, if S were holding good diamonds, asked his question, and got this answer, he would most likely have doubled. The UI therefore seems to indicate that he does not hold good diamonds. Rather, it seems indicated that he holds a heart suit, or possibly a three-suited hand which is short in diamonds. Still, the typical contributor to BLML seemed willing to accept that the question and pass indicated a diamond suit. I wonder why. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 05:59:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 05:59:04 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA27305 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 05:58:57 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009620; 19 Oct 97 20:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:37:37 +0100 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass In-Reply-To: <199710191446.QAA11926@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199710191446.QAA11926@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >In a recent thread, the sequence below was discussed: > > W: (1NT) - N: pass - E: (2D!) - S: ? pass > >with 2D artificial, transfer to hearts, and a question before the >pass. > >The question is, of course, UI, and as such limits North's actions. >In the thread, it seemed to be widely accepted that South's question >and subsequent pass suggests a good holding in diamonds. I don't >think so. > >Good bridge players would be likely to have the agreement that over >2D (transfer), double is lead-directing and 2H is for take-out. They >might also have the agreement that over 2D (artificial, say two-way >Stayman), double is lead-directing and 2H is natural. > >With agreements like this, if S were holding good diamonds, asked his >question, and got this answer, he would most likely have doubled. The >UI therefore seems to indicate that he does not hold good diamonds. >Rather, it seems indicated that he holds a heart suit, or possibly a >three-suited hand which is short in diamonds. > >Still, the typical contributor to BLML seemed willing to accept that >the question and pass indicated a diamond suit. I wonder why. there is UI in that S would have bid ove one of the possible meanings of 2D. David Burn recently gave a similar example of 1M - 4m ? where the possible meanings of 4m are legion. You clearly need to ask, whenever you would call over one of the likely meanings; and as a director I would be sympathetic to advancer's dilemma regarding the UI. No doubt David S would disagree but I feel that you need to protect players from the proliferation of conventional responses which cause problems for the other side otherwise you are giving unfair advantage to the scientists. -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 08:14:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:14:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA27608 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:13:56 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023558; 19 Oct 97 23:00 BST Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:13:51 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Re: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass To: Jens & Bodil Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <199710191446.QAA11926@isa.dknet.dk> 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 Sun 19 Oct, Jens & Bodil wrote: > In a recent thread, the sequence below was discussed: > > W: (1NT) - N: pass - E: (2D!) - S: ? pass > > with 2D artificial, transfer to hearts, and a question before the > pass. > > The question is, of course, UI, and as such limits North's actions. > In the thread, it seemed to be widely accepted that South's question > and subsequent pass suggests a good holding in diamonds. I don't > think so. > > Good bridge players would be likely to have the agreement that over > 2D (transfer), double is lead-directing and 2H is for take-out. They > might also have the agreement that over 2D (artificial, say two-way > Stayman), double is lead-directing and 2H is natural. > > With agreements like this, if S were holding good diamonds, asked his > question, and got this answer, he would most likely have doubled. The > UI therefore seems to indicate that he does not hold good diamonds. > Rather, it seems indicated that he holds a heart suit, or possibly a > three-suited hand which is short in diamonds. > > Still, the typical contributor to BLML seemed willing to accept that > the question and pass indicated a diamond suit. I wonder why. As usual Jens, your logic is faultless. But where does this leave us ? You are saying that South does not have good diamonds, so in this instance where North's clubs and diamonds are equal he should not choose from logical alternatives and therefore should choose a diamond. This assumes he is not leading a heart or a spade. If this is the case then are East West entitled to an adjusted score when North leads a club ? Martin From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 09:55:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:55:16 +1000 Received: from host02.net.voyager.co.nz (root@host02.net.voyager.co.nz [203.21.30.125]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27856 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:54:57 +1000 Received: from bucks.voyager.co.nz (ts1p12.net.ashburton.voyager.co.nz [203.21.25.176]) by host02.net.voyager.co.nz (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23355 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:54:08 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:53:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Chris and Mary Buckland Subject: Difference between TD and AC rulings To: BLMLmail Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 X-Organization: Buck in Ashburton (N.Z. 03 308 3567) X-Mailer: ANT RISCOS Marcel [ver 1.09] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello everyone. I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a directing problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the AC I would rule this other way." Can someone please explain why this can happen when the TD and the AC are using the same laws. (Does it matter if you are using the 1987 or the 1997 laws? We in New Zealnd will not be using the 1997 laws until next year, and I have not seen hard copy of the new laws yet.) Maybe this is a silly question - if so, I apologise for wasting your time, but still hope to get an answer. Mary Buckland -- Buck Ashburton, New Zealand (bucks@voyager.co.nz) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 10:42:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:42:25 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28023 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:42:19 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1007081; 20 Oct 97 1:40 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 01:38:12 +0100 To: Chris and Mary Buckland Cc: BLMLmail From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Chris and Mary Buckland writes >Hello everyone. > >I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a directing >problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the AC I would >rule this other way." > >Can someone please explain why this can happen when the TD and the AC are >using the same laws. (Does it matter if you are using the 1987 or the 1997 >laws? We in New Zealnd will not be using the 1997 laws until next year, and >I have not seen hard copy of the new laws yet.) > >Maybe this is a silly question - if so, I apologise for wasting your time, >but still hope to get an answer. > >Mary Buckland > Not at all a waste of time. As a Director I frequently *will* rule in favour of the non-offending side, with various degrees of doubt. IMO the AC must make the bridge decision, after they have heard my explanation of the laws, and the reason for the ruling. Often the AC will split the score, which I can't, and sometimes I get over-ruled. I have no problem with that as my function is to rule in first instance. I will often tell an AC that I advised the offending side to appeal, where there is a question of a deposit, whenever I have some doubt or feel that a split score is the best equity. ACs seem to accept this and usually will return the deposit. I think many UK Directors do this. When I'm on an AC the problem is a "bridge" problem and my considerations *are* different. Hope this helps. David Stevenson may have some views here -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 14:16:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:16:54 +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 OAA28565 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:16:48 +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 XAA08567 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:16:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0WN6503E Sun, 19 Oct 97 23:14:12 Message-ID: <9710192314.0WN6503@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 23:14:12 Subject: (1NT) - PASS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk O>From: "Jens & Bodil" O>In a recent thread, the sequence below was discussed: O> O> W: (1NT) - N: pass - E: (2D!) - S: ? pass O> O>with 2D artificial, transfer to hearts, and a question before the O>pass. O> O>The question is, of course, UI, and as such limits North's actions. O>In the thread, it seemed to be widely accepted that South's question O>and subsequent pass suggests a good holding in diamonds. I don't O>think so. O> O>Good bridge players would be likely to have the agreement that over O>2D (transfer), double is lead-directing and 2H is for take-out. They O>might also have the agreement that over 2D (artificial, say two-way O>Stayman), double is lead-directing and 2H is natural. O> O>With agreements like this, if S were holding good diamonds, asked his O>question, and got this answer, he would most likely have doubled. The O>UI therefore seems to indicate that he does not hold good diamonds. O>Rather, it seems indicated that he holds a heart suit, or possibly a O>three-suited hand which is short in diamonds. O> O>Still, the typical contributor to BLML seemed willing to accept that O>the question and pass indicated a diamond suit. I wonder why. O>-- O>Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark May I offer an observation. The question in such an auction may suggest several things, any of several things, and/or mean nothing at all [rare]. It frequently suggests diamonds, and/or not good to lead direct/ compete. It often suggests cards, but not the distribution to initiate action. Sometimes it suggests distribution, without the cards to initiate action. Often, they have agreements that vary in meaning depending on the meaning of the auction and they do not want partner to take an action thinking the alert meant something different; or that their response means something different. They are trying to prevent a potential accident. Some ask because if you ask often enough, they receive MI and then can seek redress. Some read the laws and it says that everyone has the right to ask questions at their turn and by God, they are going to ask questions. The point here is that there is not an automatic assertion that the UI is one particular thing, as Jens asserts. However, it is partner that can often tell from his holdings [a] what it does not mean and [b] what it could mean and [c] frequently can determine [consciously or subconsciously] a safe course of action including pass [or pass when they would have taken action]. IMO when the UI could have [any of] several meanings, often partner's hand supplies the key to its meaning[s]. For instance, The question above in and of itself may not exclusively suggest good diamonds, but when partner holds a modest hand with less than 3 diamonds, the evidence is strong that he probably does have good diamonds; and when the hand is more robust, then it is likely that the diamonds are not particularly good [since there are fewer honors for the other three players], etc. R Pewick Houston, Tx r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 17:11:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA28948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:11:00 +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 RAA28943 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:10:54 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA26237 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:09:57 +0200 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:09:57 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Chris and Mary Buckland Cc: BLMLmail Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Chris and Mary Buckland wrote: > Hello everyone. > > I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a directing > problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the AC I would > rule this other way." This is Law 12C2 and 12C3. In a nutshell, 12C2 states that the director shall assign the most unfavorable result that was at all possible to to the offenders, 12C3 says that the AC may vary the adjusted score in order to achieve equity. For the details, the lawbook is at: http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/ > (Does it matter if you are using the 1987 or the 1997 > laws? No. I think 12C3 is new but the idea already existed in the 1987 laws. 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 Oct 20 17:24:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:24:15 +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 RAA28993 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:23:45 +1000 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:06:01 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Law69 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:09:32 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---- From: John (MadDog) Probst Subject: Re: Law69 // skip \\ >> Board 4 s 8x >> W, all h KJ98x >> d Kxx >> c A8x >> s 10x s AKQxxx >> h AQx h x >> d J10x d AQx >> c K109xx c Qxx >> s Jxx >> h 10xxx >> d xxxx >> c Jx >> >>Bidding: >> N E S W >> pass >> 1h double pass 3NT >> pass 4NT pass pass >> pass >> >>> Steve Barnfield >>> Tunbridge Wells, England >Am I missing something here? doesn't the heart return to the K and third >club from North defeat the contract? I'd be ruling down 1. Declarer >makes 6S, 1C, 2D, but the oppo already have 2C, 1H and the KD to come. >Declarer's already butchered the club suit. Surely you don't expect him >to rise with the A of Hearts and hook the Diamond. If he's careless he >won't. >-- Asquiescence occured now (see first message). L70 not applied, but L69 applied according to L68D. I repeat important question: We must define "any normal play" L69. But should we take into account claimer line of play? If the answer is "no", the declarer can finesse diamond. (This is my answer to this question. We would have "according to claimer's plan" in text of L69, but I isn't seen this words) If the answer is "yes", we must examine ALL plans without diamond finesse ("ANY normal play"). Why declarer cann't finesse heart now? Declarer will unblock cK after heart return (normal play undoubtely) and will record +630. IMO, the answer of previous question hasn't reason in this case. The real result must stands. We should translate all doubts against to claimer if we apply L70. Question about heart finnesse is doubts, IMO. But L70A and L69 is very different Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 21:17:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:17:08 +1000 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA29496 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:16:39 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.70.58]) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id OAA09495; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:14:56 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199710201114.OAA09495@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Re: Law69 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:15:41 +0300 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: > From: John (MadDog) Probst > Subject: Re: Law69 > > // skip \\ > > >> Board 4 s 8x > >> W, all h KJ98x > >> d Kxx > >> c A8x > >> s 10x s AKQxxx > >> h AQx h x > >> d J10x d AQx > >> c K109xx c Qxx > >> s Jxx > >> h 10xxx > >> d xxxx > >> c Jx > >> > >>Bidding: > >> N E S W > >> pass > >> 1h double pass 3NT > >> pass 4NT pass pass > >> pass > >> > >>> Steve Barnfield > >>> Tunbridge Wells, England > >Am I missing something here? doesn't the heart return to the K and third > >club from North defeat the contract? I'd be ruling down 1. Declarer > >makes 6S, 1C, 2D, but the oppo already have 2C, 1H and the KD to come. > >Declarer's already butchered the club suit. Surely you don't expect him > >to rise with the A of Hearts and hook the Diamond. If he's careless he > >won't. > >-- > > Asquiescence occured now (see first message). L70 not applied, but L69 > applied according to L68D. I repeat important question: > We must define "any normal play" L69. But should we take into account claimer > line of play? > > If the answer is "no", the declarer can finesse diamond. > (This is my answer to this question. We would have "according to claimer's > plan" in text of L69, but I isn't seen this words) > > If the answer is "yes", we must examine ALL plans without diamond finesse > ("ANY normal play"). Why declarer cann't finesse heart now? Declarer will > unblock cK after heart return (normal play undoubtely) and will record +630. > IMO, the answer of previous question hasn't reason in this case. The real > result must stands. > > > We should translate all doubts against to claimer if we apply L70. Question > about heart finnesse is doubts, IMO. But L70A and L69 is very different > Laws. And what Mr. Endicot thinks about it? It is very important here in Russia. Waiting for your answer! Sincerely yours, Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 21:29:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:29:42 +1000 Received: from hydrogen.inbe.net (root@hydrogen.inbe.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA29543 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:29:36 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-112.innet.be [194.7.10.112]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04919 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:29:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <344B48C9.D68248C3@innet.be> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:04:25 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199710191446.QAA11926@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > > In a recent thread, the sequence below was discussed: > > W: (1NT) - N: pass - E: (2D!) - S: ? pass > > with 2D artificial, transfer to hearts, and a question before the > pass. > > The question is, of course, UI, and as such limits North's actions. > In the thread, it seemed to be widely accepted that South's question > and subsequent pass suggests a good holding in diamonds. I don't > think so. > > Good bridge players would be likely to have the agreement that over > 2D (transfer), double is lead-directing and 2H is for take-out. They > might also have the agreement that over 2D (artificial, say two-way > Stayman), double is lead-directing and 2H is natural. > > With agreements like this, if S were holding good diamonds, asked his > question, and got this answer, he would most likely have doubled. The > UI therefore seems to indicate that he does not hold good diamonds. > Rather, it seems indicated that he holds a heart suit, or possibly a > three-suited hand which is short in diamonds. > > Still, the typical contributor to BLML seemed willing to accept that > the question and pass indicated a diamond suit. I wonder why. Maybe because the typical contributor would not be in the situation you are in : apparantly you are playing in tournaments where 2D! can mean one of two things, and your system makes a difference between the two. You cannot detach the question about what the UI demonstrably suggests from the situations regarding normal systems in the tournament, alert procedure and asker's system. > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 21:29:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:29:38 +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 VAA29536 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:29:31 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-112.innet.be [194.7.10.112]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04938 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:29:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <344B4A18.74BDE8DA@innet.be> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 13:10:00 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In message , Chris > and Mary Buckland writes > >Hello everyone. > > > >I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a directing > >problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the AC I would > >rule this other way." > > > >Can someone please explain why this can happen when the TD and the AC are > >using the same laws. (Does it matter if you are using the 1987 or the 1997 > >laws? We in New Zealnd will not be using the 1997 laws until next year, and > >I have not seen hard copy of the new laws yet.) > > > >Maybe this is a silly question - if so, I apologise for wasting your time, > >but still hope to get an answer. > > > >Mary Buckland > > > Not at all a waste of time. Certainly not, Mary ! > As a Director I frequently *will* rule in > favour of the non-offending side, with various degrees of doubt. IMO the > AC must make the bridge decision, after they have heard my explanation > of the laws, and the reason for the ruling. Often the AC will split the > score, which I can't, That is one good point, John, but the only one. > and sometimes I get over-ruled. I have no problem > with that as my function is to rule in first instance. I will often tell > an AC that I advised the offending side to appeal, where there is a > question of a deposit, whenever I have some doubt or feel that a split > score is the best equity. ACs seem to accept this and usually will > return the deposit. I think many UK Directors do this. > When I'm on an AC the problem is a "bridge" problem and my > considerations *are* different. Hope this helps. > David Stevenson may have some views here I agree with the fact that you may sometimes feel unsure about a bridge decision, and will tell one or other side that they have a good reason to appeal. In the 1997 Laws you can even appeal yourself. As a lesser abled player, I will have these instances more often than you will, but when I give a ruling, I will also use my bridge judgment. That judgment will not change when I happen to be in the AC. (I might of course be more inclined to agree on the arguments of the other AC members) Therefor I think that it is wrong to state that you will decide one way as a director, another way as member of an AC. Except of course for L12C3, for those outside ACBL (have our antipodean friends made up their mind yet if L12C3 applies there ?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 23:12:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:12:24 +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 XAA00164 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:12:16 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn05.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:10:19 +0200 Message-ID: <344B5899.472D@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:11:53 +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 Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings References: <344B4A18.74BDE8DA@innet.be> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Herman De Wael wrote: > = > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: Chris and Mary Buckland writes > > >I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a di= recting > > >problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the = AC I would > > >rule this other way." > > > > > >Can someone please explain why this can happen when the TD and the A= C are > > >using the same laws. (Does it matter if you are using the 1987 or th= e 1997 > > >laws? We in New Zealnd will not be using the 1997 laws until next ye= ar, and > > >I have not seen hard copy of the new laws yet.) > > > > > >Maybe this is a silly question - if so, I apologise for wasting your= time, > > >but still hope to get an answer. Of course, it=B4s no silly question! > > As a Director I frequently *will* rule in > > favour of the non-offending side, with various degrees of doubt. IMO = the > > AC must make the bridge decision, after they have heard my explanatio= n > > of the laws, and the reason for the ruling. Often the AC will split t= he > > score, which I can't, > = > That is one good point, John, but the only one. Sorry but here i have to make a point as well. By reading the lawbook 12C2 and 12C3 last time, I saw no reason not to give a split score as a TD. The diffeence is IMHO only, that a AC can give a score with some percentages, e.g.: 70% of the time he will go down in 4H and 30% of the time he will make it (make is +11 IMPs) so its 30% of 11 IMPs which he will get. = > = > > and sometimes I get over-ruled. I have no problem > > with that as my function is to rule in first instance. I will often t= ell > > an AC that I advised the offending side to appeal, where there is a > > question of a deposit, whenever I have some doubt or feel that a spli= t > > score is the best equity. ACs seem to accept this and usually will > > return the deposit. I think many UK Directors do this. > > When I'm on an AC the problem is a "bridge" problem and my > > considerations *are* different. Hope this helps. > > David Stevenson may have some views here > = > I agree with the fact that you may sometimes feel unsure about a bridge= > decision, and will tell one or other side that they have a good reason > to appeal. In the 1997 Laws you can even appeal yourself. Which make things easier for the TD I hope. There is one difference in these cases: If as a TD. I=B4m not sure what is the normal thing to do in an non-real situation, I only decide for the offending side if I 1) know who is the offending side. That means, if I have a problem of facts, I dont know if there is an offending side, so I cannot decide in tha tway 2) =B4m not sure what is the right decision. E.g.: If I=B4m fairly sure t= hat there was no damage at all, I have no fear for deciding in favour of the offending side. = The reason for this is, that in most tournaments AC consists of players (usually the good ones of course) and every case which go to the AC cost them time. In terying to anticipating the decision of the AC there is a good chance that they dont have to work at all. But this is all very shady I fear.... > = > As a lesser abled player, I will have these instances more often than > you will, (...) I will not argue against this... :-) > That judgment will not change when I happen to be in the AC. > (I might of course be more inclined to agree on the arguments of the > other AC members) > = > Therefor I think that it is wrong to state that you will decide one way= > as a director, another way as member of an AC. In far the most cases I agree with this. But there are unknown cases outside there in which I would make a difference between being a TD with the job to run the tournament and a member of an AC with a lot of time after the in-between dinner... From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 20 23:37:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:37:28 +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 XAA00330 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:37:14 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn09.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:36:16 +0200 Message-ID: <344B5E86.34CE@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:37:53 +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 Subject: wrong mistakes??? References: <344B4A18.74BDE8DA@innet.be> <344B5899.472D@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi S AK10982 Board 15 H 62 S, NS D A753 = C J = S J S Q76 H 9543 H AQJ107 D KQ64 D - C 9754 C Q10862 S 543 = H K8 = D J10982 = C AK3 West North East South 1D pass 1S 2S (!) pass pass X 3C pass 4C 4D pass pass pass = 4D=3D +130 NS = The problem in this case was of course the 2S bid by east. West explained it (questioning after the 3C bid by S) as natural. Now we have this mighty footnote which states, that u have to assume wrong information when in doubt. = O.K., = 1st question: What does it need for u, to be not in doubt? = a) only the CC will do b) system script given to u before the tournament starts c) system script shown to u immediately at the table. d) system script given to u after the session (getting from the hotel room of course, u know this I assume...) e) personal knowledge of the offending (are they really offending?; only if u assume wrong inf. I guess...) side system f) a neutral person (witness in a way) which played against this pair before, where they didnt forget their system (someone must have forgotten it, isnt it?) g) something different which I didnt think of 2nd question: What do u decide if they can approve u about their system and what if not??? I will appreciate EVERY answer about this one. = c u -- Richard Bley It=B4s only a game is=B4nt it????? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 21 01:17:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:17:53 +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 BAA03003 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:17:45 +1000 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn09.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:17:02 +0200 Message-ID: <344B764F.13F9@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:18:39 +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: wrong mistakes??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Stephen_Barnfield wrote: > > Which footnote are you talking about? Sorry to be so stupid! > > I assume you realise E has UI (from his partner's explanation) in this example. In the old and the new rules there is this: Law 75 Footnote: Example2: Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) c u -- Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 21 02:46:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:46:52 +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 CAA03648 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:46:46 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id KAA16225; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma015947; Mon, 20 Oct 97 10:25:43 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id JAA07779 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710201648.JAA07779@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 20 Oct 97 17:28:21 GMT Subject: Re: wrong mistakes??? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > S AK10982 Board 15 > H 62 S, NS > D A753 > C J >S J S Q76 >H 9543 H AQJ107 >D KQ64 D - >C 9754 C Q10862 > S 543 > H K8 > D J10982 > C AK3 > > >West North East South > 1D >pass 1S 2S (!) pass >pass X 3C pass >4C 4D pass pass >pass >4D= +130 NS > >The problem in this case was of course the 2S bid by east. West >explained it (questioning after the 3C bid by S) as natural. >Now we have this mighty footnote which states, that u have to assume >wrong information when in doubt. >O.K., > >1st question: What does it need for u, to be not in doubt? > >a) only the CC will do >b) system script given to u before the tournament starts >c) system script shown to u immediately at the table. >d) system script given to u after the session (getting from the hotel >room of course, u know this I assume...) >e) personal knowledge of the offending (are they really offending?; only >if u assume wrong inf. I guess...) side system >f) a neutral person (witness in a way) which played against this pair >before, where they didnt forget their system (someone must have >forgotten it, isnt it?) As a TD I would take any of these into account, but would not be inclined to wait for d), because I would think it better to rule before the end of the session. As an AC member I would take into account all evidence, in particular oral evidence at the appeal, giving it due balance. >g) something different which I didnt think of > >2nd question: What do u decide if they can approve u about their system >and what if not??? If they do not "prove" their system, then I would take account of what N had said when I asked him "What would you have done of you had known E had H and C, and that W had passed 2S?". It would also depend on the answers to queries about why E retreated from 2SX: my suspicion is that this is based on UI. As a TD, if I thought he would (or might) still have doubled, then I'd have given both sides the score for EW 2SX-5. As an AC member I'd give some percentage of: (i) 2SX-5, (ii) a retreat by EW, with NS thereafter doing something good but sensible (e.g. (a) 4S=, EW sacrificing in (b) 5CX or (c) 5HX). The weighting would be mainly to (i). If I thought he would have passed then, as a TD (and AC member) I'd award 2S-5. If they do "prove" the system, then N based his X on correct information, so one cannot rule on the basis of some other action by N. Of course E's retreat still seems to based on UI, so I'd still rule on a basis similar to that in the last-but-one paragraph. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 21 05:04:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 05:04:48 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04209 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 05:04:34 +1000 Received: from default (cph39.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.39]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA11408 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:04:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199710201904.VAA11408@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:03:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: wrong mistakes??? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:37:53 +0200 > From: Richard Bley > Hi > S AK10982 Board 15 > H 62 S, NS > D A753 > C J > S J S Q76 > H 9543 H AQJ107 > D KQ64 D - > C 9754 C Q10862 > S 543 > H K8 > D J10982 > C AK3 > > > West North East South > 1D > pass 1S 2S (!) pass > pass X 3C pass > 4C 4D pass pass > pass > 4D= +130 NS > > The problem in this case was of course the 2S bid by east. West > explained it (questioning after the 3C bid by S) as natural. > Now we have this mighty footnote which states, that u have to assume > wrong information when in doubt. > O.K., > > 1st question: What does it need for u, to be not in doubt? First I ask East what happened. He will, I assume, tell me that he forgot, otherwise the rest is mechanical. I will in general get a feeling as to whether EW are trying to be honest about it or not. Regardless whether I think they are being honest, either (a) or (b) below will be enough to support their claim. (e) is doubtful evidence, because it will be very difficult to show to the world that justice is being done. (f) is utopia. If I think they are trying to be dishonest about it, I will probably accept (d) only reluctantly, and that is only if it is clear that it was not fabricated for this purpose. Not accepting (c) is the same as accusing the players of preparing this situation from home with two sets of convention descriptions, just in case something like this might arise. That, of course, is blatant cheating, and I have a very hard time imagining a tournament that I would be directing where the players would cheat in this way, so I find it somewhat hypothetical. I would therefore in practice always accept (c). > a) only the CC will do > b) system script given to u before the tournament starts > c) system script shown to u immediately at the table. > d) system script given to u after the session (getting from the hotel > room of course, u know this I assume...) > e) personal knowledge of the offending (are they really offending?; only > if u assume wrong inf. I guess...) side system > f) a neutral person (witness in a way) which played against this pair > before, where they didnt forget their system (someone must have > forgotten it, isnt it?) > g) something different which I didnt think of > > 2nd question: What do u decide if they can approve u about their system > and what if not??? If they convince me that East has simply bid outside his system by accident, thinking that he was making a cue bid, there is no MI. East has UI immediately when West does not alert 2S, so we have to worry whether passing 2Sx is a logical alternative. It must be, since the only logical reason West can have to pass a cue bid in spades is that he holds a worthless hand with many (small) spades. Qxx will do nicely, so passing is a logical alternative. Thus, we adjust the score to 5 down doubled, at a price of 1100. If, on the other hand, the explanation is wrong, there is both UI and MI (again UI from the missing alert). The UI leads to the same result as above through almost the same reasoning. Again, the score is 1100 off. The MI only damages NS in that they do not bid their game, so the damage from the UI carries the day. If, on the third(?) hand, East claims that he was psyching a natural 2S bid, and there is evidence that 2S is natural, I need to cross-examine East to understand why he was psyching, and why he did not bid whatever he would normally bid to show a two-suiter. If I am convinced that East was psyching, there is no irregularity. However, I don't think East will be very likely to convince me that he was psyching. Thus it turns out that in my ruling it does not matter much what their agreements really are ... Oh, by the way, NS have done nothing really wild or gambling, or egregiously wrong, so I would find no reason at all to deny them adjustment on the grounds that their bad result was their own making. True, a penalty double from South seems in order, but not calling it is at most an inferior decision. > > I will appreciate EVERY answer about this one. > > > c u > -- PS: Richard, your posting comes through with tabs in it. Not everyone has the same tab settings as you have (I don't, to mention one), so it is much friendlier if you avoid tabs and use spaces. Also, using "u" instead of "you" is cute, but actually somewhat distracting to those of us who are already handicapped by having to communicate in a foreign language on BLML. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 21 06:16:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:16:00 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA04512 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:15:53 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1005963; 20 Oct 97 20:26 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:37:11 +0100 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings In-Reply-To: <344B4A18.74BDE8DA@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <344B4A18.74BDE8DA@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> In message , Chris >> and Mary Buckland writes >> >Hello everyone. >> > >> >I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a directing >> >problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the AC I >would >> >rule this other way." >> > >> >Can someone please explain why this can happen when the TD and the AC are >> >using the same laws. (Does it matter if you are using the 1987 or the 1997 >> >laws? We in New Zealnd will not be using the 1997 laws until next year, and >> >I have not seen hard copy of the new laws yet.) >> > >> >Maybe this is a silly question - if so, I apologise for wasting your time, >> >but still hope to get an answer. >> > >> >Mary Buckland >> > >> Not at all a waste of time. > >Certainly not, Mary ! > >> As a Director I frequently *will* rule in >> favour of the non-offending side, with various degrees of doubt. IMO the >> AC must make the bridge decision, after they have heard my explanation >> of the laws, and the reason for the ruling. Often the AC will split the >> score, which I can't, > >That is one good point, John, but the only one. > >> and sometimes I get over-ruled. I have no problem >> with that as my function is to rule in first instance. I will often tell >> an AC that I advised the offending side to appeal, where there is a >> question of a deposit, whenever I have some doubt or feel that a split >> score is the best equity. ACs seem to accept this and usually will >> return the deposit. I think many UK Directors do this. >> When I'm on an AC the problem is a "bridge" problem and my >> considerations *are* different. Hope this helps. >> David Stevenson may have some views here > >I agree with the fact that you may sometimes feel unsure about a bridge >decision, and will tell one or other side that they have a good reason >to appeal. In the 1997 Laws you can even appeal yourself. > >As a lesser abled player, I will have these instances more often than >you will, but when I give a ruling, I will also use my bridge judgment. >That judgment will not change when I happen to be in the AC. >(I might of course be more inclined to agree on the arguments of the >other AC members) > >Therefor I think that it is wrong to state that you will decide one way >as a director, another way as member of an AC. > A director has to find the most favourable likely and most unfavourable possible. I may be unhappy with this when I so rule. I frequently expect the AC to lessen the penalty, and were I on the AC would inform the Director that his ruling his sound and we are adjusting it. That is the doubt element. Hope this clarifies your point >Except of course for L12C3, for those outside ACBL (have our antipodean >friends made up their mind yet if L12C3 applies there ?) > -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 21 06:17:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:17:48 +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 GAA04533 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:17:43 +1000 Received: from ip171.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net (ip171.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.8.171]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA24391 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ip171.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BCDD73.B74289E0@ip171.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net>; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:17:52 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCDD73.B74289E0@ip171.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:11:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a good friend of scrupulous ethics who is also a lurker on this = mailing list (yeah, you). He was playing in my club game the other day = and approached me with the following dilemma: "The auction has gone 2D (on my left), which was promptly alerted. = Partner asked for an explanation and was told 'Flannery'. He passed, and = the auction proceeded 3H-P-4H-P-P-P. So I'm on lead. "Now as it happens there are arguments for leading any of the four suits = in my hand, but then I remembered that partner had asked about the 2D = call, so that leading a diamond here is obviously ruled out by the UI of = his question." "Quite so," I replied. "You obviously know your way around The Laws. So = what's the problem?" "Well," he said, "several weeks ago there was a posting on BLML about a = 1nt-P-2D* auction in which it was suggested that the question about the = 2D call actually suggested a non-diamond lead. Several contributors made = the argument that since such a question implied length and/or strength = in diamonds, it had the perverse effect of making a non-diamond lead = more attractive, since nobody who understood the Laws would double with = diamonds for fear of disallowing the desired diamond lead." "I see," I mused. "So you think a non-diamond lead would be disallowed = because of the UI from the question. I take your point but obviously you = have to lead something, and just take your chances." "But that's just it!" he cried. "According to Law 16a, I MAY NOT CHOOSE = an alternative which has been made more attractive by the UI, and so I = can't lead any card at all!" Frankly, I was blown away by this fellow's devotion to the rigorous = application of The Laws, and told him so. But he left me no choice but = to award him a zero, since he staunchly refused to make a lead which was = forbidden by The Laws. The matter would have ended there, but two rounds = later he was at me again. "The auction has gone P-1C (alerted) " "Wait," I interrupted. "Your partner asked about the alert to 1C and now = you don't think you can lead to whatever ended up as the final contract, = right?" "Not quite," he answered. "This time partner didn't ask about the alert, = but now I'm concerned that his failure to ask is UI which disqualifies = both the club and non-club leads." "You are truly an exemplar of sportsmanship," I gushed. " Now take your = zero like a man and get on with the game." He sat down, quite happy with = himself, although his partner seemed a bit put out by the whole thing. Did I handle this correctly? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 21 21:52:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:52:15 +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 VAA06939 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:52:08 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id MAA09964 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:51:28 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 97 11:05 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: wrong mistakes??? 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: <199710201648.JAA07779@cactus.tc.pw.com> Richard Bley wrote: > > S AK10982 Board 15 > > H 62 S, NS > > D A753 > > C J > >S J S Q76 > >H 9543 H AQJ107 > >D KQ64 D - > >C 9754 C Q10862 > > S 543 > > H K8 > > D J10982 > > C AK3 > > > > > >West North East South > > 1D > >pass 1S 2S (!) pass > >pass X 3C pass > >4C 4D pass pass > >pass > >4D= +130 NS > > > >The problem in this case was of course the 2S bid by east. West > >explained it (questioning after the 3C bid by S) as natural. > >Now we have this mighty footnote which states, that u have to assume > >wrong information when in doubt. > >O.K., > > > >1st question: What does it need for u, to be not in doubt? > > > >a) only the CC will do > >b) system script given to u before the tournament starts > >c) system script shown to u immediately at the table. > >d) system script given to u after the session (getting from the hotel > >room of course, u know this I assume...) > >e) personal knowledge of the offending (are they really offending?; > only > >if u assume wrong inf. I guess...) side system > >f) a neutral person (witness in a way) which played against this pair > >before, where they didnt forget their system (someone must have > >forgotten it, isnt it?) Alternatively they had not discussed the meaning of a cue-bid after both opponents had bid, but had a "blanket" agreement that undiscussed bids were natural unless obvious (and different views on obvious). If the explanation of "natural" came by way of "The actual sequence is undiscussed but since 2NT would be the unbid suits (any strength) it should be natural" I would not be prepared to rule MI. Indeed even a CC/System notes from which this agreement could logically be inferred would be sufficient evidence for me. > >g) something different which I didnt think of Their word. If they tell me they are absolutely sure that natural was their agreement, and lacking evidence to the contrary I'd be quite happy to just record the incident and rule no MI. OK so maybe a deliberate cheat gets away with it this time, but they'll be found out soon enough (and then banned for life). > > > >2nd question: What do u decide if they can approve u about their system > >and what if not??? > Assuming there is MI then I'll assume (unless they tell me otherwise) that N/S would make the correct choices based on the vulnerability. Although I would expect North to acknowledge that his double was made in the expectation of East holding H/C given his own holding. I think that South's pass of 4D is an error, but not an egregious one (unless you regard trusting opponents rather than partner as egregious). If you do assume that passing 2S was an option for North then 2S-6 is worth considering (Spade to Ace, H6 and East finesses, CA,CK,DJ), may be a bit double dummy for NS but isn't that enough for "at all probable", indeed if NS are really good players it could even be "likely". 4S just made by NS is my other choice. As to why I didn't rule on UI. Personally I cannot believe that even one player in ten would stand for 2Sx here, let alone one in four.* The availability of UI (non alert only since the explanation came later) cannot be disputed but it is AI to East that West has passed (what East thinks is) a forcing bid so I really don't think Pass is an LA. If 2S was limited (can it be -,AKQxxxx,-,KQJT98?) ie non-forcing and North is a notorious psycher it is just possible that West really does want to play in spades - but who would take that risk? *If screens were in place and East didn't know whether or not West had alerted. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 21 22:58:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:58:22 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA07144 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:58:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1007652; 21 Oct 97 13:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:05:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: unreadable BLML contributions In-Reply-To: <199710161846.EAA09071@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac wrote: >Although I usually do not contribute to discussions in BLML, >and restrict myself to reading the mails, >I hope this plea for compassion will not go unnoticed. >Some BLML contributors dispatch their mails in such a way that >those mails reach me in an unreadable format, like the one quoted below. >Would you please, from now on, send your mails in such a way that I can read >them too ? One problem with all newsgroups and mailing lists is that many contributions are difficult or very difficult to read. No doubt in many cases the writers do not realise this. In some cases the reason is bad or unsuitable software. However, in may cases, people have options on their software, being given a choice of [for example] format, or right margin. I struggle through all contributions here, though I would much prefer not to bother with the unsuitable ones. On my other groups I delete difficult-to-read articles unread, and I suggest people do this even here if at all necessary. It is difficult to get the meat out of an article when you have to strain to read it. When writing an article, it should be in plain text. No HTML: no choice of HTML or plain text: no text in unsupported charset: no SMTP/MIME format: no MIME format. Your right margin should be set to 72 characters. You should snip irrelevant bits of the text to which you are replying. I believe that to be less important here because we accept long articles as normal, and it often clarifies what we are talking about, but some snipping is desirable. In most cases you should include some of the text to which you are replying. Such text start each line with >. If it reached you with > on a line then your reply should start such a line with >>. If your software does not do this automatically you might consider new software. Unless you really want to start a new thread on a different subject you should not change the header in any way whatever. That includes not changing spelling mistakes. Good software threads articles, usually by header. If yours does not, you might consider better software: it is an enormous advantage. When showing a hand or a bidding sequence, always use spaces and never Tabs: they look different to the reader and spoil the hand. If your software is poor, not only do some of the above things not happen automatically but also you often do not see the advantages yourself. I appreciate that this makes it more difficult to follow the above rules. If you want your words of wisdom to be read and appreciated by everyone, however, it would be wise to follow them, otherwise people who read them will be thinking of other things, or may even not read them. Personally, I do attribute less weight to articles that are difficult to read, not deliberately, just a reaction that I now realise looking back. -- 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 Oct 21 23:03:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:03:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA07187 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:03:47 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000331; 21 Oct 97 13:16 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:35:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 69 In-Reply-To: <01BCDA33.17A35A60@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk rts48u wrote: >One aspect of this hand I have not seen addressed is whether on a heart lead, >declarer's FAILURE to finesse (takes ace) would be merely careless or inferior >or if it would be irrational. It would appear from the wording of the claim that >declarer may not have noticed that the clubs are blocked...he certainly could >have worded the claim with greater clarity. Can the same sort of "carelessness" >let him eschew the heart finesse, thinking {to use the word loosely :-)} that >his tricks are running? I believe we can safely assume that the claim was made without the realisation that the clubs were blocked. After all, he claimed by saying "Just made even without diamond finesse" and this was a false claim. If a heart is returned, the heart finesse loses [whether taken or not] and North has any remaining black card then the contract cannot be made. If defence had not accepted the claim and called the TD at the time of the claim then the TD should have ruled one down whether the above conditions apply or not. L70A, L70D and L70E do not allow declarer off the hook when he has been careless, and failure to realise a suit is blocked is careless not irrational, after all we know from the wording of the claim and the E/W hands that declarer had failed to realise it. No doubt the defence's initial acquiescence was because they failed to realise it too. What is interesting is that L69B tends to follow a different path. Having noted that acquiescence is not withdrawn under L69A since N/S only realised the problem at the end of the match, we have to consider the effects of L69B. The relevant bit is: 'Within the correction period ... withdraw acquiescence ... only if he has acquiesced in ... the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards ...' * ... ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. In my view the words 'any normal* play' have shifted the approach of the TD to the problem considerably. L69B makes no mention of following declarer's stated line. In effect, the TD considers all normal lines. If any of them allow claimer to keep the number of tricks claimed then claimer gets to keep those tricks. Only if no normal line does so should a trick be given to the other side. Consider some lines. [a] S leads C. Since this unblocks them the only normal line is to take the eleven [!] top tricks. [b] S leads S. It seems irrational now for declarer to play a heart before a club so eleven [!] tricks are made. [c] S leads D. This seems irrational to me with easy black suit exits into dummy's AQ, so I only consider it a normal play if S has no C, no S and no DK. Again, it seems irrational now for declarer to play a heart before a club so eleven [!] tricks are made. [d] S leads H. Declarer did not notice the block when he claimed so it can hardly be irrational for him not to notice the block at this moment. HA, CK, oh dear! Nine tricks. [e] S leads H. On the other hand, when deciding whether to finesse, declarer would have a look at the hand, and it might dawn on him that there is a problem. If it does [which is hardly irrational] he might then take the HA, change his mind, and finesse the DQ, for ten tricks if it works [eleven if the DK is doubleton] and some number between four and nine tricks if it doesn't. [f] S leads H. Similarly if declarer sees a problem, he might finesse the H as a desperation play. Or might he? North has opened 1H: seven tables away people can see this contract will go off if N wins the heart and returns a black card: this is irrational as compared to [e]. In my view [a] [b] [d] [e] are not irrational, nor [c] in a special case. If the diamond finesse works then there is a normal line of play to make at least ten tricks, namely [e], so declarer gets his ten tricks. If it does not work then [a] and [b] are both normal lines so declarer gets to keep his ten tricks. If S has the DK and *no* black card then the only normal line of play is [e]. [a] and [b] are not possible, [c] and [f] are irrational, [d] and [e] are normal plays, [d] giving declarer nine tricks. If S has the DK and *no* black card I give declarer nine tricks: if S has a black card, or N has DK, then I give declarer ten tricks. --------- Very interesting problem, Sergei. you get a lot of tricky claims, do you? I shall post one of my own from last weekend shortly. -- 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 Oct 21 23:55:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:55:16 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA07399 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:55:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1028875; 21 Oct 97 14:43 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:35:48 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >A) Reading the WBF systems policy as it is, do you think this habit is >to be classed as a 'Highly Unusual Method'? Several people have asked where the policy is available. I shall find a reasonable copy on the Net [suggestions by email please] and put a permanent link from my Bridgepage. Here is a copy: WBF Systems Policy DEFINITION OF HIGHLY UNUSUAL METHODS For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any system that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement: 1 - A Pass in the opening position promises the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes will or may hold values a queen or more above average strength (i.e. an average hand contains 10 HCP). 2 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass. 3 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. 4 - By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a apecified suit; or either length in a specified suit or length elswhere. CLASSIFICATION OF SYSTEMS In order to facilitate recognition and handling, systems material will be identified by one or more of the following: 1 - a WBF coloured sticker; 2 - the appropriate name (hand printed or typed) colour; 3 - a check mark on a convention card next to the appropriate colour - in keeping with the following descriptions: * Green: Natural. * Blue: Strong Club, Strong Diamond, where one Club/one Diamond is always strong. * Red: Artificial; this category includes all artificial systems that not fall under the definition of Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) systems [see definition below] other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond systems (see 'Blue'). Examples would be a system where one club shows one one of three types - a natural club suit, a balanced hand of a specific range, or a Strong Club opener; or a system in which the basics methods (other than the no trump range) vary according to position, vulnerability and the like; or a system that uses conventional 'weak' or 'multi-meaning' bids (with or without some weak option) in potentially contestable auctions, other than those described in the main part of the WBF Convention Booklet. * Yellow: Highly Unusual Methods (HUM) as defined above BROWN STICKER CONVENTIONS AND TREATMENTS The following conventions or treatmants are categorised as "Brown Sticker" 1 - Any OPENING BID of two clubs through three spades that: * could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND * does not promise at least four cards in a known suit EXCEPTION: * The bid always shows at least four cards in known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more above average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker Convention.) * An opening bid showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Convention Booklet. 2 - An OVERCALL of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. EXCEPTION: A natural overcall in no trump. 3 - Any 'weak' two-suited bids at the two or three level that may by agreementbe made with three cards or fewer in one of the suits. 4 - Psychic bids protected by system or required by system. None of the foregoing restrictions pertain to conventional defences against strong, artificials opening bids or defences against "Brown Sticker" or HUM conventions. Additional to the classification of systems above, any partnership using one or more "Brown Sticker" conventions must indicate this alongside its system classification. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFENCE AGAINST YELLOW (HUM) SYSTEMS AND RED (ARTIFICIAL) SYSTEMS For Teams Events in Category 1 the following regulations will apply in relation to defensive measures against HUM systems. 1 - A Pair opposing a HUM system pair will submit two (clearly legible) copies of their defence to the HUM system at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Conditions of Contest. Such defences are deemed to be part of the opponents convention card. In preparing the defence against a HUM System, pairs using Green, Blue or Red methods are allowed to change their system including opening calls. Pairs using a HUM system are not allowed to change their opening calls. 2 - The Pair using a HUM system must inform the opponents in writing (two clearly legible copies) about their counter-defence at the table prior to the start of the session. In preparing their counter-defence the pair using a HUM system is not permitted to change any of the highly artificial aspects of its system. For Teams Events in Category 1 and Category 2 the following regulations will apply in relation to defensive measures 3 - A pair may prepare written defences against the "Brown Sticker" element of any system. Such defences will have to be given to the apponents (two clearly legible copies) at an appropriate time and place prior to the start of that segment, to be specified in the Conditions of Contest. Written defences against Brown Sticker conventions are deemed to be part of the opponents convention card. -- 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 Oct 22 00:36:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:36:53 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA09798 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:36:47 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028875; 21 Oct 97 14:42 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:57:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >there is UI in that S would have bid ove one of the possible meanings of >2D. David Burn recently gave a similar example of 1M - 4m ? where the >possible meanings of 4m are legion. You clearly need to ask, whenever >you would call over one of the likely meanings; and as a director I >would be sympathetic to advancer's dilemma regarding the UI. No doubt >David S would disagree but I feel that you need to protect players from >the proliferation of conventional responses which cause problems for the >other side otherwise you are giving unfair advantage to the scientists. Crap. The problem you are quoting only applies because a scientist is playing against a scientist. A non-scientist doubles a 4m response to 1M to show the m suit. If you are worrying about proliferation of conventional calls [a strange view for a TD to take] then you should only be worrying where one side has a markedly conventional approach and the other side does not. As a TD I suggest worrying about the Laws is somewhat more important than showing sympathy to one side rather than the other when both are following the laws as best they can. -- 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 Oct 22 00:47:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:47:28 +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 AAA09835 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:47:20 +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 NAA22363.; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:06:45 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA2495; Tue, 21 Oct 97 10:46:42 -0400 Message-Id: <9710211446.AA2495@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC12565370045E581; Tue, 21 Oct 97 10:46:41 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 21 Oct 97 14:56:08 Subject: Re: wrong mistakes??? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> 1st question: What does it need for u, to be not in doubt? a) only the CC will do b) system script given to u before the tournament starts c) system script shown to u immediately at the table. d) system script given to u after the session (getting from the hotel room of course, u know this I assume...) e) personal knowledge of the offending (are they really offending?; only if u assume wrong inf. I guess...) side system f) a neutral person (witness in a way) which played against this pair before, where they didnt forget their system (someone must have forgotten it, isnt it?) << Everything of the above would be good enough for me. >> 2nd question: What do u decide if they can approve u about their system and what if not???<< I wouldn't change the score in either case. After the 3C bid, everybody knew what happened. Therefor South is fully responsible for pass over 4D. Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 22 00:48:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:48:49 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA09854 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:48:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2021216; 21 Oct 97 14:43 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:39:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Reply-To: Quango Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <0one+DBXgUR0Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bbbrrrrrrrooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!!!!!! An update to the score so far: >A) Reading the WBF systems policy as it is, do you think this habit is >to be classed as a 'Highly Unusual Method'? >B) If you could rewrite the systems policy, broadly keeping the idea of >the WBF policy, would you consider this habit a 'Highly Unusual Method'? A] No B] No 8 votes A] Yes B] Yes 5 votes A] Abstain B] No 1 vote A] Yes B] No 1 vote -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= Polling @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) officers =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 22 01:18:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:18:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA09986 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:18:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028873; 21 Oct 97 14:42 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:51:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law69 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alexey Gerasimov wrote: >Declarer will >unblock cK after heart return (normal play undoubtely) and will record +630. Whatever the legalities, this play, referred to as normal by this and other posters, is irrational. Consider the position as a defensive problem. -- N J98x Kxx x Qxxx -- E === AQx K You are on lead with the North hand. You need one trick to beat a no- trump contract. The SA, SK and CA have gone and the only outstanding spade is in partner's hand. What do you play? **No-one** is playing a heart! -- 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 Oct 22 02:19:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 02:19:15 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA10340 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 02:18:51 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021216; 21 Oct 97 14:42 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:16:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: wrong mistakes??? In-Reply-To: <199710201904.VAA11408@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >> From: Richard Bley >Not accepting (c) is the same as accusing the players of preparing >this situation from home with two sets of convention descriptions, >just in case something like this might arise. That, of course, is >blatant cheating, and I have a very hard time imagining a tournament >that I would be directing where the players would cheat in this way, >so I find it somewhat hypothetical. I would therefore in practice >always accept (c). Indeed? What does c) mean? It means that someone has prepared a system script. It does not mean there is an agreement. I have played in the past with partners with whom I have prepared a system script, and they have agreed to play it. When things have gone wrong and I have asked partner why, sometimes I have received the answer that he has not read that bit - so there is no agreement. >> a) only the CC will do >> b) system script given to u before the tournament starts >> c) system script shown to u immediately at the table. >> d) system script given to u after the session (getting from the hotel >> room of course, u know this I assume...) >> e) personal knowledge of the offending (are they really offending?; only >> if u assume wrong inf. I guess...) side system >> f) a neutral person (witness in a way) which played against this pair >> before, where they didnt forget their system (someone must have >> forgotten it, isnt it?) >> g) something different which I didnt think of The main thing that I use in *any* judgement ruling is the answers to the questions that I pose, and this would be very important in this case. I get every bit of evidence that I can and then make a judgment. I agree with using (a) to (g): I will ignore none of them, but the weighting is the interest. If (d) is hand-written or typed, then I run my finger over it to see if it smudges, of course! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 22 07:00:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:00:54 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11755 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:00:43 +1000 Received: from cph34.ppp.dknet.dk (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14769 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:00:34 +0200 (MET DST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: unreadable BLML contributions Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:00:31 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <344e17d6.1754893@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, 21 Oct 1997 13:05:43 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Unless you really want to start a new thread on a different subject=20 >you should not change the header in any way whatever. That includes not= =20 >changing spelling mistakes. Good software threads articles, usually by=20 >header. If yours does not, you might consider better software: it is an= =20 >enormous advantage. I agree with this and with David's other points. I'd just like to add that when you do start a new thread, please do not do so by choosing "reply" to an existing message and changing the subject; choose "new message" (or whatever your mail program calls that function) instead. Some programs thread articles by subject, others thread them by the "Reply-To:" and "References:" headers provided by the sender, and some thread by both methods. When you select "reply", your mail program may (some do, some do not) create a "Reply-To:" and/or "References:" header that identifies the message as a reply to the specific message, even if the subject is different. To get the best result for all combinations of your mail program and the receiving mail program, please: (a) use "New message" and a new subject when starting a new thread, and (b) use "Reply" and a completely unchanged subject (except for the automatically added "Re: ") when commenting upon an existing thread. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 22 10:42:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:42:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12344 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:41:50 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002166; 22 Oct 97 1:14 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:29:39 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: unreadable BLML contributions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Jac wrote: > >>Although I usually do not contribute to discussions in BLML, >>and restrict myself to reading the mails, >>I hope this plea for compassion will not go unnoticed. >>Some BLML contributors dispatch their mails in such a way that >>those mails reach me in an unreadable format, like the one quoted below. >>Would you please, from now on, send your mails in such a way that I can read >>them too ? > When writing an article, it should be in plain text. If it involves pressing a button to read it, I press "uninteresting" Thank you David for waxing eloquent in this matter. I couldn't have said it as well but would have said it one third the length :) -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 22 17:13:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:13:03 +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 RAA13125 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:12:58 +1000 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:12:06 +0200 Message-ID: <344DB63C.6330@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:15:56 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens & Bodil CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: tabs??? References: <199710201904.VAA11408@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: hi jens & bodil wrote: (sniph) > PS: Richard, your posting comes through with tabs in it. Not > everyone has the same tab settings as you have (I don't, to mention > one), so it is much friendlier if you avoid tabs and use spaces. > Also, using "u" instead of "you" is cute, but actually somewhat > distracting to those of us who are already handicapped by having to > communicate in a foreign language on BLML. with the u I agree with you... its stupid sorry... :-( Well with the tabs I wanted to ask if anyone couldnt read this one. It was so much easier for me to type it in, just because the handrecord was already in a word-file (win3.11) and I only had to copy it in my mail. Please answer me this one. c u --- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 22 17:16:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA13151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:16:03 +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 RAA13144 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:15:29 +1000 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:14:40 +0200 Message-ID: <344DB6D4.2255@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:18:28 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Fwd: Re: wrong mistakes???] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: Hi, David Stevenson wrote: > > Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > >Not accepting (c) is the same as accusing the players of preparing > >this situation from home with two sets of convention descriptions, > >just in case something like this might arise. That, of course, is > >blatant cheating, and I have a very hard time imagining a tournament > >that I would be directing where the players would cheat in this way, > >so I find it somewhat hypothetical. I would therefore in practice > >always accept (c). > > Indeed? What does c) mean? It means that someone has prepared a > system script. It does not mean there is an agreement. I have played > in the past with partners with whom I have prepared a system script, and > they have agreed to play it. When things have gone wrong and I have > asked partner why, sometimes I have received the answer that he has not > read that bit - so there is no agreement. > Really not? Perhaps the agreement is: We play the things which I gave to you (:-))) on our system sheet... This is an agreement isnt it????? > The main thing that I use in *any* judgement ruling is the answers to > the questions that I pose, and this would be very important in this > case. I get every bit of evidence that I can and then make a judgment. > I agree with using (a) to (g): I will ignore none of them, but the > weighting is the interest. If (d) is hand-written or typed, then I run > my finger over it to see if it smudges, of course! What with the system script after the tourney? Next question: At first they cannot prove their system at first. Then u make a decision based on this "knowledge". Immediately afterwards they remember their system file and show this to you. Are you able to change your mind and the decision? What about Law 82: C. Director's Error If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. Can you use this one here? c u -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 22 18:16:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:16:17 +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 SAA13298 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:16:10 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA16733; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:56:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma016634; Wed, 22 Oct 97 01:55:49 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA21358 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710220818.BAA21358@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 22 Oct 97 09:09:28 GMT Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: wrong mistakes???] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Next question: >At first they cannot prove their system at first. Then u make a decision >based on this "knowledge". Immediately afterwards they remember their >system file and show this to you. Are you able to change your mind and >the decision? >What about Law 82: > >C. Director's Error >If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director >subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will >allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, >considering both sides as >non-offending for that purpose. > >Can you use this one here? I don't think so. The "remembered system file" is further evidence, which can be shown to the appeal committee. L82C deals with error by the TD. In this case his ruling was, presumably, correct based on the evidence he adduced. Further evidence may have come to light, but that does not mean the TD's original ruling was "incorrect". Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 22 19:56:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:56:08 +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 TAA13490 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:55:56 +1000 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:55:16 +0200 Message-ID: <344DDC78.2093@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:59:04 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: wrong mistakes???] References: <199710220818.BAA21358@cactus.tc.pw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Stephen_Barnfield wrote: > > Richard Bley wrote: > > >Next question: > >At first they cannot prove their system at first. Then u make a decision > >based on this "knowledge". Immediately afterwards they remember their > >system file and show this to you. Are you able to change your mind and > >the decision? > >What about Law 82: > > > >C. Director's Error > >If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director > >subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will > >allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, > >considering both sides as > >non-offending for that purpose. > > > >Can you use this one here? > > I don't think so. The "remembered system file" is further evidence, which can > be shown to the appeal committee. L82C deals with error by the TD. In this > case his ruling was, presumably, correct based on the evidence he adduced. > Further evidence may have come to light, but that does not mean the TD's > original ruling was "incorrect". Hmmmm. This is a formal and juridical argument (I was a successful student of law as well...). So that is a doable way I think. But... The sense of LAW 82 C is IMHO, that a TD is allowed to change a decision to avoid giving the decision to the AC. So if you as a TD know, that the AC will change your decision, it makes no sense to deny a new decision at all. So I think LAW 82 C should be used in these cases as well where the facts are established after your decision. But that is another point where I want some views and ways of handling c u --- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 23 00:10:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:10:05 +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 AAA14174 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:09:57 +1000 Received: from ip37.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net (ip37.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.37]) by brickbat9.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA10079 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ip37.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BCDED2.B03FC940@ip37.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net>; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:10:14 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCDED2.B03FC940@ip37.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:10:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Jens & Bodil [SMTP:alesia@pip.dknet.dk] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 4:19 PM To: Michael S. Dennis Subject: RE: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:11:44 -0400 (long snip) > Did I handle this correctly? No, I believe not. > The UI suggests that a specific action (A) is better than some other=20 >action; hence (A) is not allowed. >A shrewd partner could have passed that UI in order to make your >player avoid (A) and thus make your player choose the action he >really wanted. >Surely this reason for asking the question requires pre-meditation. >It would seem to be a conscious infraction of L73A1 with the intent >of gaining a better score, and the infraction is committed by >someone with adequate knowledge of the laws. Or more bluntly, the >action can only suggest avoiding (A) if your player's partner is >cheating. Not at all. As David Stevenson pointed out, this effect can result from = completely innocent behavior. Consider that South has heard (as in the = original post) the auction 1nt - P - 2D*. For the moment, we will agree = that asking a question at this point would "demonstrably suggest" action = A (although this is problematic enough, see below). South, a = conscientious and law-abiding sort, scrupulously avoids asking whenever = he holds a hand with which he would prefer action A, lest he seem to be = suggesting this action by his question. North, an equally ethical = player, studiously avoids action A whenever her partner asks in this = situation, but might or might not take action A without the question, as = her hand and the bidding warrant. She may well be unaware, consciously = or otherwise, of her partner's habits with respect to asking questions. The remarkable result is that despite both players' best efforts to = avoid any advantage from UI, North will tend to avoid action A except = when South's hand is particularly well-suited to exactly that action, = and this advantage will accrue as result of the asking (or not asking) = of the question. To summarize, the presumption that the question suggests action A = inexorably yields two somewhat troubling corollaries: 1.) The question also "demonstrably suggests" avoiding action A. 2.) Failure to ask the question provides UI tending to make action A = more attractive (and therefore less attractive too, I guess), than it = would be without the question. Bad enough, I would argue, but an additional problem is the one you = alluded to: namely the difficulty in reaching a consensus about which = action is actually suggested. The original auction is about as common as = dirt, and yet as you mentioned, BLML contributors seem unable to agree = about whether the question suggests a diamond lead or a non-diamond = lead. How can a player at the table be expected to know which actions = are restricted if some TD's or AC's might be in one school of thought in = this matter or in the other? This is really quite an impossible = situation. As both a logical matter and a practical matter, therefore, the = assumption that a simple question about an alerted call suggests any = action whatsoever is simply untenable. Yes, as a matter of law, the = question itself (or the absence of a question, for that matter) is UI, = but because it cannot be assumed to carry any information value, should = place no restriction on partner's actions. This, I would guess, is = actually the subtle point behind the original posting on this thread. Mike Dennis =00 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 23 00:30:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:30:43 +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 AAA16499 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:30:37 +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 KAA31816 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27016; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:30:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:30:28 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710221430.KAA27016@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Fwd: Re: wrong mistakes???] X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Bley > 82C. Director's Error > If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director > subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will > allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, > considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. This, at least, seems easy enough. (Hah!) The key words are "if no rectification." An example might be when the TD cancels the board and later determines that it should have been played out. If it's now too late for a substitute board, L82C applies. In the case given, where the TD has (perhaps wrongly) adjusted the score at the end of the hand, rectification is easy. Either assign a different (the correct one this time!) adjusted score or revert to the at-the-table score if it should stand. > At first they cannot prove their system at first. Then u make a decision > based on this "knowledge". Immediately afterwards they remember their > system file and show this to you. Are you able to change your mind and > the decision? If new evidence is presented before the end of the appeals period, it seems to me proper to consider it. This could result in changing one's decision. Don't forget to advise the other side, who may now wish to appeal. If a pair cannot at first remember that system notes exist, I'd be inclined to doubt that the notes represent an actual agreement. (I agree with others that it's better to avoid tabs if possible.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 23 01:30:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:30:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16831 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:29:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015692; 22 Oct 97 16:08 BST Message-ID: <0hoOMIAjydT0Ewlc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:59:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: wrong mistakes???] In-Reply-To: <344DDC78.2093@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Stephen_Barnfield wrote: >> Richard Bley wrote: >> >Next question: >> >At first they cannot prove their system at first. Then u make a decision >> >based on this "knowledge". Immediately afterwards they remember their >> >system file and show this to you. Are you able to change your mind and >> >the decision? >> >What about Law 82: >> > >> >C. Director's Error >> >If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director >> >subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will >> >allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, >> >considering both sides as >> >non-offending for that purpose. >> > >> >Can you use this one here? >> I don't think so. The "remembered system file" is further evidence, which can >> be shown to the appeal committee. L82C deals with error by the TD. In this >> case his ruling was, presumably, correct based on the evidence he adduced. >> Further evidence may have come to light, but that does not mean the TD's >> original ruling was "incorrect". >Hmmmm. This is a formal and juridical argument (I was a successful >student of law as well...). >So that is a doable way I think. But... >The sense of LAW 82 C is IMHO, that a TD is allowed to change a >decision to avoid giving the decision to the AC. So if you as a TD know, >that the AC will change your decision, it makes no sense to deny a new >decision at all. So I think LAW 82 C should be used in these cases as >well where the facts are established after your decision. I do not agree with this *at all*. It is not a formal and juridical argument: it is a commonsense and practical one. ACs are there to review TDs' decisions. More evidence will be taken at an AC. If more evidence appears after a TD decision that does not prove he made a mistake then that is a matter for an AC. What do you mean that you know that an AC will change your decision? You can predict what an AC will do? I find the rationale very strange of going to a pair and saying "I did not make a mistake, but now your opponents have come up with some more information so I am going to say I did make a mistake and change my ruling." This is not the way the process works. >But that is another point where I want some views and ways of handling Once you have made a ruling the only reason to change it is if the ruling was wrong. Primarily this means an error in Law. Any time that a player wishes to argue a judgement decision, or offer new facts, you explain to him that that is the perfect situation for an AC. -- 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 Oct 23 01:43:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:43:38 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA16919 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:43:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015688; 22 Oct 97 16:08 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:16:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mary Buckland wrote: >Hello everyone. Hi. >I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a directing >problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the AC I would >rule this other way." How do you know someone is an expert? Easy: he tells you so! I think the posts on RGB and BLML that say your quote are a little too numerous, and in many of the situations posted where people say they would rule differently they are wrong. Certainly there are some cases where it is right, however. >Can someone please explain why this can happen when the TD and the AC are >using the same laws. (Does it matter if you are using the 1987 or the 1997 >laws? We in New Zealnd will not be using the 1997 laws until next year, and >I have not seen hard copy of the new laws yet.) If you look at the Laws section of my Bridgepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm you will find links to a very readable copy of the English version of the Laws, and a copy of the European version which can be downloaded in Wordprocessor or text formats. Sorry, no American version yet. The differences between the AC and the TD is twofold. First, there is the question of split scores. There are two types of split score [it would help if we had different names for them]. In the first case the TD or AC can assign a different score to each side under L12C2 ["The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance"]. The second case is to do with the notion of equity. If a TD disallows [say] a double, he now is required to assign an adjusted score. He may now believe the auction would give the non-offenders 7C 30% of the time, 6C+1 70% of the time. Under L12C2 he scores it as 7C making. Many people feel that it would be fairer to give the side 50% of 7C= and 50% of 6C+1, still giving the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. This was legal under the 1965 Laws, and regularly done in England. However, it was not legal under the 1987 Laws as published. After much argument, in 1988 the WBF added a footnote to L12C2 which said "An appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity". This gave appeals committees the right to split the score in the way described above, but not TDs. British ACs went back to splitting scores [and annoying scorers ]. In the ACBL it was decided not to include the footnote at all, and I believe that other ZOs and NBOs did not promulgate this change. This has been included as a separate law, L12C3, in the 1997 Laws and made a Zonal option. [*] The ACBL do not intend to use it officially, but an examination of the casebooks of NABC Appeals show that some ACs in the ACBL have followed this practice albeit illegally. It is a shame that its use is not wider. We fought behind the scenes for this to be extended to TDs but even though we were told that we were winning, the pendulum swung the other way and we were not allowed to. Certain NAmerican contributors have said they do not like the notion of split scores, but its greatest advantage is its acceptability to the players. In the example I quoted above, if the players accepted that there was an infraction, we would often find that a ruling of 50% 7C=, 50% 6C+1 was accepted by both sides with no upset. If TDs were allowed such a split then there would be no need for an AC in many cases. BLs would not accept it, of course, but people who were trying to beat their opponents by playing bridge would find it acceptable. I do hope as many of you as possible will find L12C3 enabled, wherever you are, and will encourage its use by ACs, and let us move towards getting it accepted for TDs in 2007. As far as Mary's question is concerned, one of the main differences is the ACs' ability to split scores in this fashion. The second difference between TDs and ACs is in approach. ACs are very good for making bridge judgements and for investigating things in detail. TDs will often make a ruling without having sufficient time to investigate in detail. They should, of course, consult with someone else before making any judgement ruling, but that is primarily to see that they have not overlooked something obvious. Of course, if the consultant is either a better TD or a better player than the original TD then the consultant might give more input, though the final decision is for the actual TD. In the biggest tournaments, the EBU assign one TD to be a continual consultant. If the players' defence depends on large system files and long arguments, the TD may feel that he cannot really get to the bottom of this without holding everything up too much, and he will generally rule in favour of the non-offenders [NOs]. Note that the terms offending and non-offending are used in the Law book [see L11, for example]. It would be better if they appeared in the Definitions, but it appears that the side that did something that caused the problem are defined as the offenders. So if a player hesitates, his side are treated as the offenders even if they commit no infraction thereafter. Furthermore, while an AC is expected to get the right answer as far as they can, since for practical purposes they are usually the last possible appeal, the TD will often be unclear which way to rule. Knowing that there is the AC available to deal with the problem at length, the TD will often rule for the NOs, advising the offenders quite strongly to appeal. In the 1997 Laws he can take it to appeal himself, but I think when he should do so should be material for a different thread. The extent to which a TD should rule in this way depends somewhat on the approach advised to a TD by his superiors. At one time, NAmerican TDs ruled for the NOs nearly automatically. British TDs are expected to use their judgement to a far greater degree. It is a chicken and egg argument, but many of our judgement rulings are not appealed, and one wonders which is the cause and which the effect! A TD who feels his bridge judgement is not up to it might rule for the NOs to let an AC work it out. Of course, if he was on the AC he would have to apply the same judgement, but he would have more time and more help. If a slow double is pulled then a TD will disallow the pull [subject to all the normal caveats] if he feels that it may be illegal because of UI. He will also disallow the double if he cannot make up his mind. He will disallow the double if he thinks that it might be alright, but it would take a very long investigation to find out. He will disallow the double if his SO has told him to unless he is absolutely sure that he should not. An AC will disallow the double if they feel that it is illegal after taking in all the facts. They have to make up their mind, and investigate as far as possible. This often means that their decision will be different from the TD's. >Maybe this is a silly question - if so, I apologise for wasting your time, >but still hope to get an answer. It is not silly. Actually, it is probably me that is wasting people's time, but I thought I would like to make a full answer. If you have any questions, please ask them, silly or not. :))) -- 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 Oct 23 02:26:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 02:26:34 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA17245 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 02:26:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005821; 22 Oct 97 17:02 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:46:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: (1NT) - pass - (2D!) - ?pass In-Reply-To: <01BCDED2.B03FC940@ip37.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Bad enough, I would argue, but an additional problem is the one you alluded to: >namely the difficulty in reaching a consensus about which action is actually >suggested. The original auction is about as common as dirt, and yet as you >mentioned, BLML contributors seem unable to agree about whether the question >suggests a diamond lead or a non-diamond lead. How can a player at the table be >expected to know which actions are restricted if some TD's or AC's might be in >one school of thought in this matter or in the other? This is really quite an >impossible situation. > >As both a logical matter and a practical matter, therefore, the assumption that >a simple question about an alerted call suggests any action whatsoever is simply >untenable. Yes, as a matter of law, the question itself (or the absence of a >question, for that matter) is UI, but because it cannot be assumed to carry any >information value, should place no restriction on partner's actions. This, I >would guess, is actually the subtle point behind the original posting on this >thread. It is certainly a logical conclusion. If we cannot agree what the effect of a question or a non-question is, then there is no effective UI therefrom. When actually giving a ruling, then the players are there and their standard can be taken into account. Even if consensus on BLML is impossible, an opinion in a particular case may not be. -- 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 Oct 23 04:11:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 04:11:59 +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 EAA18060 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 04:11:45 +1000 Received: from s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru (foxy.p2p [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id WAA22755; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:07:52 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199710221807.WAA22755@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:08:19 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote \\snip// > The second case is to do with the notion of equity. If a TD disallows > [say] a double, he now is required to assign an adjusted score. He may > now believe the auction would give the non-offenders 7C 30% of the time, > 6C+1 70% of the time. Under L12C2 he scores it as 7C making. Many > people feel that it would be fairer to give the side 50% of 7C= and 50% > of 6C+1, still giving the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. This > was legal under the 1965 Laws, and regularly done in England. However, > it was not legal under the 1987 Laws as published. > > After much argument, in 1988 the WBF added a footnote to L12C2 which > said "An appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order > to do equity". This gave appeals committees the right to split the > score in the way described above, but not TDs. British ACs went back to > splitting scores [and annoying scorers ]. In the ACBL it was decided > not to include the footnote at all, and I believe that other ZOs and > NBOs did not promulgate this change. This has been included as a > separate law, L12C3, in the 1997 Laws and made a Zonal option. [*] The > ACBL do not intend to use it officially, but an examination of the > casebooks of NABC Appeals show that some ACs in the ACBL have followed > this practice albeit illegally. > > It is a shame that its use is not wider. In Russia it is obvious practice and sometimes TD goes to AC to give such a score. In this case AC solve the problem rather quickly. > We fought behind the scenes > for this to be extended to TDs but even though we were told that we were > winning, the pendulum swung the other way and we were not allowed to. > Certain NAmerican contributors have said they do not like the notion of > split scores, but its greatest advantage is its acceptability to the > players. In the example I quoted above, if the players accepted that > there was an infraction, we would often find that a ruling of 50% 7C=, > 50% 6C+1 was accepted by both sides with no upset. If TDs were allowed > such a split then there would be no need for an AC in many cases. BLs > would not accept it, of course, but people who were trying to beat their > opponents by playing bridge would find it acceptable. > > I do hope as many of you as possible will find L12C3 enabled, wherever > you are, and will encourage its use by ACs, and let us move towards > getting it accepted for TDs in 2007. As far as Mary's question is > concerned, one of the main differences is the ACs' ability to split > scores in this fashion. \\snip// > -- > 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 Oct 23 08:23:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:23:39 +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 IAA18710 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:23:25 +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 SAA19664 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27358; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:23:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:23:14 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710222223.SAA27358@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If a TD disallows > [say] a double, he now is required to assign an adjusted score. He may > now believe the auction would give the non-offenders 7C 30% of the time, > 6C+1 70% of the time. Under L12C2 he scores it as 7C making. Many > people feel that it would be fairer to give the side 50% of 7C= and 50% > of 6C+1, still giving the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. This > was legal under the 1965 Laws, and regularly done in England. However, > it was not legal under the 1987 Laws as published. This last (not legal under the 1987 Laws) was my belief too, and it's certainly the conventional belief. (Else why the asterisk or now L12C3 at all?) But now I wonder. (And how can I resist a chance to disagree with David? :-) ) L12C2 says that assigned adjusted scores can be either in matchpoints or in total points prior to matchpointing. (Not IMPs, though. An oversight?) So why not assign a score in matchpoints that just happens to be equal to a 50/50 split of two results? I suppose this isn't *the* most [un]favorable result (singular), but it does seem consistent with the spirit of the Law. Otherwise, what is the purpose of being able to assign scores in matchpoints at all? Obviously this interpretation could create controversy in zones that do not accept L12C3, and I would not recommend a TD adopt it if the SO says otherwise. Still, if these adjustments are acceptable to the players, I see no reason a club TD, for example, shouldn't make them. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 23 11:02:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:02:09 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19248 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:02:03 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028003; 23 Oct 97 1:38 BST Message-ID: <3ydk+MAH1oT0EwV2@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:33:27 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Mary Buckland wrote: > >>Hello everyone. > > Hi. > >>I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a directing >>problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the AC I would >>rule this other way." snip > In the biggest tournaments, the EBU assign one TD to >be a continual consultant. snip. usually you David (we don't like him to upset the players) ;-) and I have to say that this arrangement is excellent, having a really *good* legal mind available > > In the 1997 Laws he can take it to appeal himself, >but I think when he should do so should be material for a different >thread. > snip. agree -please start this one David. I'd like some input here. > > It is not silly. Actually, it is probably me that is wasting people's >time, but I thought I would like to make a full answer. I learn a lot here. Please continue taking the time > > If you have any questions, please ask them, silly or not. :))) > -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 23 11:08:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:08:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19283 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:08:30 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020610; 23 Oct 97 1:38 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:50:13 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings In-Reply-To: <199710222223.SAA27358@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199710222223.SAA27358@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson snip > >L12C2 says that assigned adjusted scores can be either in matchpoints >or in total points prior to matchpointing. (Not IMPs, though. An >oversight?) So why not assign a score in matchpoints that just happens >to be equal to a 50/50 split of two results? I suppose this isn't >*the* most [un]favorable result (singular), but it does seem consistent >with the spirit of the Law. Otherwise, what is the purpose of being >able to assign scores in matchpoints at all? > I don't see how you can award a score of for the sake of argument 4C making when such a contract cannot be reached, from the point in the auction where the problem arose. I recently did something like this by mistake and realised on the way home that I'm not allowed to. My reading of Law 12 does not give me this power. >Obviously this interpretation could create controversy in zones that do >not accept L12C3, and I would not recommend a TD adopt it if the SO >says otherwise. Still, if these adjustments are acceptable to the >players, I see no reason a club TD, for example, shouldn't make them. -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 23 23:07:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:07:24 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA20840 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:07:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004675; 23 Oct 97 13:55 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:51:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer was playing 4S in a major national pairs final. After a few tricks an opponent said "We'll get a club trick, and a trump." Declarer, a member of the EBU's L&EC , played on. He actually had 12 tricks on top at this stage. He discarded the wrong suit from dummy, reducing himself to 11 top tricks. Undeterred, he now threw the claimer in to lead away from his king of clubs, which he obviously had for the claim. He didn't have it ! Eleven tricks! TD called! So, only five questions: 1 What should the TD have ruled? 2 What did the TD rule? 3 Who appealed? 4 What should the AC have ruled? 5 What did the AC rule? The member of the L&EC would prefer to remain nameless, so I shall not tell you. Mind you, he did win the event ... -- 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 Oct 23 23:51:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:51:26 +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 XAA20963 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:50:57 +1000 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aaouto1.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.54]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA28813.; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:10:34 -0400 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA0530; Thu, 23 Oct 97 09:50:11 -0400 Message-Id: <9710231350.AA0530@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by CSERVE (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC1256539003EE4AB; Thu, 23 Oct 97 09:50:11 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 23 Oct 97 14:02:51 Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: wrong mistakes???] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> >The sense of LAW 82 C is IMHO, that a TD is allowed to change a >decision to avoid giving the decision to the AC. So if you as a TD know, >that the AC will change your decision, it makes no sense to deny a new >decision at all. So I think LAW 82 C should be used in these cases as >well where the facts are established after your decision. I do not agree with this *at all*. It is not a formal and juridical argument: it is a commonsense and practical one. ACs are there to review TDs' decisions. More evidence will be taken at an AC. If more evidence appears after a TD decision that does not prove he made a mistake then that is a matter for an AC. << It's a mistake not to check all facts. Assumed that the pair tells the TD *at the table* that they may bring evidence after the session, the TD should not make his final decision before seeing the promised evidence. If (due to new facts) it is obvious that the AC will change my ruling, I will rather change it myself. I try very hard to avoid AC's, mainly because they are a hassle for everyone: The AC-members, the TD's and the players have to work in the night or during the lunchbreak and the quality of the decisions normally is not higher than at the table. On bigger tournaments, we made it a rule to discuss all judgement matters with the other TD's,atlhough this may take some time. Normally, we get very few appeals. >> Once you have made a ruling the only reason to change it is if the ruling was wrong. Primarily this means an error in Law. << A ruling may be wrong for many reasons. Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 00:17:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:17:08 +1000 Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23302 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:16:51 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id QAA07222 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:14:23 +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 sma006875; Thu Oct 23 16:13:20 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 QAA22162 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:13:15 +0200 Received: from sydney (sydney [130.144.63.213]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id QAA13402 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:13:15 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by sydney (1.37.109.15/) id AA234265984; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:13:04 +0200 Message-Id: <199710231413.AA234265984@sydney> Subject: Re: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:13:03 METDST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: DS> Declarer was playing 4S in a major national pairs final. After a few DS> tricks an opponent said "We'll get a club trick, and a trump." DS> DS> Declarer, a member of the EBU's L&EC , played on. He actually DS> had 12 tricks on top at this stage. DS> DS> He discarded the wrong suit from dummy, reducing himself to 11 top DS> tricks. Undeterred, he now threw the claimer in to lead away from his DS> king of clubs, which he obviously had for the claim. DS> DS> He didn't have it ! Eleven tricks! TD called! DS> DS> So, only five questions: DS> DS> 1 What should the TD have ruled? DS> 2 What did the TD rule? DS> 3 Who appealed? DS> 4 What should the AC have ruled? DS> 5 What did the AC rule? My answers: 1. 11 tricks 2. 12 tricks 3. Declarer 4. 11 tricks 5. Declarer: 11 tricks; Opponents: 1 trick Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com Seri : holzsche@nlsce1 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 01:13:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:13:10 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23552 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:13:01 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1016004; 23 Oct 97 13:55 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:42:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 69 In-Reply-To: <199710150453.HAA00418@adm.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: >This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. > >Last round of elimination >W plays 4NT after N opened 1h > >xx AKQxxx >AQx x >Jxx AQx >Q109xx Kxx > >N sx *sA sx sx >E *sK sx sx sx >E cx cx cQ *cA >N cx cx cJ* cx > >At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: >"Just made even without diamond finess". >Both sides put their card into the board and write to scoresheets 630 for >EW. > >After the end of the match NS side find out that declaer had only 9 tricks >at the moment of claim. >They called for TD. > >What is your ruling ? (If it is interesting dK is onside, so finess in >diamonds works.) Sergei: We have given various rulings, and I am happy with mine, given the above facts. However, the hand has been posted on RGB - and there is a *BIG* difference! Mikhail Krasnoselskii wrote: >In this moment declarer shows cards and says: >'just made - i don't even need the di finesse'; >after looking few secs at the cards defence put their >cards to the box, THINKING that they play 3nt. After the >match IN THE CORRECTION TIME they came to TD and Opp and >showed that if they lead low he 4NT will go down one. >TD decided "just made" and defence appealed. > >Some Facts: >1.This was the last match of MIXT Swiss and the last match in the day >(i mean it was deep night). >2.Declarer is a good player, I know him as an honest man. >I think, he was really tired.On Appeal he said that saying "just >made" he thought that he 's playing 3nt. >3.Opp man's level is expert, but he likes to drink in the evening. >Woman is intermediate. >4.The team of defence is going or not to final , depending on this >appeal. > >Appeal Committee has three versions to vote : >1. 100 for both sides . >2. 630 for both sides . >3. -630 for NS, -100 for EW. If it is true that when declarer claimed he meant to claim nine tricks then I think it changes everything. Was this the case? -- 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 Oct 24 01:15:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:15:59 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23575 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:15:50 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1012869; 23 Oct 97 15:43 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 15:42:42 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > Declarer was playing 4S in a major national pairs final. After a few >tricks an opponent said "We'll get a club trick, and a trump." > > Declarer, a member of the EBU's L&EC , played on. He actually >had 12 tricks on top at this stage. > > He discarded the wrong suit from dummy, reducing himself to 11 top >tricks. Undeterred, he now threw the claimer in to lead away from his >king of clubs, which he obviously had for the claim. > > He didn't have it ! Eleven tricks! TD called! > > So, only five questions: > Having exhausted the possibilities of looking at rude pages on the web (or at least exhausted myself ....), I thought i'd try my hand at a ruling :))). I'm off to the Isle of Man with David in a few weeks to conduct some TD training, he always likes some little anecdotes to tell of others' mistakes so I might as well provide him with some cheap ammunition. >1 What should the TD have ruled? This is so suspiciously easy, that I am bound to get this wrong. Law 68A seems to suggest that this is a claim. Law 69B seems to suggest there is a concession also (we've been here before but this seems irrelevant - the defender's partner hasn't objected) - Nope I am happy - THERE IS A CLAIM. 68 B - PLAY CEASES. It even tells us what to do if play goes on - It shall be "voided by the Director". All this stuff about what happened next is irrelevant - it mught look like the play of a hand but it is not. The Law is for once unambiguous. Play ceases. The TD when called must apply Law 70 or 71 - here the defender has claimed two tricks. He must restate his clarification statement - >"We'll get a club trick, and a trump." All the cards still left at the time that the clam was made should be faced and th TD should then ask the opponents to state their objections to the claim. (The best chance here seems dummy because Declarer was obviously not up to the job) Given that your statment was there were 12 top tricks it seems likely that the TD should have not accepted the claim and should have awarded 12 tricks to the Declarer. >2 What did the TD rule? Given that this was a >major national pairs final. it seems likely that there was a Lawbook on site and so one hopes this was what was ruled. Silly scenario ???? TD ruled 11 tricks???? - soon to be ex-td?? >3 Who appealed? If TD ruled as i have suggested presumably defenders would appeal - although on what grounds i don't know if TD has read the relevant bits from the presumed on-site Law book. Silly scenario (continued) - shamefaced member of L&E appeals ??? this seems a bit unlikely - has he woken up to the fact that he hasn't played to the best advantage here??? - secondly and worse - any L&E member would know that DS gets to see all appeals and so would be certain to take the piss one way or the other >4 What should the AC have ruled? AC should have ruled 12 tricks - if 12 tricks ruled - kept the deposit - asked for TD to explain ruling If L&E man appealing - should still rule 12 tricks - reluctantly :)) ??? and taken the piss >5 What did the AC rule? Even if TD got this wrong surely you couldn't find three bridge players who couldn't rftlb. I have faith in our system. AC GOT IT RIGHT!!!! (If not I suggest Nanki Poo and Quango should be invited to serve on Appeals Committees in future) > > The member of the L&EC would prefer to remain nameless, so I shall not >tell you. Mind you, he did win the event ... > MIKE - (convinced that his wit and sarcasm will certainly rebound on him when he is told by DS that he's made a complete ass of himself as usual) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 01:16:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:16:32 +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 BAA23603 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:16:25 +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 LAA13632; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710231516.LAA12119@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:51:17 +0100) Subject: Re: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Declarer was playing 4S in a major national pairs final. After a few > tricks an opponent said "We'll get a club trick, and a trump." > Declarer, a member of the EBU's L&EC , played on. All play subsequent to a claim is voided, so this is irrelevant, although I think the declarer deserves a procedural penalty in a national pairs final, probably 1/4 of a board. > He actually > had 12 tricks on top at this stage. > He discarded the wrong suit from dummy, reducing himself to 11 top > tricks. Since it was the defender who claimed, the fact that declarer showed that this line was normal for him doesn't affect the ruling; the defender is not entitled to a trick if there is some normal line on which he wouldn't get the trick. > Undeterred, he now threw the claimer in to lead away from his > king of clubs, which he obviously had for the claim. > He didn't have it ! Eleven tricks! TD called! I would have to know more about the hand to see whether the defender knew the situation. If he probably knew (from the bidding and play up to that point) that his partner had the club king, then declarer took an inference from the statement at his own risk. If he didn't know, and could have known that his claim would deceive declarer, I rule under Law 73F2 that declarer is entitled to take the correct line of play. Since I am ruling that declarer gets twelve tricks anyway, that doesn't matter, but if you would have given director eleven tricks above, then he could still get twelve tricks under the Law 73F2 ruling. > So, only five questions: > 1 What should the TD have ruled? Twelve tricks. Declarer disputed a claim and there was a normal line of play on which he took twelve tricks. (TD's rarely impose procedural penalties, but one should have been imposed here.) > 2 What did the TD rule? Eleven tricks; he let the hand stand as played out. > 3 Who appealed? Declarer. > 4 What should the AC have ruled? Twelve tricks and a 1/4 board penalty to declarer. > 5 What did the AC rule? Eleven tricks to declarer and twelve tricks to defender. -- 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 Oct 24 01:52:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:52:25 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23753 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:52:19 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000165; 23 Oct 97 15:38 BST Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 15:38:10 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Addresses To: Bridge Laws 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 Please can someone give me one or more e-mail addresses for the group in Canada involved in the Zero Tolerance experiment. They are: Paul Cronin, Mary Paul & Duncan R.Phillips. Thanks Martin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 02:40:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 02:40:24 +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 CAA24277 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 02:40:18 +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 MAA09823; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971023123819_1835749984@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: martin.pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Addresses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is Paul Cronin's address: phmjppjc@iaw.on.ca The other one I have which may help is Barbara Seagram: bseagram@interlog.com I'll be happy to help further if I'm able. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 02:48:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 02:48:38 +1000 Received: from ws2.icl.co.uk (mailgate.icl.co.uk [194.176.223.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA24392 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 02:47:20 +1000 Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk by ws2.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26059; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:45:47 GMT Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08831; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:46:03 +0100 Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id RAA29174; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:33:34 +0100 X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 23 Oct 97 17:32:25 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=iclexpo/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 23 Oct 97 17:31:55 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 23 Oct 97 17:30:47 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Thu, 23 Oct 97 18:33:00 +0200 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 18:33:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G0002190C81000000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <28934.1863086510@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Importance: normal Subject: RE:Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson: >1 What should the TD have ruled? Nothing happend, 11 tricks. >2 What did the TD rule? 12 tricks (?) >3 Who appealed? Declarer. >4 What should the AC have ruled? 11 tricks >5 What did the AC rule? Declarer 12, Opponents 2 tricks J.Romanski jan_f_romanski@x400.icl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 04:52:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 04:52:15 +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 EAA24900 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 04:51:57 +1000 Received: from s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru (foxy.p2p [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id WAA23429; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:49:25 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199710231849.WAA23429@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Law 69 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:23:42 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote > Sergei Litvak wrote: > >This problem arised at MIXT teams National in Russia. > > > >Last round of elimination > >W plays 4NT after N opened 1h > > > >xx AKQxxx > >AQx x > >Jxx AQx > >Q109xx Kxx > > > >N sx *sA sx sx > >E *sK sx sx sx > >E cx cx cQ *cA > >N cx cx cJ* cx > > > >At this moment declare opened his hand with the claim: > >"Just made even without diamond finess". > >Both sides put their card into the board and write to scoresheets 630 for > >EW. > > > >After the end of the match NS side find out that declaer had only 9 tricks > >at the moment of claim. > >They called for TD. > > > >What is your ruling ? (If it is interesting dK is onside, so finess in > >diamonds works.) > > Sergei: We have given various rulings, and I am happy with mine, given > the above facts. However, the hand has been posted on RGB - and there > is a *BIG* difference! > > Mikhail Krasnoselskii wrote: (One of AC members) > >In this moment declarer shows cards and says: > >'just made - i don't even need the di finesse'; > >after looking few secs at the cards defence put their > >cards to the box, THINKING that they play 3nt. After the > >match IN THE CORRECTION TIME they came to TD and Opp and > >showed that if they lead low he 4NT will go down one. > >TD decided "just made" and defence appealed. > > > >Some Facts: > >1.This was the last match of MIXT Swiss and the last match in the day > >(i mean it was deep night). > >2.Declarer is a good player, I know him as an honest man. > >I think, he was really tired.On Appeal he said that saying "just > >made" he thought that he 's playing 3nt. > >3.Opp man's level is expert, but he likes to drink in the evening. > >Woman is intermediate. > >4.The team of defence is going or not to final , depending on this > >appeal. 5. In the scoresheets there was +630 for EW as it was told to me! > >Appeal Committee has three versions to vote : > >1. 100 for both sides . > >2. 630 for both sides . > >3. -630 for NS, -100 for EW. > > If it is true that when declarer claimed he meant to claim nine tricks > then I think it changes everything. I also think so, but I was not TD in this Tournament. I was asked by RBL vice-president to give the ruling for the case explained to me as I described above. > Was this the case? The real situation so is covered with clouds... Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 09:15:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:15:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA25885 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:14:53 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1000670; 24 Oct 97 0:00 BST Message-ID: <9GpJODA8a9T0Ewmz@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:59:08 +0100 To: David Grabiner Cc: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! In-Reply-To: <199710231516.LAA12119@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199710231516.LAA12119@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes >David Stevenson writes: > >> Declarer was playing 4S in a major national pairs final. After a few >> tricks an opponent said "We'll get a club trick, and a trump." > >> Declarer, a member of the EBU's L&EC , played on. > >All play subsequent to a claim is voided, so this is irrelevant, >although I think the declarer deserves a procedural penalty in a >national pairs final, probably 1/4 of a board. > Why is DECLARER more to blame than defenders - they claimed and there are two of them????? don't they get procedural penalty too ??? 2* 1/4 board?? "snip" -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 10:05:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:05:12 +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 KAA26033 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:05:06 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id UAA01004; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 20:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 20:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971023200244_409481726@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: martin.pool@timberlands.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Addresses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I can help with one of the addresses you're looking for: Mary Paul is to be found at: Mariana@inforamp.net Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 14:32:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:32:31 +1000 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA26566 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:32:24 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.70.58]) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id HAA25654 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 07:32:11 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199710240432.HAA25654@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 08:32:53 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > So, only five questions: > > 1 What should the TD have ruled? > 2 What did the TD rule? > 3 Who appealed? > 4 What should the AC have ruled? > 5 What did the AC rule? 1. 12 tricks for defence, 11 ticks for declare 2. 12 tricks both 3. Defenders 4. See 1. 5. 11 tricks for defence,12 for declarer. Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 17:45:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA26933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:45:49 +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 RAA26928 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:45:38 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA05112; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:26:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma004798; Fri, 24 Oct 97 01:25:19 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA03349 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199710240747.AAA03349@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 24 Oct 97 08:35:32 GMT Subject: Re: Addresses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the risk of sounding ignorant, what is the "Zero Tolerance experiment"? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 19:18:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:18:41 +1000 Received: from E-MAIL.COM (e-mail.com [204.146.168.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA27757 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:18:33 +1000 From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Message-Id: <199710240918.TAA27757@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 0197; Fri, 24 Oct 97 05:18:25 EDT Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 05:17:53 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE:MEMBER OF L&EC SHOWS WHAT TO Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I see some hitherto unmentioned possibilities in reply to the poser by David Stevenson: >1 What should the TD have ruled? 12 tricks for NS, 1 trick for EW, and some fatherly advice for both sides on how to claim and how to behave after a claim has been made. He might also have hinted that he was prepared to serve on the L&EC. >2 What did the TD rule? Both sides were offending and made it impossible to obtain a "normal" score on the board, so he awarded both sides average-minus (40%-40%). >3 Who appealed? Assuming my answer to 2 is correct, I fancy both sides did appeal. >4 What should the AC have ruled? Same answer as to question 1. >5 What did the AC rule? The AC upheld the director's ruling. Of course, they didn't return the appeal deposit to either side. It all may sound a bit far-fetched, but why else should David have asked ?! Jac Fuchs (the Netherlands) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 21:51:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:51:34 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29253 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:51:27 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010502; 24 Oct 97 12:13 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:03:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Declarer was playing 4S in a major national pairs final. After a few >tricks an opponent said "We'll get a club trick, and a trump." > > Declarer, a member of the EBU's L&EC , played on. He actually >had 12 tricks on top at this stage. > > He discarded the wrong suit from dummy, reducing himself to 11 top >tricks. Undeterred, he now threw the claimer in to lead away from his >king of clubs, which he obviously had for the claim. > > He didn't have it ! Eleven tricks! TD called! > > So, only five questions: > >1 What should the TD have ruled? >2 What did the TD rule? >3 Who appealed? >4 What should the AC have ruled? >5 What did the AC rule? I have had some emails pointing out quite forcibly that for this sort of ruling the hands are required. While I don't actually agree, the main reason I did not post them was because I ccould not remember them. However I struggled with my memory and came up with the following [copy of part of an email I sent]: --------- I cannot remember it, or I would have posted it! In our discussions it did not seem very important. Others have said much the same. I'll think about it. There was definitely a 5-2 heart fit breaking 3-3, because after it is established by ruffing the two discards mean you can guarantee twelve tricks - but declarer failed to make the right discard. That means that dummy has three clubs. Trumps: the defence ducked: try this: Axxx Q9xx Axxxx Kx Kx Axxx Ax Qxx The diamonds are a total guess, and I have no idea where the heart honours were. Suppose a heart was led [I would have remembered if it had been a black card] HK, S to A, S to Q, HA, H ruff, D to K. xx 9 xx -- x Axx Ax Qxx It was something like this. At this point an opponent claimed two tricks [club + trump]. Of course, declarer should discards two clubs on the hearts and crossruff for twelve - but he didn't! He discarded a diamond and "endplayed the claimer". I suppose this must have been North since I can't see how he could endplay South. Discard a club and a diamond on the hearts, DA and ruff a diamond, spade. In the two card ending North has to lead a club, so presumably South had the club king [otherwise there would be no story!]. This is my best guess: KJx ??x ?xx? Axxx ?xx? Q9xx Axxxx Kx Kx Axxx Ax Tx Qxx ??x ?xx? K?x?? Sorry I can't be more accurate. As I said, we did not think the hand that important [once the TD had made sure of the facts] which is why I am unsure of it. --------- This was meant as a fairly light-hearted post. I would not be making a little fun at one of my colleagues if I was not totally sure of his ethics: he just had a temporary blind spot. means very big grin means even bigger grin -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 24 23:06:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 23:06:57 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00257 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 23:06:51 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic67.cais.com [207.226.56.67]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA24105 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971024090745.006c5a30@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:07:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings In-Reply-To: <199710222223.SAA27358@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:23 PM 10/22/97 -0400, Steve wrote: >L12C2 says that assigned adjusted scores can be either in matchpoints >or in total points prior to matchpointing. (Not IMPs, though. An >oversight?) A minor technical point, but I think the word "matchpoints" properly refers to both ordinal (ordinary) matchpoints and IMPs; "IMP", after all, is an abbreviation for "international matchpoint". The Laws' definition of "matchpoint" ("A unit of scoring awarded to a contestant as a result of comparison with one or more other scores") certainly seems to cover IMPs. 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 Oct 25 00:12:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 00:12:00 +1000 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01714 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 00:11:44 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA02000 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971024100930_376099787@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Addresses Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-10-24 03:49:53 EDT, Stephen Barnfield writes: > At the risk of sounding ignorant, what is the "Zero Tolerance experiment"? The full name is "Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behaviour". The concept was originated in Toronto by Unit 166 (which helps to explain the spelling of behavior:-) It basically says we are no longer tolerating rude behavior. Examples of Acceptable and Unacceptable Behavior are quoted in a write-up of the policy. There is also a great poster announcing Zero Tolerance with a picture of an ogre (no, I was not the model) with a border of a red circle and a red line through him - very much like the No Smoking signs. The poster and more information can be seen at: http://www.mindspring.com/~whidco/0ToleranceHome.html Zero Tolerance sets down very clear penalties for violating these guidelines. The first offense earns 1/4 board (or 3 IMPs) procedural penalty. Second offense calls for the player to be suspended from the session. This policy is receiving wide acceptance throughout the ACBL. Units, Districts and clubs are finding the players are delighted (not the rude ones) that something is finally being done about this problem. In the ACBL, we have been much too tolerant of rude players for years. Every time we take surveys of the people that don't renew their memberships, rudeness in the clubs and tournaments comes up as the #1 reason. And this is the first effort to actively deal with the problem in some uniform manner. The ACBL Board of Directors has voted to establish a policy about ZT and will probably approve one in the upcoming meeting in Memphis. To date, I'm sorry to say that many TDs have been more than reluctant to dispense these PPs. They seem to prefer giving warnings which have not worked for years. In the clubs and tournaments which have implemented ZT, the player reaction has been VERY positive. The basis in the Laws for these PPs starts with L74A1-2. Rude behavior is a clear violation of this Law. As to the PPs, L90A allows for them and L80F makes it clear that the SO may set down a policy calling for them. L81B2 calls for the TD to enforce any supplemental regulations set forth by the SO. Actually, the only Law one really needs to refer to is L91A which not only spells out such a practice but also makes it clear that such penalties are not appealable. When we first put ZT in place in our club, there were some early penalties dispensed but there have been very few lately. I have always maintained that players will not cross any clear line that is drawn for them. But they will push until they know where that line is. The most important reaction has been form the less experienced players who have raved about the policy. A few have returned because of it. I'm not sure how much of a problem this is in the rest of the world, but here it really is a problem that has not been adequately dealt with to date. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 00:59:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 00:59:55 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03820 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 00:59:48 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic67.cais.com [207.226.56.67]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA05167 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971024110041.006cf7bc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:00:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:51 AM 10/23/97 +0100, David wrote: > Declarer was playing 4S in a major national pairs final. After a few >tricks an opponent said "We'll get a club trick, and a trump." > > Declarer, a member of the EBU's L&EC , played on. He actually >had 12 tricks on top at this stage. > > He discarded the wrong suit from dummy, reducing himself to 11 top >tricks. Undeterred, he now threw the claimer in to lead away from his >king of clubs, which he obviously had for the claim. > > He didn't have it ! Eleven tricks! TD called! > > So, only five questions: > >1 What should the TD have ruled? >2 What did the TD rule? >3 Who appealed? >4 What should the AC have ruled? >5 What did the AC rule? Questions 1 and 4 aren't hard, but 2, 3 and 5 are impossible. Nevertheless, I'll take a couple of guesses: (1) 12 tricks. The hand ended when the defender claimed; what happened subsequently is irrelevant (L68D). Declarer had 12 tricks on top, and there's no reason not to give them to him (L70A). (2) Well, if the answer was "12 tricks; see 1" David probably wouldn't be asking these questions, so I'll go out on a limb and say 11 tricks. Actually, I have a lot of sympathy for the notion that declarer's loss of the 12th trick at the table was self-imposed, and in no way the fault of his opponents, so the table score should stand. That strikes me as "equity" here, but I would consider it too much of a stretch of L84D to rule that way; I think the laws on claims are too specific. Personally, I never cared much for the absolute stricture of L68D. When there's a claim, the laws give the other side only two choices, acquiesce or contest. If I made up the laws myself, I'd add a third, reject, i.e. ignore the claim and play on. As this anecdote suggests, this often happens in real life, even though it has no basis in law. (3) Declarer. That guess, of course, is simply being consistent with 1 and 2. (4) 12 tricks. See 1. (5) It depends on the locale. Here are some possibilities: (5a, on the continent): Declarer should be entitled to 12, but reducing himself to 11 was an egregious error that cost him his right to redress under the Kaplan doctrine. 11 tricks. (5b, in England): Had play ceased as required by law, declarer might have found his 12 top tricks, or might (obviously, since he did) have found the line to reduce himself to 11. Call it 50-50. Split the result. 11-1/2 tricks, declarer +665. (5c, in the ACBL): Claimer could have suspected, at the time of the claim, that declarer might be misled into throwing away a winner to produce an endplay in the hopes of making the local bridge column. Declarer is entitled to protection from his opponent's potentially misleading statement. 12 tricks. - Eric (who doesn't believe in using smileys). 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 Oct 25 02:06:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:06:37 +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 CAA05076 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:06:31 +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 MAA28966 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:06:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28341; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:06:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:06:28 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710241606.MAA28341@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Does Frank Steward read BLML? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For those overseas, Frank Stewart writes a popular bridge column carried in many newspapers. It is the one formerly written by Alfred Sheinwold. His column yesterday contained: AJ Qxx Kxxx AKQTx x xxx Kxx KJTx xx Jxx QJTx QT9876 Axxxx Axx xxx x In 4S, declarer ruffs the second club and draws trumps. Stewart comments "South must not finesse in trumps even if West shows him the king." (Else declarer is forced to ruff an extra club and loses control.) I don't think this breaks any new legal ground, but I thought some readers might be amused by the apt illustration. Many recent "Sheinwold on Bridge" columns are available via Baron- Barclay at http://www.iglou.com/baronbarclay/sheinwol.htm . This one is http://www.iglou.com/baronbarclay/102397.htm . From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 02:46:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:46:58 +1000 Received: from mail.thebest.net (mail.thebest.net [207.124.26.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05246 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:46:50 +1000 Received: from 207.124.26.165 ([207.124.26.165]) by thebest.net (Eureka! Gold(tm) v2.4 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Oct24.124831.G1000.321236; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:48:34 -0400 Message-ID: <34502AF2.66A7@thebest.net> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:00:23 -0500 From: annparker Reply-To: annparker@thebest.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Strong Two-Club Opener 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 How would you rule if you, as director, were called to a table because the opening bidder had opened 2 clubs with the following hand: S--QJ93, H--AKJ98642, D--VOID, C--5? On his card he had a 2-Club opener marked as strong, showing 21 points. I will appreciate your discussion of this. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 04:22:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:22:32 +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 EAA05550 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:22:25 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-30.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.220]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA16607; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3450E89A.6EE51107@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:27:39 -0400 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Addresses References: <199710240747.AAA03349@cactus.tc.pw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > At the risk of sounding ignorant, what is the "Zero Tolerance experiment"? > > Steve Barnfield > Tunbridge Wells, England Check out Jonathan Steinberg's home page. It can be found via ACBL.org. Jon is the District Director of District 2 where all this has started. He has listed a really nice outline of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors at the bridge table. He is also heading the ACBL committee to work on this problem. He would like to hear from anyone with ideas as to how to curb bad behavior in clubs, etc. I have adopted this policy in my club and think we need something to let players (the rude ones) that we aren't going to take it any more!!. Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 04:36:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:36:19 +1000 Received: from emout32.mail.aol.com (emout32.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA05585 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:36:13 +1000 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout32.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA03528 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:35:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:35:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971024143149_-593044745@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com (Steve Barnfield) writes: >At the risk of sounding ignorant, what is the "Zero Tolerance experiment"?< The ACBL is encouraging (or mandating, I'm not sure which) a tautological policy of "Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behavior" As implemented vy the San Diego Unit, it goes like this: EXPECTED BEHAVIOR 1. Greet players prior to start of play of each round 2. Be a good "host" or "guest" at the bridge table 3. Do everything possible to make bridge enjoyable for yourself, partner and opponents 4. Give credit when opponents make a good bid or play UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR 1. Criticizing partner or opponents 2. Badgering, rudeness, insinuation, profanity, threats of violence, violence 3. Negative comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding 4. Discussing hands after round is called 5. Gloating over good results 6. Objecting to a call for a Director 7. Disputing a director's ruling during a game (filing an appeal is the appropriate action) 8. Poor personal hygiene, grooming or dress If a player at the table behaves in an unacceptable manner, the director is called immediately. If a player believes that unacceptable behavior has occurred, a statement that "This player (pair) is interfering with my enjoyment of the game" should be made. This conduct is specifically prohibited by Law 74A. Law 91A gives the director the authority to assess disciplinary penalties. (There follows a number of procedures for implementation, including an immediate 3 matchpoint (or 3 IMP) disciplinary penalty for all guilty players. If both members of a partnership are guilty, then double those penalties. A second offense is cause for ejection from the event. Serious or multiple offenses will be referred to a Conduct and Ethics Committee. Warnings are strongly discouraged. A Zero Tolerance Report Form is available for the use of players to report incidents away from the table or incidents where TDs fail to take action. The Recorder collects such forms, and if there are four concerning one person, the person is hauled in front of the C&E Committee.) It continues: ALTHOUGH THESE PROCEDURES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO CLUB OWNERS, CLUB OWNERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ADOPT SIMILAR PROCEDURES. MEMBERS MAY FILE ZERO TOLERANCE REPORT FORMS FOR INCIDENTS OCCURRING IN PLAY AT CLUBS. A friend of mine got a warning from a club TD when he was overheard congratulating partner on an opening lead and subsequent defense in a notrump contract. The opponents had left the table, but the TD said this constituted "gloating" because the conversation was loud enough to be overheard. Note that you can't disagree with a TD's ruling other than by filing an appeal. ACs are going to be busy in games I play in. My partner and I have agreed (don't tell anyone) that the more effusive we are in praise of a bid or play, the worse it is. Good actions are given a mild compliment. Just joking. There is a current ACBL policy (contained in "ACBL Conduct Regulations" on the ACBL web site) that states: "Private conversations (which do not include accusations of third party unethical conduct) are not within the ACBL's jurisdiction even if they take place at a tournament site. (Board of Directors - Nov 1986)." All you legal beagles out there will please discuss whether Zero Tolerance interferes with the policy of free speech implied by this regulation. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 04:42:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:42:18 +1000 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA05609 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:42:10 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA03727; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:41:42 -0800 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:41:42 -0800 (AKDT) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Zero Tolerance legal issues Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This discussion of Zero Tolerance has reminded me of a few thoughts I have been suppressing for a while... In principle I am entirely in agreement with the ideals of Zero Tolerance. But the more I read about it, the more I have grave doubts about possible side effects of it. (Disclaimer: I am not from an area where the program is currently in place, so this is based only on what I have read.) One of my concerns is -- why would we choose to enforce 74A1 so vigorously but not all the other rules? Something is wrong when it is considered more important for me to greet the opponents than, say, to call the director before correcting partner's misexplanation at the end of the auction. (This latter is specifically required by law and I have virtually never seen it done...) Along the same lines, it feels very wrong to give automatic PPs for impoliteness when PPs are so rarely given for any other infraction... even fairly serious ones... I think the part that worries me most is the prohibition on disputing a director's ruling... I know that by "dispute" they mean "argue with rudely", not just "politely disagree with"... but the wording of this item in the Zero Tolerance material is such that I believe the ZT policy, as it stands, is (perhaps unintentionally) infringing on a player's right to appeal... quite frankly, I have had more trouble with sloppy rulings from inexperienced or out-of-date directors in club games than I have had with rude players. And in my own directing, impolite disputes of my rulings have been rare... usually either a reading aloud from the laws or a prompt offer of an appeals committee ends that... Just a few thoughts. I will wholeheartedly support Zero Tolerance, just as soon as we start supporting all the rest of the laws and proprieties with the same vigor. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 05:22:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:22:47 +1000 Received: from elektra.ultra.net (elektra.ultra.net [199.232.56.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05748 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:22:41 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by elektra.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14191) with SMTP id PAA05024 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:22:37 -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-1997Oct25.031400.1189.144525; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:13:55 -0600 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Oct25.031400.1189.144525@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:13:55 -0600 Subject: FW: Strong Two-Club Opener Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: annparker[SMTP:annparker@thebest.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 1:24 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: Strong Two-Club Opener >How would you rule if you, as director, were called to a table because >the opening bidder had opened 2 clubs with the following hand: S--QJ93, >H--AKJ98642, D--VOID, C--5? On his card he had a 2-Club opener marked >as strong, showing 21 points. I will appreciate your discussion of >this. I apologize in advance that my answer to this question is based partially on quoting the ACBL Convention Chart. I do so because, I do not have access to the appropriate convention charts for any parts of Europe, and not because I assume that the standards of the ACBL should be extended throughout the world (Frankly, I'm not that happy about there use in North America, but that's another story) The GCC allows TWO CLUBS ARTIFICAL OPENING BID indicating one of: a strong hand b a three suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP There are no restriction which govern the minimum HCP strength which this "strong hand" should hold. With the exception of NT opening bids of less than 9 HCP, Players are allowed to use their own judgment whether to upgrade or downgrade the strength of certain hands. While this hand only has 11 HCP, it does only have 4 losers. I do not think that it is unreasonable that a play might be unwilling to open this hand with a non forcing opening. However, while treating this hand type as a 2C opener is legal, it is sufficiently removed from standard bidding practices that the opponent's deserve some protection. My ruling would probably be results stand, however, in the pair in question chooses to treat lump these freak opener's into their strong 2C opening, their convention card should be adjusted to reflect this and their opening 2C bid should be alerted. I'm sure this is completely wrong, and I'd appreciate knowing why. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 05:26:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:26:24 +1000 Received: from ime.net (ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05774 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:26:18 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-54.ime.net [209.90.193.84]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA02304 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 15:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971024152950.4a7f82ae@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@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:35 PM 10/24/97 -0400, Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >(There follows a number of procedures for implementation, including an >immediate 3 matchpoint (or 3 IMP) disciplinary penalty for all guilty >players. If both members of a partnership are guilty, then double those >penalties. A second offense is cause for ejection from the event. Serious or >multiple offenses will be referred to a Conduct and Ethics Committee. >Warnings are strongly discouraged. A Zero Tolerance Report Form is available >for the use of players to report incidents away from the table or incidents >where TDs fail to take action. The Recorder collects such forms, and if there >are four concerning one person, the person is hauled in front of the C&E >Committee.) I'm part of a District 25 (New England) committee which is considering impletmenting a Zero Tolerance program. (Actually, I think it's introduction is inevitable, the committee is more concerned with how it is implemented.) One of my primary concerns is that directors will be lenient in assessing penalties and that the program will be seen as so much lip service as a result. Can anyone tell me if Zero Tolerance reports have led to the ejection of any players from an event? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 05:33:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:33:57 +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 FAA05844 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:33:51 +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 MAA03160 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA20351; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:33:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:33:41 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199710241933.MAA20351@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: |One of my concerns is -- why would we choose to enforce 74A1 so vigorously |but not all the other rules? Something is wrong when it is considered more |important for me to greet the opponents than, say, to call the director |before correcting partner's misexplanation at the end of the auction. |(This latter is specifically required by law and I have virtually never |seen it done...) The reason that we want to enforce 74A1 is that the ACBL has come to believe that the public perception of bridge needs to be improved in order to maintain membership at its current level. Consistently since 1960, bridge players have complained about obnoxious opponents and partners. (I don't have any information earlier than 1960.) In these supposedly kinder gentler times, many who are in power have come to believe that in order to attract and keep new players, bridge has to clean up its image, and therefore clean up itself. If players complain about rudeness, it is inferred that ex-players found rudeness to be a problem. If rudeness is, indeed, a problem, countermeasures must be taken from a central authority; individual players cannot fix it. Hence, the ACBL has decided to try ZT. So, the bottom line is, we don't enforce calling the director before correcting partner's misexplanation because failure to do so isn't a major problem, because if we screw up as a result, we can usually recover. If we screw up by allowing objectionable behavior and it turns out that it was causing our negative growth, then we are history, we cannot recover. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 05:40:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:40:17 +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 FAA05890 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:40:10 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa03964; 24 Oct 97 12:39 PDT To: annparker@thebest.net cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strong Two-Club Opener In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:00:23 PDT." <34502AF2.66A7@thebest.net> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:39:28 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710241239.aa03964@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > How would you rule if you, as director, were called to a table because > the opening bidder had opened 2 clubs with the following hand: S--QJ93, > H--AKJ98642, D--VOID, C--5? On his card he had a 2-Club opener marked > as strong, showing 21 points. I will appreciate your discussion of > this. Well, the way most people play, the HCP range for 2C marked on their convention card applies only to balanced hands that will rebid notrump, not to 2C openings based on tricks. So the "21" isn't relevant. I have my cards marked as "22+" HCP "or 8 1/2 tricks", or something to that effect, but I wouldn't ding anyone for not having this last bit on their card, because just about everyone knows what the 2C really means anyway. I think I'd find out what their agreement really is regarding opening 2C on hands with a lot of tricks in a single suit and little outside defense. (1) If they've agreed that 2C can be opened on those hands, then I don't see a problem. The agreement is a legal one, as far as I can see; the GCC (I'm assuming you're in ACBL territory) allows 2C to indicate "a strong hand", but doesn't define "strong". A hand with near-game offensive strength and almost no defensive strength can be considered "strong" by at least some definitions of the term. So I can't rule that this is an illegal agreement. Some people might argue that this type of 2C opener is so far from "standard" that it should be alerted. It's hard for me to address this, since there's always so much confusion about what does and doesn't need to be alerted. (2) If their agreement is that 2C requires a fair amount of defensive strength, I'd probably consider this a psych. According to ACBL policy, this psych would be illegal---although most people on this list would argue that the ACBL policy is itself illegal. (3) If they've never discussed this (which I suspect is case for most novice and intermediate players), I'd rule "ignorance". That is, opener counted a certain number of tricks, thought that a 2C opening was required with that many tricks, and has never been exposed to the opinions of good players that 2C needs more than this. Since ignorance is not illegal, there's nothing to rule on. So in all probability, I'd rule nothing illegal happened. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 06:04:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 06:04:58 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05978 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 06:04:47 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic22.cais.com [207.226.56.22]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05669 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971024160543.0069219c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:05:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <971024143149_-593044745@emout07.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:35 PM 10/24/97 -0400, Mlfrench wrote: >The ACBL is encouraging (or mandating, I'm not sure which) a tautological >policy of "Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behavior" As implemented vy the >San Diego Unit, it goes like this: As I understand what's going on, the ACBL is encouraging its units and districts to mandate this new and, IMHO, not very well thought-out policy. >EXPECTED BEHAVIOR > >1. Greet players prior to start of play of each round >2. Be a good "host" or "guest" at the bridge table >3. Do everything possible to make bridge enjoyable for yourself, partner and >opponents >4. Give credit when opponents make a good bid or play > >UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR > >1. Criticizing partner or opponents >2. Badgering, rudeness, insinuation, profanity, threats of violence, violence >3. Negative comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding >4. Discussing hands after round is called >5. Gloating over good results >6. Objecting to a call for a Director >7. Disputing a director's ruling during a game (filing an appeal is the >appropriate action) >8. Poor personal hygiene, grooming or dress > >If a player at the table behaves in an unacceptable manner, the director is >called immediately. If a player believes that unacceptable behavior has >occurred, a statement that "This player (pair) is interfering with my >enjoyment of the game" should be made. This conduct is specifically >prohibited by Law 74A. Law 91A gives the director the authority to assess >disciplinary penalties. > >(There follows a number of procedures for implementation, including an >immediate 3 matchpoint (or 3 IMP) disciplinary penalty for all guilty >players. If both members of a partnership are guilty, then double those >penalties. A second offense is cause for ejection from the event. Serious or >multiple offenses will be referred to a Conduct and Ethics Committee. >Warnings are strongly discouraged. A Zero Tolerance Report Form is available >for the use of players to report incidents away from the table or incidents >where TDs fail to take action. The Recorder collects such forms, and if there >are four concerning one person, the person is hauled in front of the C&E >Committee.) I predict that if these policies are actually mandated by an SO, within a couple of months (at most) there will be a manifest need to adjudicate alleged violations of it, lest the SO be accused of imposing penalties on players for "unacceptable" behavior of which they are accused without giving them the opportunity to refute the accusations or attempt to defend themselves. And the result will be "zero tolerance committees" meeting late at night, after the session, to hear disputes over alleged ZT violations, just as our ordinary ACs now hear disputes over law violations. BLML knows all too well how difficult it is for ordinary ACs, made up (in the ACBL) of whatever volunteers can be garnered for such late-night duty on the spot, to render correct and consistent judgments on the matters that come before them. As if it's not difficult enough know to make fine judgments about bridge bidding and play, these "ZTC" members will be required to make fine judgments on matters of social comity. We can expect to see a lot of discussion of widely varying, highly idiosyncratic, often near-random decisions made by these committees on such subjects as: - The fine line between what constitutes a better player's (or pro's) "teaching his partner to play better bridge" and "criticising his partner". (Isn't constructive criticism, at the table when the subject is fresh, part of what playing pros are paid for?) - The fine line between "making a polite request of an opponent" and "badgering". This seems less a matter of what is said than of how it is taken by the person being spoken to. - The fine line between "congratulating partner on a brilliancy that produced a top score" and "gloating". - The fine line between asking a TD to read the relevant rule (which is every player's right) and "disputing his ruling". - The fine line between what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable hygiene, grooming, or dress. ...and all those "bridge lawyers", who, I suspect, drive more people away from the game than do things like "insinuation", "criticizing partner" or "poor grooming", will take up a new sideline as "zero tolerance lawyers", and have a field day. 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 Oct 25 06:24:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 06:24:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA06088 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 06:24:33 +1000 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021386; 24 Oct 97 20:52 BST Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:56:23 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Pool Subject: Addresses To: Bridge Laws 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 Thanks to everyone who sent me info. Regards Martin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 07:13:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 07:13:19 +1000 Received: from ime.net (ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06236 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 07:13:07 +1000 Received: from lizard (port-54.ime.net [209.90.193.84]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA23134; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:12:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:12:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971024171628.8f07139e@ime.net> X-Sender: timg@ime.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:05 PM 10/24/97 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >I predict that if these policies are actually mandated by an SO, within a >couple of months (at most) there will be a manifest need to adjudicate >alleged violations of it, lest the SO be accused of imposing penalties on >players for "unacceptable" behavior of which they are accused without >giving them the opportunity to refute the accusations or attempt to defend >themselves. And the result will be "zero tolerance committees" meeting >late at night, after the session, to hear disputes over alleged ZT >violations, just as our ordinary ACs now hear disputes over law violations. This is a simple matter of condition of entry. If each entry form has on it a "entrance in this event constitutes acceptance of Zero Tolerance program" etc., there will be no need for any Zero Tolerance committees. >- The fine line between what constitutes a better player's (or pro's) >"teaching his partner to play better bridge" and "criticising his partner". > (Isn't constructive criticism, at the table when the subject is fresh, >part of what playing pros are paid for?) Proper time for this is between rounds or after the game. If the pro is confident that his instruction will not constitute rude behavior, then by all means go ahead. But, he must realize that rude behavior is in the eye of the beholder. >- The fine line between asking a TD to read the relevant rule (which is >every player's right) and "disputing his ruling". Isn't the TD supposed to read the relevant rule anyway? I find it hard to imagine a polite request to read the relevant rule being seen as a dispute. This is not to suggest I think the program is without problems. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 08:07:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 08:07:30 +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 IAA06363 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 08:05:26 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS2-76.star.net.il [195.8.208.76]) by borg.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA16926; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 00:03:13 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34511B6B.8B5D6597@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 00:04:28 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: wrong mistakes??? References: <344B4A18.74BDE8DA@innet.be> <344B5899.472D@uni-duesseldorf.de> <344B5E86.34CE@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 borg.star.net.il id AAA16926 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good Evening Richard and all I read all messages until 23.10.97 and thought about the problem , some relevant cases I experienced as a TD and a player too and my opinion following : ____________________________________________ First - Some "bridge flavor and pleasure troubles" : 1. I think that for most players , N-S here , this is one of the most irritating and=A0 impossible situations - These situations produce some kinds of thoughts like : "I "ll never come to play again in this club " or "We must do something in order that X&Y will not play again in a serious tournament " , etc. .. and I put here the very polite slogans only......... I remember that some years ago , as a player at a national tournament I almost wanted to ask for total removal of a round , because two=A0 intermediate pairs tried to apply some new conventions they learnt that week and made some wrong bids and gave totally wrong explanations ; at almost every table they arrived all contestants=A0 heard people shouting "Director" . 2. The TD should do the most and the best he can in order to let the play "flow as smooth and as pleasant possible" . Doing so he will try to explain players , in a very polite and pleasant way that he must make a decision and even when there are disputed facts=A0 ".....make a ruling that will permit play continue, and notify the players of their right to appeal" (Law85B) If during the session he realized that has made a wrong/mistaken decision by laws he must not be afraid to change it and inform both pairs what he changed and why. If there will be new facts he must encourage the contestants to appeal , but not change his decision. ___________________________________________________ Second - to Richard's first set of questions : Preface: We must be very careful in such cases because blackouts or "on the spot misunderstandings" may happen even at very high level players (just try to remember the Montecatini case=A0 which appeared here 2 month ago , the famous Branco-Chagas 6Sp with 3+1 trumps !!! , etc..) But the hurt side must=A0 have an indemnity in any case it occurred. 1. As a TD I decide about "the wrong explanation" only by a written CC , shown at table - as first priority - or the CC sent before the tournament start (if the SO asked it). When in doubt and no CC - my decision will be always in N-S favor here . 2. Personal knowledge about the offending side is important but only if it is "personal" and not some "whispered info." .... I believe that if I have such a knowledge , my brains can't avoid it as a built-in mechanism to make the decision. 3. A CC brought after the session finished is an evidence for the AC only . Any other supplementary information - given by the players at table or some other contestants - are evidences for AC only. 4. There will be some more "variants" depending on the tournament's extent (as C. Farwig put in a e-mail) : a. If there is a big tournament - many assistants there - we always try to consult each other , both in Laws problems and bridge judgments, before making a decision ; and sometimes about the players level and manners known by a TD acting in those players' regular area..... b. If there is a "home club" tournament , trying to solve the "fuiiaaa" incident in an educative way , teaching the offenders what they should do in future in order to avoid such situations etc... c. If=A0 it is a regional/national with qualifing/restricted entries , we should be more severe (it includes case a above) and even report to a national committee about the incident , if we have strong feelings or opinions or ... that there was an non-demonstrable "monkey-business".. --------------------------------------------------------- Third - Richard's last question : My decision should be : -4Sp=A0 by N-S if they can't prove their system as exactly above -4D if their was a CC on the table , on which was written the explicit meaning of overcall after both opps bid ___________________________________________________ I should like to know what kind of tournament it was and the players' level in N-S and E-W , including E-W partnership's seniority . Dany =A0 Richard Bley wrote: > Hi > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S AK10982=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Board 15 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 H 62=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S, NS > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 D A753 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 C J > S J=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S Q76 > H 9543=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 H AQJ107 > D KQ64=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 D - > C 9754=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 C Q10862 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S 543 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 H K8 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 D J10982 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 C AK3 > > West=A0=A0=A0 North=A0=A0 East=A0=A0=A0 South > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1= D > pass=A0=A0=A0 1S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 2S (!)=A0 pass > pass=A0=A0=A0 X=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 3C=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 pass > 4C=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 4D=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 pass=A0=A0=A0 pass > pass > 4D=3D=A0=A0=A0=A0 +130 NS > > The problem in this case was of course the 2S bid by east. West > explained it (questioning after the 3C bid by S) as natural. > Now we have this mighty footnote which states, that u have to assume > wrong information when in doubt. > O.K., > > 1st question: What does it need for u, to be not in doubt? > > a) only the CC will do > b) system script given to u before the tournament starts > c) system script shown to u immediately at the table. > d) system script given to u after the session (getting from the hotel > room of course, u know this I assume...) > e) personal knowledge of the offending (are they really offending?; onl= y > if u assume wrong inf. I guess...) side system > f) a neutral person (witness in a way) which played against this pair > before, where they didnt forget their system (someone must have > forgotten it, isnt it?) > g) something different which I didnt think of > > 2nd question: What do u decide if they can approve u about their system > and what if not??? > > I will appreciate EVERY answer about this one. > > c u > -- > Richard Bley > It?s only a game is?nt it????? =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 08:32:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 08:32:28 +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 IAA06436 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 08:32:22 +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 SAA05068 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 18:32:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA28665; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 18:32:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 18:32:23 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710242232.SAA28665@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: AlLeBendig@aol.com > The full name is "Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behaviour". While I agree with almost everything Al says and especially with the need to do something effective about rudeness, there is one small detail I'd take issue with: > As to the PPs, L90A allows for them and L80F > makes it clear that the SO may set down a policy calling for them. L81B2 > calls for the TD to enforce any supplemental regulations set forth by the SO. Yes, and L90B8 gives explicit authority for PP's. > Actually, the only Law one really needs to refer to is L91A which not only > spells out such a practice but also makes it clear that such penalties are > not appealable. But here we part company. L91 is intended to give plenary authority to a TD in case of serious malfeasance or deliberate defiance. It is not meant for ordinary violations of tournament regulations for which L90 penalties are specified. Of course there may be differences of opinion as to what malfeasance is "serious," but in practice I wouldn't expect many problems. Perhaps I'm naive. Even though PP's are in principle appealable, I doubt there will be many appeals in practice once it's made clear that normally they will be considered frivolous. Perhaps AC's should be specifically empowered to increase the PP's for rude conduct. That will certainly cut down on appeals! How about "The normal penalty for a first offense, to be applied by the TD, is 1/4 board. If the penalty is appealed, the AC shall decide the amount of penalty based on the seriousness of the offense but not exceeding a full board." I predict few appeals, but this allows a remedy if the TD is completely bonkers. (It seems the ACBL has yet another fine idea with dubious implementation details, starting with the name of the program. But if it works, nobody will complain about the details.) > From: Eric Landau > I predict that if these policies are actually mandated by an SO, within a > couple of months (at most) there will be a manifest need to adjudicate > alleged violations of it I hope not. Apparently this has not happened where ZT originated. OTOH, it's quite possible that officials and TD's in those regions are more competent and sensitive than is the norm elsewhere. Still, a polite but firm approach should work: determine the facts, apply judgment as to whether those facts do or do not violate the policy, apply the PP if required. My guess and hope is that once the gross rudeness -- which needs no judgment about violating policy or not -- ceases, people will not bother complaining about rare, trivial transgressions. Complainants have nothing directly to gain, and an unjustified complaint is itself rude and subject to penalty. Maybe I'm an optimist. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 09:46:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:46:29 +1000 Received: from m9.sprynet.com (m9.sprynet.com [165.121.2.209]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06597 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:46:22 +1000 Received: from robin (dd65-081.dub.compuserve.com [199.174.207.81]) by m9.sprynet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA28713; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:46:14 -0700 Message-ID: <345132DC.479791ED@sprynet.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:44:29 -0400 From: Robin Wigdor Reply-To: rwigdor@sprynet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199710242232.SAA28665@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CDD804B7880623D9F0A98FE4" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------CDD804B7880623D9F0A98FE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Steve Willner wrote: > > How about "The normal penalty for a first offense, to > be applied by the TD, is 1/4 board. If the penalty is appealed, the > AC shall decide the amount of penalty based on the seriousness of > the offense but not exceeding a full board." I predict few appeals, > but this allows a remedy if the TD is completely bonkers. > This is repugnant, a gross and heinous abuse of process. Any authority, let alone exercise of that authority, to increase the severity of a sanction merely for exercising a right of appeal is contrary to all principles of due process and justice. --------------CDD804B7880623D9F0A98FE4 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Robin Wigdor Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: Robin Wigdor n: Wigdor;Robin adr: ;;;;;;Canada email;internet: rwigdor@sprynet.com title: Barrister and Solicitor tel;work: 905 852 6402 tel;fax: 905 852 6496 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE end: vcard --------------CDD804B7880623D9F0A98FE4-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 12:04:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:04:49 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA06983 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:04:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1020537; 25 Oct 97 3:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 01:59:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strong Two-Club Opener In-Reply-To: <34502AF2.66A7@thebest.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk annparker wrote: >How would you rule if you, as director, were called to a table because >the opening bidder had opened 2 clubs with the following hand: S--QJ93, >H--AKJ98642, D--VOID, C--5? On his card he had a 2-Club opener marked >as strong, showing 21 points. I will appreciate your discussion of >this. I suppose a few questions would not come amiss, but this seems to be a strong opening and was probably intended as such. There seems nothing illegal in such an opening unless your SO says so. If you are ACBL then I do not think there are any rules as to what defines strong. Of course, it is probably misinformation, but the opposition would be very pushed to make me believe they had been damaged. I would probably just suggest a notation on the card along the lines of "21 points or near-game values" and leave it at that. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 12:10:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:10:17 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07002 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:10:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005071; 25 Oct 97 3:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 01:57:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance legal issues In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower wrote: >Along the same lines, it feels very wrong to give automatic PPs for >impoliteness when PPs are so rarely given for any other infraction... even >fairly serious ones... I think that if you have a perceived common problem in the game of bridge then it ought to be dealt with. Automatic PPs are one method and they seem reasonable. It is not relevant that automatic PPs are not given for other things that are not seen as a general problem. The only automatic PPs the EBU has in ordinary events are for making boards up wrong and fielding psyches. It does not seem to work too badly to keep undesirable happenings in check. Of course, TDs can always issue PPs for any case that seems suitable. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 12:10:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:10:32 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07019 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:10:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1020538; 25 Oct 97 3:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 01:58:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card In-Reply-To: <0one+DBXgUR0Ewl9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nanki Poo writes: Brrrrrrrrroooooowwwwwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!!!!!! We are closing the poll we were asked to take. We trust that the=20 catfood is in the post. Here is the final tally: >A) Reading the WBF systems policy as it is, do you think this habit is >to be classed as a 'Highly Unusual Method'? >B) If you could rewrite the systems policy, broadly keeping the idea of >the WBF policy, would you consider this habit a 'Highly Unusual Method'? A] No B] No 8 votes A] Yes B] Yes 5 votes A] Abstain B] No 2 vote A] Yes B] No 1 vote If anyone wants to see the WBF systems policy there will be a link in=20 future permanently on David Stevenson's Bridgepage. {He told me to=20 write that in exchange for catfood but I am not telling you the URL -=20 meow!} ---------- Quango writes: Mmmmeeeoooooowwwwwww !!!!!!!! There were several comments added on the forms. None of them looked=20 private. Since this poll was not for David and people might be=20 interested the comments are added here anonymously: I hope that is=20 acceptable. I have edited them just make sure they are anonymous. ---------- Though to question A, I agree that the interpretation could go either=20 way under the current rules. My opinion is that this is just an item for=20 the "psychic tendencies" box. ---------- If it happens and doesn't appear on CC as a convention it is=A0123% C P U. ---------- A: Tentatively no, but I haven't reviewed the WBF system policy=20 lately. ---------- B: Yes, even more so if I thought anyone wanted to do this habitually=20 without being deemed to develop partnership agreement. What partner will do has no bearing on whether it is an illegal=20 partnership agreement. And how can anyone say that it will not affect=20 partner's play as a defender subsequently or that it is not a=20 partnership understanding that an opposing declarer is entitled to know=20 about? ---------- A: No, admittedly in the absence of actually reading the policy. B: No. While I believe that it should be alerted/notified in some way=20 if it forms part of the partnership understanding it does not, IMO,=20 require any special defenses to be prepared in advance. Ie if the=20 manoeuvre was performed as a psyche by a newly formed partnership you=20 would not expect to have any special method to deal with the situation=20 and it's hardly going to come up very often anyway. I would be on=20 standby with a "Red" classification if there was a hint at fielding. Perhaps my memory is off but isn't "The right to psyche" or similar=20 enshrined in the Maastricht treaty? ---------- This all begs the question. If partner is unaware of it then I find=20 it hard to see how it can be a "partnership agreement" or a "partnership=20 undestanding". In answering the questions I have assumed partner is=20 aware of it, which, IMO, makes it a partnership understanding. ---------- A: Not clear, but I'd tend towards no. ---------- I do not have the text of the questionnaire at hand, but I did have a=20 good look at it yesterday. IMHO Herman phrased the problem so as to=20 carefully avoid any implication of partnership understanding. Hence I=20 can only answer "NO NO" to the questions. ---------- A: Not qualified to comment, but I hope not. Brroww !! --=20 Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =3D( ^*^ )=3D Polling @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) officers =3D( + )=3D nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 12:13:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:13:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07040 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:13:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1020538; 25 Oct 97 3:00 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:37:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NP No problem OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OOT Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation SS+SSS+S People of similar standard & strength using similar systems & style [for use in defining LAs!] TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBU Welsh Bridge Union ZT Zero Tolerance [for Unacceptable Behaviour] Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 12:41:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:41:08 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07079 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:41:01 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006814; 25 Oct 97 3:34 BST Message-ID: <+JCMm6BVkVU0EwfZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 03:27:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <199710242232.SAA28665@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: AlLeBendig@aol.com >> The full name is "Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behaviour". I am pleased that there are some NAmericans who can spell behaviour. For the humour-impaired: that was a mild attempt at being funny. Never mind! >While I agree with almost everything Al says and especially with the >need to do something effective about rudeness, there is one small >detail I'd take issue with: > >> As to the PPs, L90A allows for them and L80F >> makes it clear that the SO may set down a policy calling for them. L81B2 >> calls for the TD to enforce any supplemental regulations set forth by the SO. > >Yes, and L90B8 gives explicit authority for PP's. > >> Actually, the only Law one really needs to refer to is L91A which not only >> spells out such a practice but also makes it clear that such penalties are >> not appealable. I agree with Steve's worry here. There are a number of people who mix up Procedural and Disciplinary Penalties, and it is importnat that we do not. I think that we need to be clear which these are. >But here we part company. L91 is intended to give plenary authority to >a TD in case of serious malfeasance or deliberate defiance. It is not >meant for ordinary violations of tournament regulations for which L90 >penalties are specified. Of course there may be differences of opinion >as to what malfeasance is "serious," but in practice I wouldn't expect >many problems. Perhaps I'm naive. > >Even though PP's are in principle appealable, I doubt there will be >many appeals in practice once it's made clear that normally they will >be considered frivolous. Perhaps AC's should be specifically empowered >to increase the PP's for rude conduct. That will certainly cut down >on appeals! How about "The normal penalty for a first offense, to >be applied by the TD, is 1/4 board. If the penalty is appealed, the >AC shall decide the amount of penalty based on the seriousness of >the offense but not exceeding a full board." I predict few appeals, >but this allows a remedy if the TD is completely bonkers. I think you have misunderstood the most fruitful source of appeals. It sounds easy to determine bad behaviour, but there is so much misunderstanding, and in some cases an AC is necessary because of the judgement involved. Not all things under the ZT policy will involve a player calling someone else a "f***ing f***ing f***ing idiot" in front of seven independent witnesses. There will be a number of people reported to the TDs for something either very minor or non-existent because of misunderstanding or malice. >(It seems the ACBL has yet another fine idea with dubious >implementation details, starting with the name of the program. But if >it works, nobody will complain about the details.) ACBL? This was thought up be people like Barbara Seagram not by the ACBL. True, they are embracing it, more or less, but it was not their initiative. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 13:49:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:49:12 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07245 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:49:06 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1026533; 25 Oct 97 4:20 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 03:40:33 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: annparker@thebest.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Strong Two-Club Opener In-Reply-To: <9710241239.aa03964@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9710241239.aa03964@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes >> >> How would you rule if you, as director, were called to a table because >> the opening bidder had opened 2 clubs with the following hand: S--QJ93, >> H--AKJ98642, D--VOID, C--5? On his card he had a 2-Club opener marked >> as strong, showing 21 points. I will appreciate your discussion of >> this. > >Well, the way most people play, the HCP range for 2C marked on their >convention card applies only to balanced hands that will rebid >notrump, not to 2C openings based on tricks. So the "21" isn't >relevant. I have my cards marked as "22+" HCP "or 8 1/2 tricks", or >something to that effect, but I wouldn't ding anyone for not having >this last bit on their card, because just about everyone knows what >the 2C really means anyway. > >I think I'd find out what their agreement really is regarding opening >2C on hands with a lot of tricks in a single suit and little outside >defense. > >(1) If they've agreed that 2C can be opened on those hands, then I > don't see a problem. The agreement is a legal one, as far as I > can see; the GCC (I'm assuming you're in ACBL territory) allows 2C > to indicate "a strong hand", but doesn't define "strong". A hand > with near-game offensive strength and almost no defensive strength > can be considered "strong" by at least some definitions of the > term. So I can't rule that this is an illegal agreement. > > Some people might argue that this type of 2C opener is so far from > "standard" that it should be alerted. It's hard for me to address > this, since there's always so much confusion about what does and > doesn't need to be alerted. > >(2) If their agreement is that 2C requires a fair amount of defensive > strength, I'd probably consider this a psych. According to ACBL > policy, this psych would be illegal---although most people on this > list would argue that the ACBL policy is itself illegal. > >(3) If they've never discussed this (which I suspect is case for most > novice and intermediate players), I'd rule "ignorance". That is, > opener counted a certain number of tricks, thought that a 2C > opening was required with that many tricks, and has never been > exposed to the opinions of good players that 2C needs more than > this. Since ignorance is not illegal, there's nothing to rule on. > >So in all probability, I'd rule nothing illegal happened. > > -- Adam > > Why do people try and stop poor players opening hands like this 2C. It's an endless source of mps and imps. Leave the igroramuses with their beliefs :) > > -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 19:13:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:13:10 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA07601 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:13:03 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001709; 25 Oct 97 10:06 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCE12A.9F6DCAE0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:44:43 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Addresses Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:44:40 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 20 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: > >SNIP > >The basis in the Laws for these PPs starts with L74A1-2. Rude behavior is a >clear violation of this Law. As to the PPs, L90A allows for them and L80F >makes it clear that the SO may set down a policy calling for them. L81B2 >calls for the TD to enforce any supplemental regulations set forth by the SO. > Actually, the only Law one really needs to refer to is L91A which not only >spells out such a practice but also makes it clear that such penalties are >not appealable. >[David Martin] > >There is a clear distinction in the Laws between Procedural Penalties (PPs) >under Law 90 which can be appealed and disciplinary penalties under Law 91 >which cannot be appealed. Exactly which form of penalties will zero >tolerance use? > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 25 23:34:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:34:28 +1000 Received: from freenet1.carleton.ca (root@freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08016 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:34:18 +1000 Received: from freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet2.carleton.ca [134.117.136.22]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA15456 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA13317; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710251334.JAA13317@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Steve Willner wrote: >>> From: AlLeBendig@aol.com >>> The full name is "Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behaviour". > > I am pleased that there are some NAmericans who can spell behaviour. > > For the humour-impaired: that was a mild attempt at being funny. > > Never mind! As has been noted, this policy seems to have started here in Canada. There has always been some debate as to how different we really are from Americans: in general, spelling (we tend toward the British); the alphabet (Z is pronounced zed, not zee); social policy (the US Republican Party would never let Canada join the USA--even our conservatives would all vote Democrat!); and the motto for the USA is "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", while in Canada it's "Peace, Order and Good Government". I hope this has helped put ZT in some context, eh? :-) Tony (aka ac342) > ACBL? This was thought up be people like Barbara Seagram not by the >ACBL. True, they are embracing it, more or less, but it was not their >initiative. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 00:13:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 00:13:34 +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 AAA09581 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 00:13:20 +1000 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS2-68.star.net.il [195.8.208.68]) by apm12.star.net.il (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA03467; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:11:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3451FE82.B3C35A64@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:13:22 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nanki Poo CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: psych mentioned on convention card References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by apm12.star.net.il id QAA03467 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk VGhhbmsgeW91IGJvdGggTmFua2kgUG9vIGFuZCBRdWFuZ28NCg0KSSBhbSBzdXJlIHlvdSBh cmUgdGhlIGJlc3Qgc3RhdGl0aWNpYW5zIG9uIHRoZSBuZXQgYW5kIHZlcnkgZ29vZA0KcG9s bCBtYW5hZ2Vycy4gSSBob3BlIHlvdSJsbCBrZWVwIG9uIGFuZCBoZWxwIHVzIGluIGZ1dHVy ZSAuDQoNCk1hbnkgV2hpc2thc6AgZm9yIHlvdQ0KRGFueQ0KoA0KDQpRdWFuZ28gd3JvdGU6 DQoNCj4gTmFua2kgUG9vIHdyaXRlczoNCj4NCj4goCBCcnJycnJycnJyb29vb29vd3d3d3d3 d3d3d3d3dyAhISEhISEhISEhISEhDQo+DQo+IKAgV2UgYXJlIGNsb3NpbmcgdGhlIHBvbGwg d2Ugd2VyZSBhc2tlZCB0byB0YWtlLqAgV2UgdHJ1c3QgdGhhdCB0aGUNCj4gY2F0Zm9vZCBp cyBpbiB0aGUgcG9zdC6gIEhlcmUgaXMgdGhlIGZpbmFsIHRhbGx5Og0KPg0KPiA+QSkgUmVh ZGluZyB0aGUgV0JGIHN5c3RlbXMgcG9saWN5IGFzIGl0IGlzLCBkbyB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhp cyBoYWJpdCBpcw0KPiA+dG8gYmUgY2xhc3NlZCBhcyBhICdIaWdobHkgVW51c3VhbCBNZXRo b2QnPw0KPg0KPiA+QikgSWYgeW91IGNvdWxkIHJld3JpdGUgdGhlIHN5c3RlbXMgcG9saWN5 LCBicm9hZGx5IGtlZXBpbmcgdGhlIGlkZWEgb2YNCj4gPnRoZSBXQkYgcG9saWN5LCB3b3Vs ZCB5b3UgY29uc2lkZXIgdGhpcyBoYWJpdCBhICdIaWdobHkgVW51c3VhbCBNZXRob2QnPw0K Pg0KPiCgIEFdoCBOb6CgoKCgoKCgIEJdoCBOb6CgoKCgoKCgoCA4IHZvdGVzDQo+IKAgQV2g IFllc6CgoKCgoKAgQl2gIFllc6CgoKCgoKCgIDUgdm90ZXMNCj4goCBBXaAgQWJzdGFpbqCg oCBCXaAgTm+goKCgoKCgoKAgMiB2b3RlDQo+IKAgQV2gIFllc6CgoKCgoKAgQl2gIE5voKCg oKCgoKCgIDEgdm90ZQ0KPg0KPiCgIElmIGFueW9uZSB3YW50cyB0byBzZWUgdGhlIFdCRiBz eXN0ZW1zIHBvbGljeSB0aGVyZSB3aWxsIGJlIGEgbGluayBpbg0KPiBmdXR1cmUgcGVybWFu ZW50bHkgb24gRGF2aWQgU3RldmVuc29uJ3MgQnJpZGdlcGFnZS6gIHtIZSB0b2xkIG1lIHRv DQo+IHdyaXRlIHRoYXQgaW4gZXhjaGFuZ2UgZm9yIGNhdGZvb2QgYnV0IEkgYW0gbm90IHRl bGxpbmcgeW91IHRoZSBVUkwgLQ0KPiBtZW93IX0NCj4NCj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCAtLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+DQo+IFF1YW5nbyB3cml0ZXM6DQo+DQo+IKAg TW1tbWVlZW9vb29vb3d3d3d3d3cgISEhISEhISENCj4NCj4goCBUaGVyZSB3ZXJlIHNldmVy YWwgY29tbWVudHMgYWRkZWQgb24gdGhlIGZvcm1zLqAgTm9uZSBvZiB0aGVtIGxvb2tlZA0K PiBwcml2YXRlLqAgU2luY2UgdGhpcyBwb2xsIHdhcyBub3QgZm9yIERhdmlkIGFuZCBwZW9w bGUgbWlnaHQgYmUNCj4gaW50ZXJlc3RlZCB0aGUgY29tbWVudHMgYXJlIGFkZGVkIGhlcmUg YW5vbnltb3VzbHk6IEkgaG9wZSB0aGF0IGlzDQo+IGFjY2VwdGFibGUuoCBJIGhhdmUgZWRp dGVkIHRoZW0ganVzdCBtYWtlIHN1cmUgdGhleSBhcmUgYW5vbnltb3VzLg0KPg0KPiCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4NCj4goCBUaG91Z2gg dG8gcXVlc3Rpb24gQSwgSSBhZ3JlZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbiBjb3VsZCBn byBlaXRoZXINCj4gd2F5IHVuZGVyIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IHJ1bGVzLiBNeSBvcGluaW9uIGlz IHRoYXQgdGhpcyBpcyBqdXN0IGFuIGl0ZW0gZm9yDQo+IHRoZSAicHN5Y2hpYyB0ZW5kZW5j aWVzIiBib3guDQo+DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgLS0tLS0t LS0tLQ0KPg0KPiCgIElmIGl0IGhhcHBlbnMgYW5kIGRvZXNuJ3QgYXBwZWFyIG9uIENDIGFz IGEgY29udmVudGlvbiBpdCBpcyAxMjMlDQo+IEMgUCBVLg0KPg0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4NCj4goCBBOiBUZW50YXRpdmVseSBu bywgYnV0IEkgaGF2ZW4ndCByZXZpZXdlZCB0aGUgV0JGIHN5c3RlbSBwb2xpY3kNCj4gbGF0 ZWx5Lg0KPg0KPiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0N Cj4NCj4goCBCOiBZZXMsIGV2ZW4gbW9yZSBzbyBpZiBJIHRob3VnaHQgYW55b25lIHdhbnRl ZCB0byBkbyB0aGlzIGhhYml0dWFsbHkNCj4gd2l0aG91dCBiZWluZyBkZWVtZWQgdG8gZGV2 ZWxvcCBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCBhZ3JlZW1lbnQuDQo+IKAgV2hhdCBwYXJ0bmVyIHdpbGwgZG8g aGFzIG5vIGJlYXJpbmcgb24gd2hldGhlciBpdCBpcyBhbiBpbGxlZ2FsDQo+IHBhcnRuZXJz aGlwIGFncmVlbWVudC4gQW5kIGhvdyBjYW4gYW55b25lIHNheSB0aGF0IGl0IHdpbGwgbm90 IGFmZmVjdA0KPiBwYXJ0bmVyJ3MgcGxheSBhcyBhIGRlZmVuZGVyIHN1YnNlcXVlbnRseSBv ciB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIG5vdCBhDQo+IHBhcnRuZXJzaGlwIHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgdGhhdCBh biBvcHBvc2luZyBkZWNsYXJlciBpcyBlbnRpdGxlZCB0byBrbm93DQo+IGFib3V0Pw0KPg0K PiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4NCj4goCBB OiBObywgYWRtaXR0ZWRseSBpbiB0aGUgYWJzZW5jZSBvZiBhY3R1YWxseSByZWFkaW5nIHRo ZSBwb2xpY3kuDQo+IKAgQjogTm8uoCBXaGlsZSBJIGJlbGlldmUgdGhhdCBpdCBzaG91bGQg YmUgYWxlcnRlZC9ub3RpZmllZCBpbiBzb21lIHdheQ0KPiBpZiBpdCBmb3JtcyBwYXJ0IG9m IHRoZSBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIGl0IGRvZXMgbm90LCBJTU8sDQo+IHJl cXVpcmUgYW55IHNwZWNpYWwgZGVmZW5zZXMgdG8gYmUgcHJlcGFyZWQgaW4gYWR2YW5jZS6g IEllIGlmIHRoZQ0KPiBtYW5vZXV2cmUgd2FzIHBlcmZvcm1lZCBhcyBhIHBzeWNoZSBieSBh IG5ld2x5IGZvcm1lZCBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCB5b3UNCj4gd291bGQgbm90IGV4cGVjdCB0byBo YXZlIGFueSBzcGVjaWFsIG1ldGhvZCB0byBkZWFsIHdpdGggdGhlIHNpdHVhdGlvbg0KPiBh bmQgaXQncyBoYXJkbHkgZ29pbmcgdG8gY29tZSB1cCB2ZXJ5IG9mdGVuIGFueXdheS6gIEkg d291bGQgYmUgb24NCj4gc3RhbmRieSB3aXRoIGEgIlJlZCIgY2xhc3NpZmljYXRpb24gaWYg dGhlcmUgd2FzIGEgaGludCBhdCBmaWVsZGluZy4NCj4goCBQZXJoYXBzIG15IG1lbW9yeSBp cyBvZmYgYnV0IGlzbid0ICJUaGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gcHN5Y2hlIiBvciBzaW1pbGFyDQo+IGVu c2hyaW5lZCBpbiB0aGUgTWFhc3RyaWNodCB0cmVhdHk/DQo+DQo+IKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPg0KPiCgIFRoaXMgYWxsIGJlZ3MgdGhl IHF1ZXN0aW9uLqAgSWYgcGFydG5lciBpcyB1bmF3YXJlIG9mIGl0IHRoZW4gSSBmaW5kDQo+ IGl0IGhhcmQgdG8gc2VlIGhvdyBpdCBjYW4gYmUgYSAicGFydG5lcnNoaXAgYWdyZWVtZW50 IiBvciBhICJwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcA0KPiB1bmRlc3RhbmRpbmciLqAgSW4gYW5zd2VyaW5nIHRo ZSBxdWVzdGlvbnMgSSBoYXZlIGFzc3VtZWQgcGFydG5lciBpcw0KPiBhd2FyZSBvZiBpdCwg d2hpY2gsIElNTywgbWFrZXMgaXQgYSBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nLg0KPg0K PiCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4NCj4goCBB OqAgTm90IGNsZWFyLCBidXQgSSdkIHRlbmQgdG93YXJkcyBuby4NCj4NCj4goKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCAtLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+DQo+IKAgSSBkbyBub3QgaGF2 ZSB0aGUgdGV4dCBvZiB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb25uYWlyZSBhdCBoYW5kLCBidXQgSSBkaWQgaGF2 ZSBhDQo+IGdvb2QgbG9vayBhdCBpdCB5ZXN0ZXJkYXkuoCBJTUhPIEhlcm1hbiBwaHJhc2Vk IHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIHNvIGFzIHRvDQo+IGNhcmVmdWxseSBhdm9pZCBhbnkgaW1wbGljYXRp b24gb2YgcGFydG5lcnNoaXAgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZy6gIEhlbmNlIEkNCj4gY2FuIG9ubHkg YW5zd2VyICJOTyBOTyIgdG8gdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4NCj4NCj4goKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCAtLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+DQo+IKAgQTogTm90IHF1YWxpZmllZCB0 byBjb21tZW50LCBidXQgSSBob3BlIG5vdC4NCj4NCj4gQnJyb3d3ICEhDQo+IC0tDQo+IFF1 YW5nb6CgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgL1xfL1ygoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgIC9cIC9cDQo+IKCgIHF1YW5nb0BibGFramFrLmRlbW9uLmNvLnVroKCgoKCgoKCg ID0oIF4qXiApPaCgIFBvbGxpbmegoKCgoCBAIEANCj4gTmFua2kgUG9voKCgoKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgICggfCB8ICmgoKAgb2ZmaWNlcnOgoCA9KCArICk9DQo+IKBu YW5raXBvb0BibGFramFrLmRlbW9uLmNvLnVroKCgoKCgoKCgIChffl4gXn6goKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKAgfg0KDQqgDQoNCg== From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 03:00:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 03:00:20 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA10990 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 03:00:08 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017332; 25 Oct 97 16:41 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:34:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 69 In-Reply-To: <199710231849.WAA23429@adm.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Posted to RGB: copies to BLML, Sergei Litvak, Mikhail Krasnoselskii Mikhail Krasnoselskii wrote: >What Happened: > xx > KJ98x > Kxx N E S W > Axx 1H d p 3nt >xx AKQxxx p 4nt all p >AQx x >J10x AQx >K1098x Qxx > Jxx > 10xxx > xxxx > Jx >The play : >1-2.lead:x sp.- A - K sp all follow. >3.low club to K and A >4. club return ducked to S's J. > >In this moment declarer shows cards and says: >'just made - i don't even need the di finesse'; >after looking few secs at the cards defence put their >cards to the box, THINKING that they play 3nt. After the >match IN THE CORRECTION TIME they came to TD and Opp and >showed that if they lead low he 4NT will go down one. >TD decided "just made" and defence appealed. > >Some Facts: >1.This was the last match of MIXT Swiss and the last match in the day >(i mean it was deep night). >2.Declarer is a good player, I know him as an honest man. >I think, he was really tired.On Appeal he said that saying "just >made" he thought that he 's playing 3nt. >3.Opp man's level is expert, but he likes to drink in the evening. >Woman is intermediate. >4.The team of defence is going or not to final , depending on this >appeal. > >Appeal Committee has three versions to vote : >1. 100 for both sides . >2. 630 for both sides . >3. -630 for NS, -100 for EW. > >How do YOU vote and why. Sergei Litvak wrote [on BLML]: >5. In the scoresheets there was +630 for EW as it was told to me! This is a very long answer. This hand has been posted and discussed on BLML. Unfortunately the facts are different! Simply, the posting on BLML makes no mention of the "fact" that declarer thought he was in 3NT. As can be seen from the various comments in this thread on RGB most people think that a relevant fact. However, not all of the responses on RGB follow the Laws. Let us follow the legal pathway. Declarer claimed [L68A], conceding a certain number of tricks [L68B] but not stating how many explicitly. He accompanied his claim with a clarification [L68C] and play ceased [L68D]. Since the claim and concession was apparently acquiesced, L69A applied and the TD was not called. All ok so far. How many tricks did he claim? Ten. Despite several posts to the contrary, he *said* "Just made" when he was in 4NT, and that is ten tricks. He may not have *meant* ten tricks but that is what he claimed and that is what the initial acquiescence applied to. Some posters have then gone along the road of the board being wrongly scored or the number of tricks being wrong. It just isn't so! Ten tricks were claimed, ten tricks were scored, there was no mistake in the score or number of tricks. See Note #1. Like others, I have wondered how this came to be discovered. Anyway, N/S originally acquiesced to a claim of ten tricks. L69B then says: Law 69 - Acquiescence in Claim or Concession B. Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal++ play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side. ++ For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. It was within the Correction Period according to Mikhail. Note that this law is very different from a contested claim. If the claim had been contested then the defence would have got four tricks. However, we now have to follow the wording of L79B. N/S have not acquiesced in the loss of a trick that their side has already won. So acquiescence can only be withdrawn if they have acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not "be lost by any normal++ play of the remaining cards". There is *no* mention of following the original claim. It could be considered normal [possibly inferior] for S to lead a spade at this moment. He knows North needs the heart ace to beat it, but not necessarily the heart king or queen, so he may go passive. Suppose N has AJxxxx of hearts, and KJ9 of diamonds. N will be strip- squeezed to give the tenth trick - unless S leads a diamond now. You would be hard-pressed to say that the diamond was irrational if it turned out to be the only lead to beat it! Remember - the defence knew what the contract was. See Note #2. Even on a heart return, declarer might have realised what the contract was, and produced a normal play to attempt to make the contract, but that is less clear. For S to lead a diamond or a spade now may be careless: it may be inferior: but it is normal because it is not irrational. So the trick could be lost to N/S by a normal play of the remaining cards, and acquiescence cannot be withdrawn under L69B. How about cancelling a concession, as someone suggested? Only declarer conceded anything: he conceded three tricks: if he cancels that then he would be trying to get more than ten tricks! So a cancelled concession does not come into it. It is often difficult to realise the difference between acquiescence and a concession: the side that stops play claims and/or concedes: their opponents acquiesce or don't. To summarise. There was a claim, correctly handled under L68. It was not contested, so L70 does not apply, nor was a concession cancelled, so L71 does not apply. There was acquiescence under L69, and an attempt to withdraw it, but the standard of L69B was not met. A suggestion that it was wrongly scored under L79B was [a] wrong and [b] would not have helped N/S's score. See Note #1. Despite the length of this post [sorry!] the Law is quite clear. I am sure the TD ruled right in giving both sides N/S-630. What should the AC do? There is no question about the Law, but ACs are more involved in bridge judgement. There are three matters which they might consider. [1] Does the statement "Just made", playing in 4NT, *mean* ten tricks *if* declarer believes himself to be in 3NT? [2] Did declarer actually believe himself to be in 3NT? What did he write on his own personal score-card? Did he realise his mistake before he knew that the other team's qualification depended on it? {This is only relevant if the answer to [1] is No.} [3] Is there *any* normal play that gives declarer ten tricks? In my view, the answer to [1] is clearly yes, which makes the answer to [2] irrelevant. The answer to [3] is clearly yes, so I believe the AC should confirm the TD's ruling of N/S-630. -------- Note 1. If the number of tricks had been recorded wrong, E/W would have been given -100 and N/S would have kept -630 under L79B. This situation, where N/S could qualify under this ruling, is *exactly* the situation envisaged under L79B. A major tournament was won by a top American. Initial results put him second [just]. He then turned up at the TDs' table with two simpering females in tow who said "Dear Mr ********* made ten tricks on Board ** and we scored it as nine." Kaplan said that this would never happen again, and introduced L79B to make sure. Note 2. Stu Goodgold wrote [in RGB]: >From the commentary it is apparent that all 4 players >mistakingly thought the contract was 3NT; declarer admitted so in the AC. >Declarer's claim of "just making", therefore, was for 9 tricks. >There are lines of play that are not absurd that lead to only 9 tricks, >so he is allowed 9 tricks and no more. I am not convinced that N/S thought the contract was 3NT! In BLML it was written: Sergei Litvak wrote: >5. In the scoresheets there was +630 for EW as it was told to me! You are asking me to believe that not only did declarer say "Just made" meaning nine tricks, which is entirely believable, but E/W agreed *thinking the contract was 3NT* [**both of them**] and *then wrote -630 on the score-sheet*! Yeah, and I am winning the lottery next week, the Bermuda Bowl the week after and the Boston Red Sox will win next year's World series. No, N/S did *not* think it was 3NT at the time! -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 04:07:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:07:28 +1100 Received: from mrin44.mail.aol.com (mrin44.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11258 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:07:21 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin44.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) id NAA05549 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971025130645_1433277137@mrin44.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin writes: >There is a clear distinction in the Laws between Procedural Penalties (PPs) >under Law 90 which can be appealed and disciplinary penalties under Law 91 >which cannot be appealed. Exactly which form of penalties will zero >tolerance use? > The San Diego Unit newsletter says L91A, so I guess that means no appeal. I had assumed that L91 covered only really serious stuff, in order to "maintain order and discipline," and that TDs would limit themselves to PPs for ZT. Evidently I'm wrong, at least when playing in San Diego Unit games. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 04:56:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:56:17 +1100 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 EAA11386 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 04:56:10 +1100 From: lobo@ac.net Received: from ptp192.ac.net (ptp192.ac.net [205.138.55.101]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA19066 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <345232FE.12D4@ac.net> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:57:18 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 1 What should the TD have ruled? Of course, he was called when the claim was made so play ceases. TD resolves all questionable points in the favor of the non-claiming side. Therefore, declarer receives 12 tricks if any reasonable line of play for this declarer's ability works. 2 What did the TD rule? table result? 3 Who appealed? declarer? 4 What should the AC have ruled? see 1 above. 5 What did the AC rule? split decision? defenders lost 12 tricks, declarer took 11 tricks From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 06:19:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 06:19:17 +1100 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 GAA11655 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 06:19:10 +1100 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 PAA29595; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710251919.PAA21487@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: hdavis@erols.com Subject: Question of principle on contested claims Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the USENET discussion about the hand in which declarer claimed hsi contract thinking he was in 3NT, Hirsch Davis wrote in article <34515a6f.25473006@news.erols.com>: >Note that declarer's statement of claim is irrelevant. I can find >nothing in Law 69 that indicates that the statement of claim can be >used to exclude any normal line of play. As long as such a line >exists, the acquiesence must stand. My understanding of such statements is that the claimed line of play is required to follow declarer's statement unless this would become irrational. If declarer says, "I will play AKQ of clubs, dropping the jack, then run the other three" and the jack doesn't drop, it is not a normal play to continue with the statement after the jack hasn't fallen. But otherwise, the normal plays required by the laws on contested claims should be those which are normal and consistent with declarer's statement, even if they would be abnormal without the statement or vice versa. When declarer said, "making without the diamond finesse", he gave up any chance to take the diamond finesse two tricks later, since the facts that led to this statement would not have changed. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email) http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page) Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 06:55:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 06:55:27 +1100 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [205.252.116.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11761 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 06:55:21 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-tnt13s72.erols.com [207.172.99.72]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA10378 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:56:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971025155508.0082fc30@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 15:55:08 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Question of principle on contested claims In-Reply-To: <199710251919.PAA21487@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:19 PM 10/25/97 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > >In the USENET discussion about the hand in which declarer claimed hsi >contract thinking he was in 3NT, Hirsch Davis wrote in article ><34515a6f.25473006@news.erols.com>: > >>Note that declarer's statement of claim is irrelevant. I can find >>nothing in Law 69 that indicates that the statement of claim can be >>used to exclude any normal line of play. As long as such a line >>exists, the acquiesence must stand. > >My understanding of such statements is that the claimed line of play is >required to follow declarer's statement unless this would become >irrational. If declarer says, "I will play AKQ of clubs, dropping the >jack, then run the other three" and the jack doesn't drop, it is not a >normal play to continue with the statement after the jack hasn't >fallen. But otherwise, the normal plays required by the laws on >contested claims should be those which are normal and consistent with >declarer's statement, even if they would be abnormal without the >statement or vice versa. When declarer said, "making without the >diamond finesse", he gave up any chance to take the diamond finesse two >tricks later, since the facts that led to this statement would not have >changed. > >-- >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. > > My understanding is that this would be correct for a contested claim, which would be ruled under Law 70. Mind you, I don't *like* giving declarer the benefit of the diamond finesse. I just don't see any way out of it. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 10:56:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 10:56:23 +1100 Received: from host02.net.voyager.co.nz (root@host02.net.voyager.co.nz [203.21.30.125]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12252 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 10:56:17 +1100 Received: from bucks.voyager.co.nz (ts1p01.net.ashburton.voyager.co.nz [203.21.25.165]) by host02.net.voyager.co.nz (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA08271 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:56:12 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:00:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Chris and Mary Buckland Subject: Re:Memeber of L&EC shows what to do after claim! To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 X-Organization: Buck in Ashburton (N.Z. 03 308 3567) X-Mailer: ANT RISCOS Marcel [ver 1.09] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 3. Who appealed? Did the *TD* take his decision to the AC, because he wasn't happy with his answer to Q1? Mary Buckland -- Ashburton, New Zealand (bucks@voyager.co.nz) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 11:52:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:52:09 +1100 Received: from emout12.mail.aol.com (emout12.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA12391 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:51:49 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id UAA15718 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971025204905_-626025995@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-10-24 16:07:02 EDT elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) writes: > At 02:35 PM 10/24/97 -0400, Mlfrench wrote: > > >The ACBL is encouraging (or mandating, I'm not sure which) a tautological > >policy of "Zero Tolerance for Unacceptable Behavior" As implemented vy the > >San Diego Unit, it goes like this: > > As I understand what's going on, the ACBL is encouraging its units and > districts to mandate this new and, IMHO, not very well thought-out policy. The ACBL is in no way encouraging ANY Unit or District to adopt or mandate this policy. At the last BOD meeting, they basically voted that they approved of the concept and appointed a Committee (Jim Kirkham, D22, the Chairman) to clarify what the guidelines were going to be. It was felt that many of the original concepts (which are working in many locales) did indeed need some wording adjustments and clarifications. After this Committee finishes it's job AND if the BOD approves of the changes, it will then be put into affect at the NABCs. I would be quite surprised if the ACBL takes an official position as to encouraging others to put this into effect. > >EXPECTED BEHAVIOR > > > >1. Greet players prior to start of play of each round > >2. Be a good "host" or "guest" at the bridge table > >3. Do everything possible to make bridge enjoyable for yourself, partner > and > >opponents > >4. Give credit when opponents make a good bid or play > > > >UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR > > > >1. Criticizing partner or opponents > >2. Badgering, rudeness, insinuation, profanity, threats of violence, > violence > >3. Negative comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding > >4. Discussing hands after round is called > >5. Gloating over good results > >6. Objecting to a call for a Director > >7. Disputing a director's ruling during a game (filing an appeal is the > >appropriate action) > >8. Poor personal hygiene, grooming or dress > > > >If a player at the table behaves in an unacceptable manner, the director is > >called immediately. If a player believes that unacceptable behavior has > >occurred, a statement that "This player (pair) is interfering with my > >enjoyment of the game" should be made. This conduct is specifically > >prohibited by Law 74A. Law 91A gives the director the authority to assess > >disciplinary penalties. > > > >(There follows a number of procedures for implementation, including an > >immediate 3 matchpoint It's specifically set forth to be 1/4 of a board. > >(or 3 IMP) disciplinary penalty for all guilty > >players. If both members of a partnership are guilty, then double those > >penalties. A second offense is cause for ejection from the event. Serious > or > >multiple offenses will be referred to a Conduct and Ethics Committee. > >Warnings are strongly discouraged. A Zero Tolerance Report Form is > available > >for the use of players to report incidents away from the table or incidents > >where TDs fail to take action. The Recorder collects such forms, and if > there > >are four concerning one person, the person is hauled in front of the C&E > >Committee.) > > I predict that if these policies are actually mandated by an SO, within a > couple of months (at most) there will be a manifest need to adjudicate > alleged violations of it, lest the SO be accused of imposing penalties on > players for "unacceptable" behavior of which they are accused without > giving them the opportunity to refute the accusations or attempt to defend > themselves. There seems to be a fair amount of misunderstanding here about how this policy is intended to work. In our club, I will NEVER impose a PP if the director is not called to the table at the time of the alleged infraction. And if he is called to the table and in his fact finding feels that rudeness has occurred, than a PP is issued. But never after the fact! And if one pair has indeed been rude and the other pair has responded in a like manner, than both pairs receive a penalty. The awareness that this will happen has kept more than one incident from escalating. If the director at that table feels that rudeness has occurred, I have trouble imagining an AC even thinking that their judgement is better than the director. Especially when they were not there at that moment! This is much different than examining the bridge judgement in a ruling. > And the result will be "zero tolerance committees" meeting > late at night, after the session, to hear disputes over alleged ZT > violations, just as our ordinary ACs now hear disputes over law violations. I totally disagree. And I like the suggestion that such appeals would frequently be viewed as "Lacking substantial merit" and could be increased in size as well as decreased. But isn't that always a danger one faces when filing an appeal? > BLML knows all too well how difficult it is for ordinary ACs, made up (in > the ACBL) of whatever volunteers can be garnered for such late-night duty > on the spot, to render correct and consistent judgments on the matters that > come before them. As if it's not difficult enough know to make fine > judgments about bridge bidding and play, these "ZTC" members will be > required to make fine judgments on matters of social comity. We can expect > to see a lot of discussion of widely varying, highly idiosyncratic, often > near-random decisions made by these committees on such subjects as: > > - The fine line between what constitutes a better player's (or pro's) > "teaching his partner to play better bridge" and "criticising his partner". > (Isn't constructive criticism, at the table when the subject is fresh, > part of what playing pros are paid for?) Yes it is Eric. But many of us are not aware of how bothersome some find it when one player is constantly screaming at his partner and always telling him how stupid he is. It is very easy to feel sorry for the "maligned" player and many people don't want to be at or near that table. When they are there, they just want to get away and don't pay much attention to the bridge. And this is what ZT is meant to address. Perhaps it is a fine line in your mind. But I know the difference when I hear a suggestion or a lesson and when I hear a clear case of badgering. And this badgering is, IMO, blatantly unethical. I can't believe that the pairs that engage in it are not aware that their results are better when they are "performing". We all know the pairs. Watch how it affects less experienced players... > - The fine line between "making a polite request of an opponent" and > "badgering". This seems less a matter of what is said than of how it is > taken by the person being spoken to. Once again, I believe that the judgement of the director will be fine. We know what rudeness is. Yes, different people might perceive it differently. But when the director is summoned to the table, I expect them to be able to judge whether "the line" was crossed. > - The fine line between "congratulating partner on a brilliancy that > produced a top score" and "gloating". Again, we know the difference. I perceive "That will be a top board!" as gloating. "Well done, partner" or "Brilliantly played" or "Great lead" is not gloating, in my mind. And I would hope that the Director called to the table (would one?) could also discern the difference. > - The fine line between asking a TD to read the relevant rule (which is > every player's right) and "disputing his ruling". I don't see a fine line here at all. Asking that a Law be read is in no way disputing a ruling. Telling the director that he is wrong and has no idea what he is talking about is disputing a ruling. I always tell the players that they may not argue with my rulings on the floor. When appropriate, I notify them of their right to appeal. I was having frequent problems once with one player in particular and told him that if I told him that his revoke was going to cost 7 tricks he would accept that at the time and we would discuss it later. He never did understand until I ejected him from a game for arguing with me. I told him he could return in two weeks if he could correct this tendency. Since he has returned, I have not had one single problem with him. And that is what is meant to be addressed by this segment. > - The fine line between what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable > hygiene, grooming, or dress. Once again, you know what is acceptable and unacceptable. Why do you feel others won't know? > ....and all those "bridge lawyers", who, I suspect, drive more people away > from the game than do things like "insinuation", "criticizing partner" or > "poor grooming", will take up a new sideline as "zero tolerance lawyers", > and have a field day. Once again, I think you're wrong. And everyone seems to be thinking that there are going to be a huge # of penalties issued and disputes over these penalties. It is my experience that bridge players need to br made aware of where the line is and they won't cross that line. And up to the inception of ZT, we have had basically no line. This policy makes it very clear that we not only are drawing the line but are quite serious about enforcing it. And I expect very few penalties. Where I have seen it put in place successfully, it was not needed much. And I think that will be universal. The most important thing about ZT is that many average players who are turned off by rudeness will recognize that we are quite serious about dealing with it. And these are the players that I am concerned about. I can't tell you how many have come up to me and thanked me for making it clear that we were no longer tolerating unacceptabe behaviour (okay, David:-) I'll say it once more. We regularly survey players that do not renew their memberships in an effort to discover how we can correct the problems of players quitting after a year or two. And the #1 reason given is RUDENESS. And yet the ACBL has made no effort till now to deal with that complaint. I believe ZT is dealing with it quite clearly. And I am quite thankful to the Toronto Unit for coming up with the concept. IT WORKS!!!! Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 12:11:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:11:07 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA12434 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:11:00 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1003034; 26 Oct 97 1:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 00:24:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Question of principle on contested claims In-Reply-To: <199710251919.PAA21487@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >In the USENET discussion about the hand in which declarer claimed hsi >contract thinking he was in 3NT, Hirsch Davis wrote in article ><34515a6f.25473006@news.erols.com>: > >>Note that declarer's statement of claim is irrelevant. I can find >>nothing in Law 69 that indicates that the statement of claim can be >>used to exclude any normal line of play. As long as such a line >>exists, the acquiesence must stand. > >My understanding of such statements is that the claimed line of play is >required to follow declarer's statement unless this would become >irrational. If declarer says, "I will play AKQ of clubs, dropping the >jack, then run the other three" and the jack doesn't drop, it is not a >normal play to continue with the statement after the jack hasn't >fallen. But otherwise, the normal plays required by the laws on >contested claims should be those which are normal and consistent with >declarer's statement, even if they would be abnormal without the >statement or vice versa. When declarer said, "making without the >diamond finesse", he gave up any chance to take the diamond finesse two >tricks later, since the facts that led to this statement would not have >changed. > Whatever the reason for the Law, that is not what the Law says. He has given up the diamond finesse for a contested claim, but not for a withdrawn acquiescence. I am not too worried by this. What it means is that if your opponents' claim, and you dispute it, the burden of proof is on claimer and the benefit of the doubt is with you until the hand is over. If later you wish to dispute it, having accepted it at the time, then the burden of proof is now on you and the benefit of the doubt is with the claimer. Sounds fair to me. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 12:33:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:33:07 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA12493 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:33:00 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2010505; 26 Oct 97 1:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 01:51:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: Quango and Nanki Poo have gone on strike for better types of cat food, so I have had to add these up myself. Well, it wasn't meant to be too serious. However, the answers to #1 and #4 are not all the same [though totally consistent with each other], which is interesting. >1 What should the TD have ruled? Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick 4 votes Declarer 11 tricks, defenders 2 tricks 2 votes Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick 1 vote + 25% fine Declarer 11 tricks, defenders 1 trick 1 vote Interesting that 3 out of 8 do not give declarer 12 tricks >2 What did the TD rule? Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick 4 votes Declarer 11 tricks, defenders 2 tricks 3 votes Declarer ave -, defenders ave - 1 vote Hehehe. No points. What actually happened was: Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick 1 votes + 10% fine David [Grabiner]: you should have stuck by your guns! Basically the TD ruled what you considered right. Note 10% is standard in the EBU. >3 Who appealed? Declarer 5 votes Defenders 2 votes Both 1 vote Well done Jac [Fuchs]: both sides did appeal! >4 What should the AC have ruled? Same answer as #1: fair enough! >5 What did the AC rule? Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick 1 vote Declarer 11 tricks, defenders 1 tricks 4 votes Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 2 tricks 1 vote Declarer ave -, defenders ave - 1 vote Declarer 11.5 trks, defenders 1.5 trks 1 vote At least here the majority got the answer right. I cannot comment on the reasons since I did not see the AC form, but they duly gave declarer 11 tricks, but only one to the defence. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 12:42:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:42:05 +1100 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA12522 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:41:57 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id VAA25877 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971025213928_1433350313@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-10-24 18:33:48 EDT, Steve Willner writes:> AlLeBendig writes:> > > > Actually, the only Law one really needs to refer to is L91A which not only > > spells out such a practice but also makes it clear that such penalties are > > not appealable. > > But here we part company. L91 is intended to give plenary authority to > a TD in case of serious malfeasance or deliberate defiance. I see no mention of "serious malfeasance or deliberate defiance". My Lawbook only refers to "maintain order and discipline". It goes on "the director is specifically empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points.... It continues," (the Director's decision under this clause is final)." My reading of that makes it clear that a TD may assess a penalty, such as a PP. If done so for a violation of Law 74A1 or 2, that could indeed be viewed as a disciplinary penalty. I have no problem with that. That doesn't mean that it is not a PP, IMO. As to the Director's decision being final, I learned that was meant to say that an AC could not overrule the TD but could go to him and request that he change his mind. Unless the TD removed such a penalty, it stood. > It is not > meant for ordinary violations of tournament regulations for which L90 > penalties are specified. And I think it can still apply to those. > Of course there may be differences of opinion > as to what malfeasance is "serious," but in practice I wouldn't expect > many problems. Perhaps I'm naive. I agree that there won't be many problems, Steve. But I'm still confused about where "malfeasance" came from. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 12:57:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:57:03 +1100 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 MAA12550 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:56:56 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id VAA05537 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971025215219_256842798@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-10-24 19:06:45 EDT, Tim Goodwin writes: > One of my primary concerns is that directors will be lenient in assessing > penalties and that the program will be seen as so much lip service as a > result. You have hit the nail on the head, Tim. The TDs seem to be very reluctant to issue PPs. And as a result, we have heard more than once that there is much lip service here. However, that has not been the case everywhere. Players are applauding as the policy is read to them before the start of each session. A. Lochli in Texas has told us of the rave reviews and clear adoption by the TDs. And if the BOD passes it in the upcoming meeting, I believe the TDs will be forced to follow the wishes of the SOs in this area. > Can anyone tell me if Zero Tolerance reports have led to the > ejection of any players from an event? Yes. In the Flight A Swiss Team during the Queen Mary Regional in L.A. in August, a player was ejected with two rounds to go. He had already received a PP earlier that day. I'm sorry to also report that since he was on a 5 man team, they were able to continue without him. He received no masterpoints for that day. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 14:06:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:06:18 +1100 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA12660 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:06:11 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA06692 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971025230526_-693089993@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tplerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-10-24 19:06:45 EDT, Tim Goodwin writes: > One of my primary concerns is that directors will be lenient in assessing > penalties and that the program will be seen as so much lip service as a > result. You have hit the nail on the head, Tim. The TDs seem to be very reluctant to issue PPs. And as a result, we have heard more than once that there is much lip service here. However, that has not been the case everywhere. Players are applauding as the policy is read to them before the start of each session. A. Lochli in Texas has told us of the rave reviews and clear adoption by the TDs. And if the BOD passes it in the upcoming meeting, I believe the TDs will be forced to follow the wishes of the SOs in this area. > Can anyone tell me if Zero Tolerance reports have led to the > ejection of any players from an event? Yes. In the Flight A Swiss Team during the Queen Mary Regional in L.A. in August, a player was ejected with two rounds to go. He had already received a PP earlier that day. I'm sorry to also report that since he was on a 5 man team, they were able to continue without him. He received no masterpoints for that day. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 26 14:09:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:09:26 +1100 Received: from emout02.mail.aol.com (emout02.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA12682 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:09:19 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout02.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA24147 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:08:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:08:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971025230817_-225257672@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-10-24 18:33:48 EDT, Steve Willner writes:> AlLeBendig writes:> > > > Actually, the only Law one really needs to refer to is L91A which not only > > spells out such a practice but also makes it clear that such penalties are > > not appealable. > > But here we part company. L91 is intended to give plenary authority to > a TD in case of serious malfeasance or deliberate defiance. I see no mention of "serious malfeasance or deliberate defiance". My Lawbook only refers to "maintain order and discipline". It goes on "the director is specifically empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points.... It continues," (the Director's decision under this clause is final)." My reading of that makes it clear that a TD may assess a penalty, such as a PP. If done so for a violation of Law 74A1 or 2, that could indeed be viewed as a disciplinary penalty. I have no problem with that. That doesn't mean that it is not a PP, IMO. As to the Director's decision being final, I learned that was meant to say that an AC could not overrule the TD but could go to him and request that he change his mind. Unless the TD removed such a penalty, it stood. > It is not > meant for ordinary violations of tournament regulations for which L90 > penalties are specified. And I think it can still apply to those. > Of course there may be differences of opinion > as to what malfeasance is "serious," but in practice I wouldn't expect > many problems. Perhaps I'm naive. I agree that there won't be many problems, Steve. But I'm still confused about where "malfeasance" came from. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 03:09:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:09:02 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16442 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:08:54 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1018179; 26 Oct 97 15:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:48:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <971025213928_1433350313@emout09.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: >Steve Willner writes: >>AlLeBendig writes: >>> Actually, the only Law one really needs to refer to is L91A which >>> not only spells out such a practice but also makes it clear that >>> such penalties are not appealable. >> But here we part company. L91 is intended to give plenary >> authority to a TD in case of serious malfeasance or deliberate >> defiance. > I see no mention of "serious malfeasance or deliberate defiance". My >Lawbook only refers to "maintain order and discipline". It goes on >"the director is specifically empowered to assess disciplinary >penalties in points.... It continues," (the Director's decision under >this clause is final)." My reading of that makes it clear that a TD >may assess a penalty, such as a PP. > If done so for a violation of Law 74A1 or 2, that could indeed be >viewed as a disciplinary penalty. I have no problem with that. That >doesn't mean that it is not a PP, IMO. As to the Director's decision >being final, I learned that was meant to say that an AC could not >overrule the TD but could go to him and request that he change his >mind. Unless the TD removed such a penalty, it stood. Alan, you seem to be confusing procedural penalties and disciplinary penalties. The former are given under the authority of L90 and are appealable: >Law 90 - Procedural Penalties >A. Director's Authority > The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of > these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offence that > unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other > contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award > of an adjusted score at another table. The latter are given under the authority of L91 and are not appealable: >Law 91 - Penalise or Suspend >A. Director's Power > In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the > Director is specifically empowered to assess disciplinary > penalties in points, or to suspend a contestant for the current > session or any part thereof (the Director's decision under this > clause is final). When you say "... that could indeed be viewed as a disciplinary penalty ... That doesn't mean that it is not a PP ..." it certainly does mean it is not a PP. Is a herring a halibut? Is a DP a PP? They are defined separately and are not the same. What does it matter? Well, you can give a 3-imp or quarter-board penalty under either. So the only differences are [a] why you give them [b] whether they have different effects [c] whether they are appealable [d] what happens to more serious penalties When Steve refers to "serious malfeasance or deliberate defiance" he may not be quoting the Law but I believe that that is the general view of what DPs are for. The L91 says "to maintain order and discipline" and it is not immediately clear how what someone says to his partner, however rude and unacceptable, precludes order and discipline. However, does saying such a thing "inconvenience other contestants" as L90 says? Yes, in a way, but it feels more than that. Since the whole fabric of the game is under threat by the problems that ZT is trying to assuage then I think "order" is being kept by ZT. So I believe that it is reasonable to treat ZT infractions as subject to L91. What about the second offence? That involves ejection which can only be given under L91. So, again, ZT involves L91. Furthermore the San Diego Unit refers to DPs [whether they have understood the distinction or not]. Are they appealable? Alan says "As to the Director's decision being final, I learned that was meant to say that an AC could not overrule the TD but could go to him and request that he change his mind". While this is true, it goes further than this. Despite what I have read recently about NAmerican bridge clubs, players have an absolute right conferred on them by L92 to appeal TDs' decisions - but not L91 decisions. The TD does not need to allow them to go to appeal at all, though it would normally be sensible to allow it. As Alan says, the AC can only advise: they cannot overturn him. One other point is that since they are not appealable in theory the TD has no need to mention the possibility of an appeal, which he should do so when issuing a PP. Is there any other difference in effect? It seems wrong to give a PP, and say that a DP is given for a repeat offence. All in all, it is becoming obvious that these are DPs. Any other problems? Suppose you have a 2-session event, and in the first session a player defies ZT who has previously received a DP. So you "eject" him. For how long? Is he allowed to play in the second session? He can be ejected from the whole event under L91B [not L91A, which is for a maximum of the rest of the session]. However this is subject to approval by the Tournament Committee or SO. My understanding of this last phrase is that there are three ways that approval can be given: either by a Committee on site or by the SO giving their approval in advance or ratifying it afterwards. It is important that it is understood what the SO has laid down here. In my view, Zero Tolerance is a reasonable approach in response to a perceived problem. The TD is specifically empowered to give DPs [not PPs] for a range of abuses. It *is* important that [a] TDs are empowered not to give them if there are sufficient mitigating factors but that [b] they are automatic in the absence of mitigating factors. The laid down penalties are 3 imps or a quarter-board under L91A for a first offence, or suspension for the rest of the session for a second offence also under L91A. Alternatively, the SO might consider telling the TD that he can disqualify the player for the rest of the tournament and/or event: in which case a sensible approach would be to empower the TD in advance under L91B. As far as appeals are concerned, L91A DPs are not appealable. A TD would be sensible to allow an AC to review his decisions to suspend, and might consider it if there is any reasonable argument for any decision, but it should be made clear to the player and the AC that the TD is in no way bound to accept the AC's decision: normally, one would expect him to do so, however. I recommend that any Sponsoring Organisation instituting a Zero Tolerance policy lists the offences, then states: [a] Tournament Directors are empowered to issue Disciplinary Penalties under Law 91A for breaches of this code. [b] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, a first offence will receive a 3 imp or quarter-board penalty. [c] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, a second offence will receive disqualification from the event [approval under Law 91B is hereby conferred on the TD for this procedure]. However, a TD may decide to suspend the player under Law 91A from the rest of the session instead if he sees fit. [d] While these penalties are not normally appealable, if you have a reasonable case the Tournament Director will usually allow it to be considered by an Appeals Committee. The Tournament Director is not bound to follow their advice. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 03:22:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:22:46 +1100 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 DAA16520 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:22:36 +1100 Received: from cph17.ppp.dknet.dk (cph17.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.17]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA04737 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:22:26 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:22:26 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34536d20.1505715@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <971025215219_256842798@emout10.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <971025215219_256842798@emout10.mail.aol.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 Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:56:17 -0400 (EDT), AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >Yes. In the Flight A Swiss Team during the Queen Mary Regional in L.A. = in >August, a player was ejected with two rounds to go. He had already = received >a PP earlier that day. I'm sorry to also report that since he was on a 5= man >team, they were able to continue without him. Is it legal to eject a single player? L91 allows us to "suspend a contestant", and the definitions tell us that a "contestant" in a teams event is a complete team. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 04:39:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 04:39:24 +1100 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 EAA16974 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 04:39:13 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS2-78.star.net.il [195.8.208.78]) by apm12.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA21697; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:37:31 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3453805F.85C9593@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:39:44 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris and Mary Buckland CC: BLMLmail Subject: Re: Difference between TD and AC rulings References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by apm12.star.net.il id TAA21697 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good evening=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Chris and Mary and all the other contributors I use to spotlight often enough=A0 what doing as TD and what as an AC member . But there=A0 can be different approach=A0 only about=A0 two very clear-cut items : A.=A0 Agreement on facts. B.=A0 Bridge judgment. Nothing else !!!!! I"ll not explain specific Laws because I believe the following=A0 is the true & real difference and the CORE of the problem ; I=A0 even believe that all TD - yes all all all - on list will agree : 1.1 The TD is in charge with "mechanics" of running the tournaments as smooth and as sportive as possible , applying=A0 the technical procedures ordered by the Laws and using bridge judgment when can't=A0 be avoided in a concrete situation . 1.2. The AC is in charge=A0 with bridge judgments and its consequence and agreement upon facts - if they=A0 were not agreed - and totally not entitled to deal with the "mechanics" of Law procedures. 2.1 The TD , as a result of his duties , must make decisions which let th= e "flow" of the play smooth -=A0 it means his investigations are time-limited and = many times , especially when no agreement on facts,=A0 he must decide in "dark= " of facts or judgment. 2.2 The AC members MUST listen to all stories told and investigate as deep as possible and judge bridge only . I think this is the exact answer to your very important question. Dany Chris and Mary Buckland wrote: > Hello everyone. > > I have noticed on BLML and RGB experts saying, when considering a direc= ting > problem, "If I was TD I would rule this way, but if I was on on the AC = I would > rule this other way." > > Can someone please explain why this can happen when the TD and the AC a= re > using the same laws. (Does it matter if you are using the 1987 or the 1= 997 > laws? We in New Zealnd will not be using the 1997 laws until next year,= and > I have not seen hard copy of the new laws yet.) > > Maybe this is a silly question - if so, I apologise for wasting your ti= me, > but still hope to get an answer. > > Mary Buckland > > -- > Buck > Ashburton, New Zealand (bucks@voyager.co.nz) =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 05:01:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 05:01:25 +1100 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA17074 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 05:01:10 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA20698 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:00:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:00:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971026125609_933425855@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig writes, contradicting my statement that the ACBL is encouraging the policy of ZT: So how did I get the opposite impression? Well, in the October issue of ACBL's THE BRIDGE BULLETIN, is a two-page article enthusiastically endorsing the ZT program. Some quotes: "Zero Tolerance...is spreading throughout North America and may soon be implemented at NABCs." "'I expect we will have it ready by Reno (1998 Spring NABC),' said Jim Kirkham, District 22 representative to the ACBL Board of Directors and chairman of a subcommittee that will formulate a Zero Tolerance policy for NABCs." (Spearheaded by Jim, ZT has been widely instituted throughout his district.) "Alan LeBendig, chairman of the Board of Governors, added that the Board of Governors is 'totally in favor of Zero Tolerance. They like the concept and they want to see it happen.'" All that looks like "encouragement" to me. Aren't THE BRIDGE BULLETIN, BoD representatives, District 22, and the Board of Governors all part of the ACBL? Does enouragement have to be "official" before it is encouragement? I suspect that Alan is correct in saying that the BoD won't "officially" encourage Units and Districts to adopt ZT, even after it is adopted for NABCs. Doing so might involve the ACBL in lawsuits that could arise from careless application of ZT by Units and Districts. The "official" reason, of course, will be that it is a matter of local policy. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 11:21:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:21:53 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18198 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:21:46 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002595; 27 Oct 97 0:12 GMT Message-ID: <4HE$dJAxqqU0EwvT@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 03:28:01 +0100 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <971025215219_256842798@emout10.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <971025215219_256842798@emout10.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >In a message dated 97-10-24 19:06:45 EDT, Tim Goodwin writes: > >> One of my primary concerns is that directors will be lenient in assessing >> penalties and that the program will be seen as so much lip service as a >> result. > >You have hit the nail on the head, Tim. The TDs seem to be very reluctant to >issue PPs. And as a result, we have heard more than once that there is much >lip service here. However, that has not been the case everywhere. Players >are applauding as the policy is read to them before the start of each >session. A. Lochli in Texas has told us of the rave reviews and clear >adoption by the TDs. And if the BOD passes it in the upcoming meeting, I >believe the TDs will be forced to follow the wishes of the SOs in this area. > >> Can anyone tell me if Zero Tolerance reports have led to the >> ejection of any players from an event? > >Yes. In the Flight A Swiss Team during the Queen Mary Regional in L.A. in >August, a player was ejected with two rounds to go. He had already received >a PP earlier that day. I'm sorry to also report that since he was on a 5 man >team, they were able to continue without him. He received no masterpoints >for that day. > I'd be worried about the legality of that, no overalls maybe, but points earnt till then? ... >Alan LeBendig -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 17:20:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:20:40 +1100 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA18981 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:20:33 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA14624 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:19:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:19:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971027011956_-1091877677@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-10-26 18:47:35 EST, Marvin French writes: > Alan LeBendig writes, contradicting my statement that the ACBL is encouraging > the policy of ZT: > > this policy."> > > encouraging others to put this into effect.> > > So how did I get the opposite impression? Well, in the October issue of > ACBL's THE BRIDGE BULLETIN, is a two-page article enthusiastically endorsing > the ZT program. Some quotes: > > "Zero Tolerance...is spreading throughout North America and may soon be > implemented at NABCs." > > "'I expect we will have it ready by Reno (1998 Spring NABC),' said Jim > Kirkham, District 22 representative to the ACBL Board of Directors and > chairman of a subcommittee that will formulate a Zero Tolerance policy for > NABCs." (Spearheaded by Jim, ZT has been widely instituted throughout his > district.) > > "Alan LeBendig, chairman of the Board of Governors, added that the Board of > Governors is 'totally in favor of Zero Tolerance. They like the concept and > they want to see it happen.'" > > All that looks like "encouragement" to me. Aren't THE BRIDGE BULLETIN, BoD > representatives, District 22, and the Board of Governors all part of the > ACBL? Does enouragement have to be "official" before it is encouragement? AMAZING!!! The rest of the world has no trouble understanding my English and yet a few miles south of me it has become a problem. Everything you quoted, Marvin, sounds to me like it is clearly reporting what has been happening. Jim Kirkham is chairing the committee of the BOD to establish a CLEAR policy on ZT. I thought the article made it quite clear that if the BOD adopts it, it will apply at the NABCs. And I was quoted as saying the BOG approves of it. But both discussions seem to make it quite clear to any alert reader that any action by the BOD will apply to the NABCs. Should the Bulletin be ignoring this entire ZT thing? You may want to ignore it, but it has been gathering steam and spreading quite rapidly. Yes, Jim makes it clear that it has been put in place in District 22. And it is also in place in District 23. And in case you're not aware of it, in quite a few other Districts, Units and clubs. And the players are applauding it. So the Bulletin reports that and you read it as the ACBL encouraging it. I repeat - AMAZING! > I suspect that Alan is correct in saying that the BoD won't "officially" > encourage Units and Districts to adopt ZT, even after it is adopted for > NABCs. Doing so might involve the ACBL in lawsuits that could arise from > careless application of ZT by Units and Districts. The "official" reason, of > course, will be that it is a matter of local policy. More hogwash! A lawsuit over our enforcment of "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge?" If we didn't have the legal right to be enforcing behavioral standards, do you have any idea how many lawsuits we would have already lost? We have suspended many players over the years for misbehaving. We even expelled one. And we have NEVER lost a lawsuit over any of these actions. Unfortunately, we have been quite willing to deal with the major bad actors and allowed many on the fringe to continue to cause problems. ZT merely says that we are now prepared to deal with all problems in this area in a firm and instantaneous fashion. And you expect lawsuits? In reality, I know from experience with this policy that there will actually be very few PPs necessary. Once everyone is aware that we really mean it, there will be very few PPs necessary because players WILL stay behind the line we draw once they are convinced that we mean it. Do you even recognize that there is a real problem here, Marvin? If so, perhaps you have a good suggestion as to how to deal with it? If not, wouldn't it be better to be quiet and hope that it doesn't work? It's always fun to be able to say afterwards "I told you so!" Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 18:17:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:17:41 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA19076 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:17:31 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022934; 27 Oct 97 7:02 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCE259.41D9A2C0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Sun, 26 Oct 1997 21:51:04 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: POOR DOPI Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 21:51:03 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 69 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was playing at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London last Friday when the following happened on board 18. Dealer: East Vul: NS North: Q974 J74 Q2 9542 West: 853 East: J62 T 98 T95 AJ8763 AKQT83 J7 South: AKT AKQ6532 K4 6 Bidding: E S W N 3D 4NT (A) 5D P (A) P 6H 7D [1] Dble P P P [1] Before bidding 7D, West enquired as to the meaning of North's alerted pass and was erroneously told DOPI/ROPI, ie. Pass shows one Ace. North showed no reaction to this. Result: 7D-5* = +1100 NS After completion of play, West complained that North had no Aces and North explained that this was because South's original explanation was incorrect as they played PODI/PORI, ie. Pass = no Aces. This was shown on both convention cards but West had not looked. West asked what he should do and was told to call the TD as there had been misinformation. West claimed that with a correct explanation he would not have sacrificed in 7D and so the TD adjusted the score back to 6H-1 for -100 NS. This was appealed by North/South as they could see no causal link between the mis-explanation and the 7D bid. The following arguement was offered. Given West's hand, it would appear to him, with the mis-explanation, that South either has 2 Aces or 1 Ace + a useful void or is out of his tree! Given the correct explanation, it would appear to West that South either has 3 Aces or 2 Aces + a useful void or is still out of his tree! As West has no unsupported Kings that might fall to an Ace in the North hand, the decision to sacrifice over 6H does not seem to depend on the position of the Aces but only on his assessment of South in relation to his tree. The AC upheld the TD's ruling and explained that this was because West was entitled to know that North/South were having a bidding misunderstanding. I would like everyone's comments (but particulary from DWS) especially on the following questions: 1 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and the claimed damage exist in this case? 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? 3 What should the AC's ruling be? 4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the misunderstanding? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 20:20:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:20:25 +1100 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 UAA19250 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:20:15 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA06262 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:19:36 +0100 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:19:33 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, David Martin wrote: > 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? Yes, I'd consider this automatic. NS have not given a correct explanation of their agreements and West's bidding might have been affected by that. > 3 What should the AC's ruling be? > > 4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any > basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the > misunderstanding? 6H, down 1. The question is whether west would still have bid 7D with the correct explanation. EW are entitled to a correct explanation of the NS agreements and they didn't get that. North should have corrected the explanation before the opening lead, at which point the director could have asked west (away from the table) what he would have done if P was explained as P0D1. At that point, he'd have to decide if south has AKx/AKQxxxxx/A/x or similar, miscounted his aces, or has a useful void. Now that we can't do this anymore, I'm going to assume that west is not going to bid 7D after a Blackwood misunderstanding from his opponents. 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 Oct 27 20:55:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:55:08 +1100 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 UAA19295 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:54:27 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA07763; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:53:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma007670; Mon, 27 Oct 97 01:53:07 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA00804 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:53:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710270953.BAA00804@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 09:48:50 GMT Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal, Denmark wrote: >On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:56:17 -0400 (EDT), AlLeBendig@aol.com >wrote: >>Yes. In the Flight A Swiss Team during the Queen Mary Regional in L.A. in >>August, a player was ejected with two rounds to go. He had already received >>a PP earlier that day. I'm sorry to also report that since he was on a 5 man >>team, they were able to continue without him. > >Is it legal to eject a single player? L91 allows us to "suspend >a contestant", and the definitions tell us that a "contestant" in >a teams event is a complete team. I have considered this point before, and I agree that L91A only permits exclusion of a "contestant", which in a teams event is a team. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 21:02:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:02:40 +1100 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 VAA19341 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:02:33 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-216.innet.be [194.7.10.216]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA29693 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:02:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34545B43.BB7FE313@innet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:13:39 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: POOR DOPI X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just one response : > > The AC upheld the TD's ruling and explained that this was because West > was entitled to know that North/South were having a bidding > misunderstanding. > NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 21:03:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:03:00 +1100 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 VAA19356 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:02:49 +1100 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:02:01 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: POOR DOPI Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:01:37 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---- From: David Martin Subject: POOR DOPI >I was playing at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London last Friday >when the following happened on board 18. > >Dealer: East >Vul: NS > > North: Q974 > J74 > Q2 > 9542 > >West: 853 East: J62 > T 98 > T95 AJ8763 > AKQT83 J7 > > South: AKT > AKQ6532 > K4 > 6 > >Bidding: E S W N > 3D 4NT (A) 5D P (A) > P 6H 7D [1] Dble > P P P > >[1] Before bidding 7D, West enquired as to the meaning of North's >alerted pass and was erroneously told DOPI/ROPI, ie. Pass shows one Ace. > North showed no reaction to this. > >Result: 7D-5* = +1100 NS > >After completion of play, West complained that North had no Aces and >North explained that this was because South's original explanation was >incorrect as they played PODI/PORI, ie. Pass = no Aces. This was shown >on both convention cards but West had not looked. West asked what he >should do and was told to call the TD as there had been misinformation. >West claimed that with a correct explanation he would not have >sacrificed in 7D and so the TD adjusted the score back to 6H-1 for -100 >NS. > >This was appealed by North/South as they could see no causal link >between the mis-explanation and the 7D bid. The following arguement was >offered. Given West's hand, it would appear to him, with the >mis-explanation, that South either has 2 Aces or 1 Ace + a useful void >or is out of his tree! Given the correct explanation, it would appear >to West that South either has 3 Aces or 2 Aces + a useful void or is >still out of his tree! As West has no unsupported Kings that might fall >to an Ace in the North hand, the decision to sacrifice over 6H does not >seem to depend on the position of the Aces but only on his assessment of >South in relation to his tree. > >The AC upheld the TD's ruling and explained that this was because West >was entitled to know that North/South were having a bidding >misunderstanding. > >I would like everyone's comments (but particulary from DWS) especially >on the following questions: > >1 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and the >claimed damage exist in this case? This is most important question. See below (point 3) > >2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > This is normal ruling. It is hardly to answer "yes" or "no" to question from point 1 for TD usually (well, if he is not expert player). If TD have doubts - he must decide in favor on non-offending side. >3 What should the AC's ruling be? > I symphatize NS arguments. IMO, there is not good idea for W to change his call after to 6H depending on Blackwood answer. I isn't think that W would be pass after 6H if he would be have correct explanation. IMO, -1100 for EW must be restore. It is more difficult for NS, but I would be vote for +1100 for both sides and PP. >4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any >basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the >misunderstanding? No, IMO From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 21:35:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:35:06 +1100 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 VAA19413 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:34:58 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id CAA14345; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 02:33:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma014258; Mon, 27 Oct 97 02:33:37 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id CAA07178 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 02:34:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710271034.CAA07178@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 10:28:35 GMT Subject: Re: POOR DOPI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >I was playing at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London last Friday >when the following happened on board 18. > >Dealer: East >Vul: NS > > North: Q974 > J74 > Q2 > 9542 > > West: 853 East: J62 > T 98 > T95 AJ8763 > AKQT83 J7 > > South: AKT > AKQ6532 > K4 > 6 > >Bidding: E S W N > 3D 4NT (A) 5D P (A) > P 6H 7D [1] Dble > P P P > >[1] Before bidding 7D, West enquired as to the meaning of North's >alerted pass and was erroneously told DOPI/ROPI, ie. Pass shows one Ace. > North showed no reaction to this. > >Result: 7D-5* = +1100 NS > >After completion of play, West complained that North had no Aces and >North explained that this was because South's original explanation was >incorrect as they played PODI/PORI, ie. Pass = no Aces. This was shown >on both convention cards but West had not looked. West asked what he >should do and was told to call the TD as there had been misinformation. >West claimed that with a correct explanation he would not have >sacrificed in 7D and so the TD adjusted the score back to 6H-1 for -100 >NS. > >This was appealed by North/South as they could see no causal link >between the mis-explanation and the 7D bid. The following arguement was >offered. Given West's hand, it would appear to him, with the >mis-explanation, that South either has 2 Aces or 1 Ace + a useful void >or is out of his tree! Given the correct explanation, it would appear >to West that South either has 3 Aces or 2 Aces + a useful void or is >still out of his tree! As West has no unsupported Kings that might fall >to an Ace in the North hand, the decision to sacrifice over 6H does not >seem to depend on the position of the Aces but only on his assessment of >South in relation to his tree. > >The AC upheld the TD's ruling and explained that this was because West >was entitled to know that North/South were having a bidding >misunderstanding. > >I would like everyone's comments (but particulary from DWS) especially >on the following questions: > >1 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and the >claimed damage exist in this case? > >2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > >3 What should the AC's ruling be? > >4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any >basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the >misunderstanding? IMO the Laws, in effect, say that EW are entitled to knowledge of NS's system, and if they are misinformed and thereby damaged they are entitled to an AS. The Laws do not, IMO, say they are entitled to know NS have had a bidding misunderstanding. Thus I agree with NS that the incorrect explanation did not cause damage to EW. Thus my replies are: 1) No. 2) No. 3) Revert to the score at the table. They might wish to fine for the incorrect explanation, but I would not. 4) Not IMO. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 21:55:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA19469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:55:55 +1100 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 VAA19462 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:55:25 +1100 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:54:43 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: POOR DOPI Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:47:19 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---- From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) Subject: Re: POOR DOPI >On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, David Martin wrote: > >> 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > >Yes, I'd consider this automatic. NS have not given a correct explanation >of their agreements and West's bidding might have been affected by that. > >> 3 What should the AC's ruling be? >> >> 4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any >> basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the >> misunderstanding? > >6H, down 1. > >The question is whether west would still have bid 7D with the correct >explanation. > >EW are entitled to a correct explanation of the NS agreements and they >didn't get that. North should have corrected the explanation before the Sorry, N cann't do it before the opening lead. He is defender after 7D bid, not declarer or dummy. >opening lead, at which point the director could have asked west (away from >the table) what he would have done if P was explained as P0D1. At that >point, he'd have to decide if south has AKx/AKQxxxxx/A/x or similar, >miscounted his aces, or has a useful void. Now that we can't do this >anymore, I'm going to assume that west is not going to bid 7D after a >Blackwood misunderstanding from his opponents. > >Henk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 22:24:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:24:39 +1100 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 WAA19565 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:24:22 +1100 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (192.9.200.152) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:23:40 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: POOR DOPI Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:23:22 +0300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Second reply. >The AC upheld the TD's ruling and explained that this was because West >was entitled to know that North/South were having a bidding >misunderstanding. It is great mistake AC, IMO. W has not possibility to know about misunderstanding. NS must explain ONLY his agreement. > >I would like everyone's comments (but particulary from DWS) especially >on the following questions: > >1 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and the >claimed damage exist in this case? > >2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > >3 What should the AC's ruling be? > >4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any >basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the >misunderstanding? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 27 22:51:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:51:14 +1100 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 WAA19627 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:51:04 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA20141 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:48:17 +0100 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:48:17 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Alexey Gerasimov Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Alexey Gerasimov wrote: > ---- > From: Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > Subject: Re: POOR DOPI > > >On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, David Martin wrote: > > > >> 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > > > >Yes, I'd consider this automatic. NS have not given a correct explanation > >of their agreements and West's bidding might have been affected by that. > > > >> 3 What should the AC's ruling be? > >> > >> 4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any > >> basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the > >> misunderstanding? > > > >6H, down 1. > > > >The question is whether west would still have bid 7D with the correct > >explanation. > > > >EW are entitled to a correct explanation of the NS agreements and they > >didn't get that. North should have corrected the explanation before the > > Sorry, N cann't do it before the opening lead. He is defender after 7D bid, > not declarer or dummy. Oops, you're right, wasn't awake (enough) yet to realize that this was a problem with west declarer. Change my vote to 7D,-5. > > >opening lead, at which point the director could have asked west (away from > >the table) what he would have done if P was explained as P0D1. At that > >point, he'd have to decide if south has AKx/AKQxxxxx/A/x or similar, > >miscounted his aces, or has a useful void. Now that we can't do this > >anymore, I'm going to assume that west is not going to bid 7D after a > >Blackwood misunderstanding from his opponents. > > > >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 Oct 27 23:44:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:44:49 +1100 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA19786 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:44:01 +1100 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.70.58]) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id PAA02391 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:43:05 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199710271243.PAA02391@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: POOR DOPI Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:43:41 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: \\snip// > 1 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and the > claimed damage exist in this case? No. > 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? Yes. Question above is for AC, TD shuld not be expert-player. > 3 What should the AC's ruling be? Restore table results. POssible fine for NS for misexplanation. > 4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any > basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the > misunderstanding? They are entitled to know the correct explanation of agreement, nothing more. Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 00:17:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:17:43 +1100 Received: from ime.net (ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22113 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:17:36 +1100 Received: from lizard (port-56.ime.net [209.90.193.86]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA21760 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:17:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:17:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971027082119.31d729a4@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@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Zero Tolerance and Meckwell Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Does it seem amazing to anyone else that someone can get ejected from any event for two rude remarks, but that Meckstroth and Rodwell can meet (even if inadvertantly) in the men's room while a hand is in progress without penalty? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 00:17:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:17:44 +1100 Received: from ime.net (ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22112 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:17:36 +1100 Received: from lizard (port-56.ime.net [209.90.193.86]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA21746; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:17:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:17:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971027082116.31d780da@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: AlLeBendig@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:19 AM 10/27/97 -0500, AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 97-10-26 18:47:35 EST, Marvin French writes: >> I suspect that Alan is correct in saying that the BoD won't "officially" >> encourage Units and Districts to adopt ZT, even after it is adopted for >> NABCs. Doing so might involve the ACBL in lawsuits that could arise from >> careless application of ZT by Units and Districts. The "official" reason, >of >> course, will be that it is a matter of local policy. > >More hogwash! A lawsuit over our enforcment of "The Laws of Duplicate >Bridge?" If we didn't have the legal right to be enforcing behavioral >standards, do you have any idea how many lawsuits we would have already lost? > We have suspended many players over the years for misbehaving. We even >expelled one. And we have NEVER lost a lawsuit over any of these actions. Simply making acceptance of the Zero Tolerance program a condition of entry into an event would take care of any possible legal suits IF there was a problem to begin with. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 02:18:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:18:24 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA22570 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:18:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025233; 27 Oct 97 15:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:22:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >I was playing at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London last Friday >when the following happened on board 18. > North: Q974 > J74 > >West: 853 East: J62 > T 98 Please try to avoid tabs when posting to the Internet because they look different to different software. Spaces are recommended. Incidentally, the hand looked fine in Steve's answer. Is this because: [a] he edited it [the boring answer] [b] his software does the reverse of David's and put it right [the answer for the complete optimists] >This was appealed by North/South as they could see no causal link >between the mis-explanation and the 7D bid. The following arguement was >offered. Given West's hand, it would appear to him, with the >mis-explanation, that South either has 2 Aces or 1 Ace + a useful void >or is out of his tree! Given the correct explanation, it would appear >to West that South either has 3 Aces or 2 Aces + a useful void or is >still out of his tree! As West has no unsupported Kings that might fall >to an Ace in the North hand, the decision to sacrifice over 6H does not >seem to depend on the position of the Aces but only on his assessment of >South in relation to his tree. Glad to see that BLs are alive and living in London. :)) >1 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and the >claimed damage exist in this case? No. A BL made a phantom then looked for an excuse! Actually, I may be being unfair: he may have actually believed he had a case. >2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? No. there was no damage caused by the MI. >3 What should the AC's ruling be? Table result: same reason. >4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any >basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the >misunderstanding? Eh? What law gives them any right to know their oppos are having a misunderstanding? None whatever, IMO. --------- >David Martin wrote: >> 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Yes, I'd consider this automatic. NS have not given a correct explanation >of their agreements and West's bidding might have been affected by that. Alexey Gerasimov wrote: >This is normal ruling. It is hardly to answer "yes" or "no" to question from >point 1 for TD usually (well, if he is not expert player). If TD have doubts >- he must decide in favor on non-offending side. Sergei Litvak wrote: >Yes. Question above is for AC, TD shuld not be expert-player. This may be the difference between the British approach and the Rest of the World [*very* old British joke: Newspaper headline: Fog in Channel: Europe isolated] but a British TD is taught to rule right, and only use the technique of ruling for the NOs if he is not at all sure. In this case I do not believe it is right for *any* TD to rule for the NOs. What actually happened? West said [in effect] "My LHO showed one ace, so I sacrificed when they bid the slam. If he had shown no aces, I would not have sacrificed when they bid the slam." No TD should rule in his favour for that argument! I believe that the TD actually ruled in the NOs favour for the same reason as the AC, namely not realising that the argument over knowing about the bidding misunderstanding was totally without merit. I think it would be unfortunate if a TD who did understand this point of law ruled for the NOs because that really makes such a TD a meaningless cipher and transfers the bulk of rulings to the AC which is undesirable at club level: IMO it is undesirable at any level below international. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 02:22:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:22:16 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA22606 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:22:08 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1027450; 27 Oct 97 15:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:38:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <199710270953.BAA00804@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Barnfield wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>Is it legal to eject a single player? L91 allows us to "suspend >>a contestant", and the definitions tell us that a "contestant" in >>a teams event is a complete team. >I have considered this point before, and I agree that L91A only permits >exclusion of a "contestant", which in a teams event is a team. I agree, and had missed this point. As a result I suggest an additional sentence to my recommended published rules: [a] Tournament Directors are empowered to issue Disciplinary Penalties under Law 91A for breaches of this code. [b] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, a first offence will receive a 3 imp or quarter-board penalty. [c] In the absence of strong mitigating factors, a second offence will receive disqualification from the event [approval under Law 91B is hereby conferred on the TD for this procedure]. However, a TD may decide to suspend the player under Law 91A from the rest of the session instead if he sees fit. Note that such disqualification or suspension automatically involves the rest of his pair or team, as appropriate. [d] While these penalties are not normally appealable, if you have a reasonable case the Tournament Director will usually allow it to be considered by an Appeals Committee. The Tournament Director is not bound to follow their advice. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 02:22:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:22:46 +1100 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 CAA22623 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:22:40 +1100 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 KAA30293 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:22:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29896; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:22:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:22:33 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710271522.KAA29896@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > There will be a number of people > reported to the TDs for something either very minor or non-existent > because of misunderstanding or malice. It will (I hope!) be mainly up to the TD whether the conduct alleged actually occurred and whether or not it violates policy. The TD is best equipped to determine the facts and nuances. Tone of voice and loudness are, it seems to me, extremely important and best determined by the TD on the floor. I can't imagine an AC overturning a TD's reasonable discretion on these issues. (Actually, I can imagine it, but I detest the thought.) What might be overturned is a TD's *unreasonable* discretion. Everyone hopes this will be rare, but it's hard to imagine it will be nonexistent. Of course if a report alone triggers a PP without any TD role in determining the facts, see below. > ACBL? This was thought up be people like Barbara Seagram not by the > ACBL. True, they are embracing it, more or less, but it was not their > initiative. Implementation in District (??, centered around Toronto) doesn't affect me; implementation ACBL-wide will. I'd like the ACBL to get it right. A poor implementation would not be the first time the ACBL has taken a good idea and turned it into a bad one. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 02:36:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:36:54 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA22673 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:36:48 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1027454; 27 Oct 97 15:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:03:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >EW are entitled to a correct explanation of the NS agreements and they >didn't get that. North should have corrected the explanation before the >opening lead, at which point the director could have asked west (away from >the table) what he would have done if P was explained as P0D1. At that >point, he'd have to decide if south has AKx/AKQxxxxx/A/x or similar, >miscounted his aces, or has a useful void. Now that we can't do this >anymore, I'm going to assume that west is not going to bid 7D after a >Blackwood misunderstanding from his opponents. While we appreciate from a later response that Henk had misunderstood that North was a defender, what I would like to know is what is the point of the above procedure? Suppose North had corrected the explanation illegally [it happens] then what is gained by the TD taking West away and asking him a hypothetical question? The procedure seems completely wrong to me, since IMO it gains nothing, but I would be happy to be corrected. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 03:29:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:29:58 +1100 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA22872 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:27:53 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic86.cais.com [207.226.56.86]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA10896 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:27:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971027112903.006d2434@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:29:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <971025204905_-626025995@emout12.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:51 PM 10/25/97 -0400, AlLeBendig wrote: >In a message dated 97-10-24 16:07:02 EDT elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) >writes: > >> As I understand what's going on, the ACBL is encouraging its units and >> districts to mandate this new and, IMHO, not very well thought-out policy. > >The ACBL is in no way encouraging ANY Unit or District to adopt or mandate >this policy. At the last BOD meeting, they basically voted that they >approved of the concept and appointed a Committee (Jim Kirkham, D22, the >Chairman) to clarify what the guidelines were going to be. It was felt that >many of the original concepts (which are working in many locales) did indeed >need some wording adjustments and clarifications. After this Committee >finishes it's job AND if the BOD approves of the changes, it will then be put >into affect at the NABCs. I would be quite surprised if the ACBL takes an >official position as to encouraging others to put this into effect. The ACBL has officially (for now) left the decision whether to implement ZT to its units and districts. In that context, there is a significant gap between not taking an official position and "in no way encouraging" its implementation at lower levels. I'd say that voting to approve the concept and appointing a committee for the purpose of determining how to effect it at NABCs isn't exactly discouraging it. I accept Alan's technical correction to my statement, but find it a very fine distinction indeed. >> I predict that if these policies are actually mandated by an SO, within a >> couple of months (at most) there will be a manifest need to adjudicate >> alleged violations of it, lest the SO be accused of imposing penalties on >> players for "unacceptable" behavior of which they are accused without >> giving them the opportunity to refute the accusations or attempt to defend >> themselves. > >There seems to be a fair amount of misunderstanding here about how this >policy is intended to work. Indeed there is. And if there's a fair amount of misunderstanding "here" (on BLML, where the discussion of it has been among folks who understand the game, and the laws, and have thought things through with BLML contributors' usual thoughtfulness and common sense), do we really expect less of it out "there"? Do we think that at the moment we actually implement ZT these misunderstandings will disappear by magic? 25 years or so after we implemented the alert system there's still "a fair amount of misunderstanding... about how [that] policy is intended to work". And that's despite the fact that "full disclosure" sure sounds a lot easier to objectify than "acceptable behaviour". >In our club, I will NEVER impose a PP if the >director is not called to the table at the time of the alleged infraction. > And if he is called to the table and in his fact finding feels that rudeness >has occurred, than a PP is issued. But never after the fact! And if one >pair has indeed been rude and the other pair has responded in a like manner, >than both pairs receive a penalty. The awareness that this will happen has >kept more than one incident from escalating. If the director at that table >feels that rudeness has occurred, I have trouble imagining an AC even >thinking that their judgement is better than the director. Especially when >they were not there at that moment! This is much different than examining >the bridge judgement in a ruling. Alan's "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" approach is entirely workable -- for Alan. Alan is a highly competent, thoughtful, fair and even-handed director who knows how to keep his personal feelings and biases separate from his directorial duties, and I too have trouble imagining an AC even thinking that their judgment is better than his. But I have no trouble at all imagining ACs whose judgment is better than some other directors' -- I don't even have trouble imagining "magic 8-balls" whose judgment is better than that of some directors I've encountered. If we all agree -- and I'd be surprised if we didn't -- that we have a policy which would work in the hands of our top 5% of TDs but would be totally unworkable if trusted to the hands of our weakest 5% of TDs, then the issue of where the remaining 90% fall really isn't relevant. >> And the result will be "zero tolerance committees" meeting >> late at night, after the session, to hear disputes over alleged ZT >> violations, just as our ordinary ACs now hear disputes over law >violations. > >I totally disagree. And I like the suggestion that such appeals would >frequently be viewed as "Lacking substantial merit" and could be increased in >size as well as decreased. But isn't that always a danger one faces when >filing an appeal? It's a danger one faces in a "normal" appeal, where one is asking the AC to reopen an adjudication on a point of equity, but shouldn't be in this case. A key aspect of ZT is automatic fixed penalties for infractions; there is no point of equity involved. Either you are judged to have committed the infraction, in which case you pay the fixed penalty, or you are judged not to have committed it, in which case you don't. You can tell players "if you reopen the discussion of that hand, the AC may take a more unfavorable view of your actions than the TD did", but I don't think you can (or, rather, should) tell them "you have the right to appeal your automatic penalty, but risk a further disciplinary penalty if we don't like your appeal". If "inappropriate appeal of a ZT penalty" is to be made a ZT offense with its own fixed penalty, won't we find ourselves chasing our own tails? >> BLML knows all too well how difficult it is for ordinary ACs, made up (in >> the ACBL) of whatever volunteers can be garnered for such late-night duty >> on the spot, to render correct and consistent judgments on the matters >that >> come before them. As if it's not difficult enough know to make fine >> judgments about bridge bidding and play, these "ZTC" members will be >> required to make fine judgments on matters of social comity. We can >expect >> to see a lot of discussion of widely varying, highly idiosyncratic, often >> near-random decisions made by these committees on such subjects as: >> >> - The fine line between what constitutes a better player's (or pro's) >> "teaching his partner to play better bridge" and "criticising his >partner". >> (Isn't constructive criticism, at the table when the subject is fresh, >> part of what playing pros are paid for?) > >Yes it is Eric. But many of us are not aware of how bothersome some find it >when one player is constantly screaming at his partner and always telling him >how stupid he is. It is very easy to feel sorry for the "maligned" player >and many people don't want to be at or near that table. When they are there, >they just want to get away and don't pay much attention to the bridge. And >this is what ZT is meant to address. Perhaps it is a fine line in your mind. > But I know the difference when I hear a suggestion or a lesson and when I >hear a clear case of badgering. And this badgering is, IMO, blatantly >unethical. I can't believe that the pairs that engage in it are not aware >that their results are better when they are "performing". We all know the >pairs. Watch how it affects less experienced players... I think we're probably all aware of how bothersome it is when one player is constantly screaming at his partner, but I see a difference between "screaming" and "criticizing". Again, I concede that we may feel confident that Alan's judgment is good enough for us to concede that "[he knows] the difference [between] a suggestion or a lesson and... a clear case of badgering". But do we feel that way about every TD, or every player who might serve on a "ZT committee"? It seems to me that we now have, without ZT or anything like it, the weapons to deal with a player who "is constantly screaming at his partner and always telling him how stupid he is". We don't need a Draconian new policy to deal with such players. The Nike ads tell us how to deal with these offenders: "Just do it!" I hope Alan isn't suggesting that without ZT we are powerless to take action against them. If, as someone else suggested, everyone in his district knew which pair would be the first to be penalized under the new ZT regime, I'd ask why action wasn't taken against that pair before ZT went into effect. > >> - The fine line between "congratulating partner on a brilliancy that >> produced a top score" and "gloating". > >Again, we know the difference. I perceive "That will be a top board!" as >gloating. "Well done, partner" or "Brilliantly played" or "Great lead" is >not gloating, in my mind. And I would hope that the Director called to the >table (would one?) could also discern the difference. Imagine that at the end of a hand, an inexperienced player enters the contract and score on his scorecard, poises his pencil above the column labeled "Pts. Est.", and looks inquiringly at his more experienced partner, who then says "That will be a top board." Gloating? Doesn't sound like it to me. Just how confident are we that we really know the difference between "That will be a top board." and "That will be a top board!"? That's my point -- we're asking for categorical distinctions between acceptable "estimating" and unacceptable "gloating" based on fine points of syllabic stress or tone of voice. In that direction lies madness. >> - The fine line between asking a TD to read the relevant rule (which is >> every player's right) and "disputing his ruling". > >I don't see a fine line here at all. Asking that a Law be read is in no way >disputing a ruling. Telling the director that he is wrong and has no idea >what he is talking about is disputing a ruling. Try the following thought experiment: Pretend you're a player who has just received a ruling from a TD. Now take the following statement: "I don't believe that's correct; would you mind reading the law directly from the lawbook?" Read it aloud three times as follows: (a) Using stress and tone such that it's obviously intended to be polite and respectful, (b) Using stress and tone such that it's obviously intended to be argumentative and disrespectful, and (c) Using stress and tone such that it's not obviously one or the other. I don't think it takes a great deal of imagination to do the above. When you require categorical distinctions between "acceptable" and "unacceptable", there must always be a fine line somewhere. >I always tell the players >that they may not argue with my rulings on the floor. When appropriate, I >notify them of their right to appeal. I was having frequent problems once >with one player in particular and told him that if I told him that his revoke >was going to cost 7 tricks he would accept that at the time and we would >discuss it later. He never did understand until I ejected him from a game >for arguing with me. I told him he could return in two weeks if he could >correct this tendency. Since he has returned, I have not had one single >problem with him. And that is what is meant to be addressed by this segment. I think Alan is dead wrong if what he's telling us is that he would not have had the authority as a club director or TD to take exactly the same actions under exactly the same circumstances -- with exactly the same effect -- without the backing of the ZT policy. What I don't accept is the argument that ZT is justified by the fact that it will somehow motivate us to take action against those players who do things that we could put a stop to right now under the laws and policies we have without ZT if we really wanted to. What scares me is the obvious fact that implementing a new policy to discourage specified classes of behavior will, logically and naturally, imply that the new policy covers behaviors that the previous policy didn't. I have yet to see a convincing example of an obviously offensive behavior that could be penalized under the ZT policy but could not legally be penalized under current law. The implication of the ZT policy is that we will now be able to to penalize behaviors that are less than "obviously" offensive. >> - The fine line between what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable >> hygiene, grooming, or dress. > >Once again, you know what is acceptable and unacceptable. Why do you feel >others won't know? Perhaps because I'm a "child of the 60s". I very well recall a time when the people who ran bridge in (what was then) my area would, given the weapon of a ZT policy, gleefully have thrown me out of their bridge tournaments for wearing an "unacceptably unpatriotic" T-shirt or button opposing the Viet Nam War or the draft. One player in our area routinely exercises her right to free speech by wearing T-shirts to bridge games which many of our players find clever and amusing but which many others find offensively sexist and degrading. I don't want to be there when this lady is jumped on by the latter group who wish to have it out for once and for all as to whether this is or isn't "acceptable". I am convinced that at least two of our top internationalists, clearly among the most respected superstars in American bridge today (both of their last names begin with M), would have been drummed out of the game back in the Nixon-era days of the "generation gap" by staunch advocates of "traditional American values" armed with a policy that let them give out arbitrary penalties for unacceptable grooming, dress or "hygiene". >> ....and all those "bridge lawyers", who, I suspect, drive more people away >> from the game than do things like "insinuation", "criticizing partner" or >> "poor grooming", will take up a new sideline as "zero tolerance lawyers", >> and have a field day. > >Once again, I think you're wrong. And everyone seems to be thinking that >there are going to be a huge # of penalties issued and disputes over these >penalties. It is my experience that bridge players need to br made aware of >where the line is and they won't cross that line. And up to the inception of >ZT, we have had basically no line. This policy makes it very clear that we >not only are drawing the line but are quite serious about enforcing it. And >I expect very few penalties. Where I have seen it put in place successfully, >it was not needed much. And I think that will be universal. > >The most important thing about ZT is that many average players who are turned >off by rudeness will recognize that we are quite serious about dealing with >it. And these are the players that I am concerned about. I can't tell you >how many have come up to me and thanked me for making it clear that we were >no longer tolerating unacceptabe behaviour (okay, David:-) > >I'll say it once more. We regularly survey players that do not renew their >memberships in an effort to discover how we can correct the problems of >players quitting after a year or two. And the #1 reason given is RUDENESS. > And yet the ACBL has made no effort till now to deal with that complaint. I >believe ZT is dealing with it quite clearly. And I am quite thankful to the >Toronto Unit for coming up with the concept. IT WORKS!!!! Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that ZT won't work. Authoritarian political regimes throughout history have proven that when the powers that be are quick to act to summarily penalize "unacceptable behavior", behavior which the powers that be consider unacceptable quickly disappears. Yet, in politics, we find the self-granting of such authority morally objectionable. Is it any less so in bridge, which is, after all, "only a game"? 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 Oct 28 04:01:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 04:01:58 +1100 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 EAA23057 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 04:01:44 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa03471; 27 Oct 97 9:00 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:51:14 PDT." <971025204905_-626025995@emout12.mail.aol.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:00:46 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710270900.aa03471@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > - The fine line between asking a TD to read the relevant rule (which is > > every player's right) and "disputing his ruling". > > I don't see a fine line here at all. Asking that a Law be read is in no way > disputing a ruling. Telling the director that he is wrong and has no idea > what he is talking about is disputing a ruling. I always tell the players > that they may not argue with my rulings on the floor. When appropriate, I > notify them of their right to appeal. I was having frequent problems once > with one player in particular and told him that if I told him that his revoke > was going to cost 7 tricks he would accept that at the time and we would > discuss it later. He never did understand until I ejected him from a game > for arguing with me. I told him he could return in two weeks if he could > correct this tendency. Since he has returned, I have not had one single > problem with him. And that is what is meant to be addressed by this segment. I'd like some clarification here, because every now and then we get a director who doesn't completely understand the Laws, or momentarily forgets them. While I'm sure this wouldn't be a problem in Al's games, it can be a problem elsewhere else. How far can I go in trying to point out that there's another law that should apply instead, or that the law has been misapplied? Can I assume that if I use common sense--i.e. if I try to make my case calmly and graciously--that I won't be violating this policy? It would seem to be silly to have to round up an appeals committee for a matter that can be handled at the table by pointing out something the director might have overlooked. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 06:25:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:25:52 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23912 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:25:45 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2026194; 27 Oct 97 17:00 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCE2F9.35C8D6E0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:56:03 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: POOR DOPI Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:56:01 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 60 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you to everyone who replied on this thread. If you have not already guessed, I was North and felt that the rest of the world was going mad on Friday evening. (Especially as the event is Butler scored!) On another topic, DWS wrote in his reply: >[David Martin] SNIP >[David Martin] >> North: Q974 >> J74 >> >>West: 853 East: J62 >> T 98 > > Please try to avoid tabs when posting to the Internet because they >look different to different software. Spaces are recommended. >Incidentally, the hand looked fine in Steve's answer. Is this because: >[a] he edited it [the boring answer] >[b] his software does the reverse of David's and put it right [the > answer for the complete optimists] > >[David Martin] I was most surprised by your comment because I deliberately >used spaces and not tabs when laying out the hand and auction. Could the >tabs be automatically inserted by my software (Microsoft Exchange)? >Alternatively, could it be that my default Ariel True Type font is >proportionally spaced and your viewer uses a monospaced font or a different >proportional one? I note, for instance that my E-mail reader incorrectly >displays your cats and Mad Dog's dog and lamppost in your respective >signatures. Hmmm......... > >......10 mins later............ > >I have just played around with the fonts and this appears to be the cause of >the problem. If I convert your signature or Mad Dog's to a monospaced font, >eg. Courier, then it draws correctly. Below is the same hand displyed in >Courier monospaced. Is it any better? > >[David Martin] > North: Q974 > J74 > Q2 > 9542 > >West: 853 East: J62 > T 98 > T95 AJ8763 > AKQT83 J7 > > South: AKT > AKQ6532 > K4 > 6 > >Bidding: E S W N > 3D 4NT (A) 5D P (A) > P 6H 7D [1] Dble > P P P > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 09:14:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:14:01 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA24459 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:13:54 +1100 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1007454; 27 Oct 97 21:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:46:41 +0000 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <9710270900.aa03471@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9710270900.aa03471@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > > >> > - The fine line between asking a TD to read the relevant rule (which is >> > every player's right) and "disputing his ruling". >> >> I don't see a fine line here at all. Asking that a Law be read is in no way >> disputing a ruling. Telling the director that he is wrong and has no idea >> what he is talking about is disputing a ruling. I always tell the players >> that they may not argue with my rulings on the floor. When appropriate, I >> notify them of their right to appeal. I was having frequent problems once >> with one player in particular and told him that if I told him that his revoke >> was going to cost 7 tricks he would accept that at the time and we would >> discuss it later. He never did understand until I ejected him from a game >> for arguing with me. I told him he could return in two weeks if he could >> correct this tendency. Since he has returned, I have not had one single >> problem with him. And that is what is meant to be addressed by this segment. > >I'd like some clarification here, because every now and then we get a >director who doesn't completely understand the Laws, or momentarily >forgets them. While I'm sure this wouldn't be a problem in Al's >games, it can be a problem elsewhere else. >How far can I go in trying >to point out that there's another law that should apply instead, or >that the law has been misapplied? The last time the TD got a Law book ruling completely wrong at my table, I pointed out this (courteously - of course - he was a higher ranked TD than me:) I got a verry verry bad score. I decided in future to let the silly expletives go wrong, carry on, play, and then hit them with TD errror and get 60% - is this unethical?? >sense--i.e. if I try to make my case calmly and graciously--that I >won't be violating this policy? It would seem to be silly to have to >round up an appeals committee for a matter that can be handled at the >table by pointing out something the director might have overlooked. > > -- Adam > -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 09:47:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:47:40 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA24582 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:47:34 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1019061; 27 Oct 97 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:20:58 +0100 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: David Martin , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, David Martin wrote: > >> 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > >Yes, I'd consider this automatic. NS have not given a correct explanation >of their agreements and West's bidding might have been affected by that. > >> 3 What should the AC's ruling be? >> >> 4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any >> basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the >> misunderstanding? > >6H, down 1. > >The question is whether west would still have bid 7D with the correct >explanation. > >EW are entitled to a correct explanation of the NS agreements and they >didn't get that. North should have corrected the explanation before the >opening lead, at which point the director could have asked west (away from >the table) what he would have done if P was explained as P0D1. At that >point, he'd have to decide if south has AKx/AKQxxxxx/A/x or similar, >miscounted his aces, or has a useful void. Now that we can't do this >anymore, I'm going to assume that west is not going to bid 7D after a >Blackwood misunderstanding from his opponents. > Henk, they were DEFENDING >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. > -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 10:06:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:06:20 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA24680 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:06:10 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1019071; 27 Oct 97 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:18:58 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Martin wrote: >>I was playing at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London last Friday >>when the following happened on board 18. > >> North: Q974 >> J74 >> >>West: 853 East: J62 >> T 98 > > Please try to avoid tabs when posting to the Internet because they >look different to different software. Spaces are recommended. >Incidentally, the hand looked fine in Steve's answer. Is this because: >[a] he edited it [the boring answer] >[b] his software does the reverse of David's and put it right [the > answer for the complete optimists] > >>This was appealed by North/South as they could see no causal link >>between the mis-explanation and the 7D bid. The following arguement was >>offered. Given West's hand, it would appear to him, with the >>mis-explanation, that South either has 2 Aces or 1 Ace + a useful void >>or is out of his tree! Given the correct explanation, it would appear >>to West that South either has 3 Aces or 2 Aces + a useful void or is >>still out of his tree! As West has no unsupported Kings that might fall >>to an Ace in the North hand, the decision to sacrifice over 6H does not >>seem to depend on the position of the Aces but only on his assessment of >>South in relation to his tree. > > Glad to see that BLs are alive and living in London. :)) > >>1 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and the >>claimed damage exist in this case? > > No. A BL made a phantom then looked for an excuse! Actually, I may >be being unfair: he may have actually believed he had a case. > >>2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > > No. there was no damage caused by the MI. > >>3 What should the AC's ruling be? > > Table result: same reason. > >>4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any >>basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the >>misunderstanding? > > Eh? What law gives them any right to know their oppos are having a >misunderstanding? None whatever, IMO. > > --------- > > >>David Martin wrote: >>> 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >>Yes, I'd consider this automatic. NS have not given a correct explanation >>of their agreements and West's bidding might have been affected by that. > >Alexey Gerasimov wrote: >>This is normal ruling. It is hardly to answer "yes" or "no" to question from >>point 1 for TD usually (well, if he is not expert player). If TD have doubts >>- he must decide in favor on non-offending side. > >Sergei Litvak wrote: >>Yes. Question above is for AC, TD shuld not be expert-player. > > This may be the difference between the British approach and the Rest >of the World [*very* old British joke: Newspaper headline: Fog in >Channel: Europe isolated] but a British TD is taught to rule right, and >only use the technique of ruling for the NOs if he is not at all sure. >In this case I do not believe it is right for *any* TD to rule for the >NOs. > > What actually happened? West said [in effect] "My LHO showed one ace, >so I sacrificed when they bid the slam. If he had shown no aces, I >would not have sacrificed when they bid the slam." No TD should rule in >his favour for that argument! > > I believe that the TD actually ruled in the NOs favour for the same >reason as the AC, namely not realising that the argument over knowing >about the bidding misunderstanding was totally without merit. I think >it would be unfortunate if a TD who did understand this point of law >ruled for the NOs because that really makes such a TD a meaningless >cipher and transfers the bulk of rulings to the AC which is undesirable >at club level: IMO it is undesirable at any level below international. > EBU Supplement to the EBL TDs Guide Page 52. re 81.11.4 Page 52 I quote "To rule in favour of an 'offending' side he will need to be convinced that, in an appeals committe of, say, three persons, there will not be *one* who argues contrary to his decision; if he suspects there COULD be one who would suggest his decision be overturned, his decision cannot be said to have the evident quality ..." ... I could not conceive (of the one International and two other competent players on the AC) that all three would concur with a ruling of "result stands". To rule as I did is the ONLY possible ruling. As it happens the 'offender' and poster of the article accepted my ruling was the only possible one. I must admit that I was surprised I was totally upheld - I'd expected something on the lines of 50% 7Dx- a zillion, 50% 6H-1 Convince me otherwise please David -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 10:32:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:32:39 +1100 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 KAA24779 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:32:25 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id XAA26050 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:31:33 GMT Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 23:30 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance 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: <971027011956_-1091877677@emout09.mail.aol.com> > AMAZING!!! The rest of the world has no trouble understanding my > English and > yet a few miles south of me it has become a problem. Perhaps a little disingenuous Al? It certainly seems that at the very least the ACBL is trying to create an environment in which ZT is widely accepted. This may fall short of "active encouragement" but is, IMO, a form of encouragement. That said, given a few caveats listed below, I think a policy of encouraging ZT is one of which any National Organisation should adopt if rudeness is widespread and the existing laws are deemed inadequate. >EXPECTED BEHAVIOR > >1. Greet players prior to start of play of each round >2. Be a good "host" or "guest" at the bridge table >3. Do everything possible to make bridge enjoyable for yourself, partner and >opponents >4. Give credit when opponents make a good bid or play Hopefully gritted teeth will be excused when one is playing against the Rueful Rabbit:-) > >UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR > >1. Criticizing partner or opponents Whilst criticising opponents is generally crass and objectionable partner is a different matter. Pointing out each other's mistakes obviously implies criticism but it is a necessary part of improving long term results. On a slightly different note I personally love it when opponents start laying into each other at the start of a team match, it's worth 2imps a board at least and I wouldn't want it stopped:-) >2. Badgering, rudeness, insinuation, profanity, threats of violence, violence I'm not sure that profanity, of itself, belongs in this list. It can be difficult to avoid an "Oh damn/jesus/sh*t/f*ck" on discovering that you have just revoked. It may be regrettable but these words are all part of the normal language, at least in the UK (I doubt USA is different), and an apology in the rare cases where the word itself causes offence would be more appropriate than a PP/DP. (Telling your opponents to f*ck off is easily covered by rudeness.) Nor is an "automatic" DP/PP of 1/4 board sufficient penalty for violence - even on a first offence. >3. Negative comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding See 1. Although if LHO says to the table "I couldn't make it." It should not be construed as negative to explain if they are wrong. >4. Discussing hands after round is called Unless the tables to left and right are still in play. However perhaps add "Discussing hands, at any time, at a volume that can be heard at other tables." >5. Gloating over good results One of the finest experiences at the bridge table is gloating when you have just scored a top against your friends (gloating at people you don't know is merely boorish). I'd hate to think that a passing TD could impose a PP on what is, essentially, a private matter. >6. Objecting to a call for a Director >7. Disputing a director's ruling during a game (filing an appeal is the >appropriate action) If the director reads from the wrong law (or misreads the right one) it seems perfectly proper to ask him to read from the correct one. Unless the quality of directors can be guaranteed forbidding this may lead to many more appeals. >8. Poor personal hygiene, grooming or dress As long as it is accepted that "good" dress for some people (typically younger ones) is ripped jeans, T-shirt with anti-establishment slogan, nose ring and earring (possibly connected by a chain). Indeed I believe that any concept of a dress code is going to be counter-productive to changing the current demographics of ACBL membership. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 11:04:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:04:33 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA24922 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:04:25 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1029053; 27 Oct 97 23:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:24:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance and Meckwell In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971027082119.31d729a4@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >Does it seem amazing to anyone else that someone can get ejected from any >event for two rude remarks, but that Meckstroth and Rodwell can meet (even >if inadvertantly) in the men's room while a hand is in progress without penalty? Not to me. If there is a perceived and common problem then it must be dealt with. If people were regularly meeting in the men's room then you need to deal with it. If you then announce that people who meet in the men's room will be ejected you will have made an attempt to deal with a perceived problem. The actual problem is that people are flouting the laws of the game in NAmerica, and being allowed to do so by the authorities [or do you believe that you are allowed to be rude under the existing laws?]. Since this is a major problem, far, far more important than one pair's indiscretions, it needs dealing with, and existing laws are being supplemented by regulations to do so, and [hopefully] TDs are being told to apply the laws and the regulations. Worrying about Meckwell rather than breaches of ZT is like worrying about some British actor having his way with an LA [no, not logical alternative this time] prostitute but not worrying about the lesser importance of people stealing minor items from shops. The latter adds up to [I think I remember the figure quoted] $100,000,000 in the USA per year. It got two lines of print in the papers here: the actor got pages and pages for weeks. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 11:18:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:18:47 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA24999 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:18:41 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020551; 27 Oct 97 22:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:31:49 +0100 To: Sergei Litvak Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: <199710271243.PAA02391@pent.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199710271243.PAA02391@pent.sci-nnov.ru>, Sergei Litvak writes >David Martin wrote: >\\snip// >> 1 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and the >> claimed damage exist in this case? >No. >> 2 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? >Yes. Question above is for AC, TD shuld not be expert-player. >> 3 What should the AC's ruling be? >Restore table results. POssible fine for NS for misexplanation. >> 4 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is there any >> basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the >> misunderstanding? >They are entitled to know the correct explanation of agreement, nothing >more. > Whilst I agree with this, they can deduce (from the incorrect explanation given and action taken as a result and the actual bid made with its true explanation) that the Offenders have one fewer key card than the 6H bidder thought and HAD they known this then they *might* pass 6H. viz x K Q J T 9 8 7 6 5 4 A A "How many Aces pard?" "None explained as One" "OK 6H" Incorrect explanation. Oppo must be in a position to know that 1) the 6H bidder thinks one Ace - he said so and 2) Actually No Ace - mistaken explanation >Sergei Litvak, >Chief TD of RBL. > > -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 11:25:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:25:45 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25041 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:25:39 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022356; 27 Oct 97 22:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:52:32 +0100 To: michael amos Cc: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , michael amos writes > >>How far can I go in trying >>to point out that there's another law that should apply instead, or >>that the law has been misapplied? >The last time the TD got a Law book ruling completely wrong at my table, >I pointed out this (courteously - of course - he was a higher ranked TD >than me:) Couldn't have been me - I'm still a Junior TD ... but DWS outranks us both No it's not possible is it ... :))))) > I got a verry verry bad score. -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 12:29:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:29:14 +1100 Received: from ime.net (ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA25278 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:29:06 +1100 Received: from lizard (port-123.ime.net [209.90.193.153]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA16898; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:28:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:28:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971027203228.36970c50@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: Zero Tolerance and Meckwell Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:24 PM 10/27/97 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > If people were regularly meeting in the men's room then you need to >deal with it. So, an occasional meeting in the men's room is OK? No, that's not what you are suggesting. An occasional meeting in the men's room should go unpunished while ACBL deals with more important matters? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 13:35:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:35:31 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA25551 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:35:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1013711; 28 Oct 97 2:25 GMT Message-ID: <1Oy+nCBRhSV0EwHW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:48:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >That said, given a few caveats listed below, I think a policy of >encouraging ZT is one of which any National Organisation should adopt if >rudeness is widespread and the existing laws are deemed inadequate. The existing laws are certainly adequate - it is their implementation that is inadequate and that ZT is addressing. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 15:21:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA25869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:21:36 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA25863 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:21:28 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2016434; 28 Oct 97 2:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:05:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >EBU Supplement to the EBL TDs Guide Page 52. re 81.11.4 Page 52 I quote >"To rule in favour of an 'offending' side he will need to be convinced >that, in an appeals committe of, say, three persons, there will not be >*one* who argues contrary to his decision; if he suspects there COULD be >one who would suggest his decision be overturned, his decision cannot be >said to have the evident quality ..." ... I do not believe that we go that far. >I could not conceive (of the one International and two other competent >players on the AC) that all three would concur with a ruling of "result >stands". To rule as I did is the ONLY possible ruling. >As it happens the 'offender' and poster of the article accepted my >ruling was the only possible one. >I must admit that I was surprised I was totally upheld - I'd expected >something on the lines of 50% 7Dx- a zillion, 50% 6H-1 >Convince me otherwise please David A player claimed that with a one ace response to Blackwood he would have sacrificed, but with a no ace response he would not. Is this the damage? I presumed from the original post that the TD had erred by thinking that the player was damaged by not knowing the oppos had had a misunderstanding but he has no right to this and there is no law to give him that right. So, if you want to convince me that I am wrong, please explain how the difference of one ace results in damage. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 16:21:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA26052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:21:18 +1100 Received: from emout25.mail.aol.com (emout25.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.130]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA26047 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:21:06 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout25.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA04967 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:20:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:20:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971027223512_-1393025898@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ZT Clarification Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding about ZT and what it was and is intended to be. I have covered all these points before but they seem to have been missed by several. I'd like everyone to take a step back and consider these thoughts: 1. ZT in no way tries to expand the powers that are currently granted to TDs or SOs when it comes to dealing with specific problems. Each remedy suggested by ZT is clearly covered in the Laws. And each can be applied whether or not ZT is in place. 2. ZT is nothing more than a statement of policy as to the fact that a SO is now prepared to deal with infractions of L74A1 & A2. 3. ZT addresses some very real problems. Anyone who doesn't recognize that either is totally obtuse or has no contact with the majority of the members in the ACBL - or both. And here comes the most important thing about ZT - THE AVERAGE PLAYER HONESTLY BELIEVES THAT WE ARE FINALLY PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. And this gives them hope PROVIDED they see some action. In other words, their PERCEPTION of ZT is very important. Those of you who have not seen it's inception to date cannot imagine how gratifying it is to have 150 tables of bridge players burst into applause when it is announced that ZT is in effect for this tournament. I have seen that reaction and recognize that it is very sincere. And the glowing reports in the Bulletin are NOT manufactured. They are trying to report what has been happening with ZT. And the demands from clubs and Units and Districts for the posters and more material has totally overwhelmed Unit 166, in District 2. Is there any possibility that the naysayers here just might be wrong? 4. ZT, with it's current guidelines, may indeed have some flaws. And I will agree that it is possible that some TDs or directors may in fact make some errors in the application of ZT. But the fear of that is no reason, IMO, to forestall the application of ZT. I expect the guidelines which come out of the BOD committee will be much more even handed. But you will never agree that it is "perfect". I tend to be very action oriented. When I see a problem, I want to deal with it. I would much rather act with something slightly flawed than take no action as I search for something "perfect". And ZT is clearly action oriented. 5. Even though all the tools are already in place for PPs and DPs, many directors either don't know the best way to do things or have no solid idea of how to deal with the violators. ZT makes it clear what the violations are and sets down a uniform policy of how to dispense the penalties. This will clearly level the playing field as far as dealing with these infractions in any area that has ZT in place. That is a big plus, IMO. There are many players that have quit looking to the directors for help when they have a problem because they so rarely get relief. TDs tend to just try to make nice-nice and get everyone to calm down. The players have been expressing their frustration by just quitting. And these are the ones I'm concerned about. I have had ZT in place in my club long before it was put together by the Toronto Unit. But it was only a feeling without ever being clearly put forth on paper. We merely said that rudeness would not be tolerated. It was made clear that we would suspend players that were repeat offenders. And we did so more than once. But how many clubs or tournaments have you seen that really enforced behavioral requirements like those put forth with ZT? And how could you honestly perceive it as bad if we are really addressing this repetitive problem? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 18:42:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA26348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:42:22 +1100 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 SAA26343 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:42:13 +1100 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA13199; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:41:59 -0900 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 22:41:59 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me begin by saying I appreciate the effort that Al LeBendig and others here have gone to, both on the list and in private emails, to explain their position on the matter... whether I agree with their conclusions or not, most of the remarks here have been thoughtful ones... As I said in my previous posting, I agree with the goals of ZT and agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, though I have plenty of misgivings about the details of how it is handled. Here is a specific question about ZT and the wording of L74A1 for us to consider. The Law says players "should" be courteous at all times. In the preface to the Laws (North American 1997 version) it is stated if something "should" be done, failure to do so is an infraction, which may jeopardise the rights of the offender, _but the infraction is rarely subject to penalty_, in contrast to things that "must" or "shall" be done which are routinely penalised. Whether the preface counts as an official part of the law or not (I assume it doesn't), it is nonetheless a formal statement of the lawmakers' intentions and is provided for the benefit of those of us who have to interpret the Laws. As I read the FLB, it seems to me that the ZT-endorsed position of automatically penalising infractions of L74A1 is contrary to the law as it is written. As a director, I am certainly comfortable penalising repeat offenders and particularly severe first violations -- but I could not in clear conscience point to anything the in law book to justify to myself giving automatic 3MP penalties. Anyone else bothered by this particular detail of how L74A1 is written? Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 28 19:34:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:34:28 +1100 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 TAA26468 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:34:22 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA02091 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:33:41 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:33:38 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >EW are entitled to a correct explanation of the NS agreements and they > >didn't get that. North should have corrected the explanation before the > >opening lead, at which point the director could have asked west (away from > >the table) what he would have done if P was explained as P0D1. At that > >point, he'd have to decide if south has AKx/AKQxxxxx/A/x or similar, > >miscounted his aces, or has a useful void. Now that we can't do this > >anymore, I'm going to assume that west is not going to bid 7D after a > >Blackwood misunderstanding from his opponents. > > While we appreciate from a later response that Henk had misunderstood > that North was a defender, what I would like to know is what is the > point of the above procedure? Suppose North had corrected the > explanation illegally [it happens] then what is gained by the TD taking > West away and asking him a hypothetical question? Lots. Let's change the hand and the problem slightly: West North East South -- -- 3 D 4 NT 5 D P' P 6 H P P P ' is explained as showing 0 aces (PODI) but NS play DOPI. West decides against 7D because he thinks it's unlikely that S has 12 top tricks in his hand. When west is about to lead, north informs him that NS play DOPI. West now decides that he should have sacreficed and calls the director in order to protect his side. Now, suppose the director tells the table to proceed. The hand is played out, the whole table sees that 7D is only down 1100 against 1430 for 6H (and that NS cannot make 7H). West now claims that he would have bid 7D if he had had a correct explanation. Should the director believe him? This whole thing can be avoided by asking west before play starts. This, obviously, has to happen away from the table in order to avoid UI. For east there is no problem, under 21B, one can always reopen the bidding for him. 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 Oct 28 22:09:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:09:06 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA27012 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:08:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002123; 28 Oct 97 10:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:39:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance and Meckwell In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971027203228.36970c50@ime.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 03:24 PM 10/27/97 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> If people were regularly meeting in the men's room then you need to >>deal with it. > >So, an occasional meeting in the men's room is OK? No, that's not what you >are suggesting. An occasional meeting in the men's room should go >unpunished while ACBL deals with more important matters? I love it when people twist my words. When Meckwell met in the men's room they either committed an infraction under the laws and/or regulations or they didn't. If they did you know perfectly well that I think that they should have been dealt with in a suitable way, perhaps by being barred from the men's room for a month. Perhaps they committed an infraction and perhaps they were not dealt with adequately. I am not interested enough to consider either. I still do not believe that one infraction by this pair is more important than the current number of ZT infractions in a year [1,000,000 per year, do you think, if we include clubs?]. But that does not mean that I think Meckwell should go unpunished and I am quite sure that my words did not read that way. I just think that one occasion is not quite so important as one million, especially as the million is clearly destroying the game. Final point: Meckwell were punished, I believe, and I doubt there was an infraction in law anyway. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 00:58:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:58:24 +1100 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 AAA29765 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 00:58:17 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id FAA24762; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 05:57:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma024499; Tue, 28 Oct 97 05:57:14 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id FAA06025 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 05:57:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710281357.FAA06025@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 13:49:43 GMT Subject: Re: POOR DOPI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >David Martin wrote: >>I was playing at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London last Friday >>when the following happened on board 18. > >> North: Q974 >> J74 >> >>West: 853 East: J62 >> T 98 > > Please try to avoid tabs when posting to the Internet because they >look different to different software. Spaces are recommended. >Incidentally, the hand looked fine in Steve's answer. Is this because: >[a] he edited it [the boring answer] >[b] his software does the reverse of David's and put it right [the > answer for the complete optimists] Whilst it is possible [b] is the answer, I doubt it, not least since my software does not seem to deal with other e-mail systems very well. Further I did mess about with it to make it straight on my machine. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 01:04:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:04:23 +1100 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29799 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:04:02 +1100 Received: from mike (ip105.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.105]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA01591 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:03:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971028090411.00691d48@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:04:11 -0500 To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: References: <199710271243.PAA02391@pent.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>They are entitled to know the correct explanation of agreement, nothing >>more. >> >Whilst I agree with this, they can deduce (from the incorrect >explanation given and action taken as a result and the actual bid made >with its true explanation) that the Offenders have one fewer key card >than the 6H bidder thought and HAD they known this then they *might* >pass 6H. viz >x >K Q J T 9 8 7 6 5 4 >A >A >"How many Aces pard?" "None explained as One" "OK 6H" Incorrect >explanation. Oppo must be in a position to know that 1) the 6H bidder >thinks one Ace - he said so and 2) Actually No Ace - mistaken >explanation No! The Laws entitle them to the correct explanation, but nothing whatsoever about the 6H bidder's state of mind. In effect, he did NOT say "I think partner has one Ace", but rather (as a matter of Law) "Our agreement is that this promises one ace." EW are entitled to redress only if this incorrect explanation was causally related to their subsequent ill-fated decision. IMO, it was not, but I can't fault a TD who ruled for the non-offenders here, so long as he made clear the right to appeal the ruling. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 01:30:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:30:55 +1100 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 BAA29879 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:30:50 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id GAA09217; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:30:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma008643; Tue, 28 Oct 97 06:29:16 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id GAA18251 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:29:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710281429.GAA18251@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 14:17:21 GMT Subject: Re: POOR DOPI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, David Stevenson wrote: >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> >> >EW are entitled to a correct explanation of the NS agreements and they >> >didn't get that. North should have corrected the explanation before the >> >opening lead, at which point the director could have asked west (away from >> >the table) what he would have done if P was explained as P0D1. At that >> >point, he'd have to decide if south has AKx/AKQxxxxx/A/x or similar, >> >miscounted his aces, or has a useful void. Now that we can't do this >> >anymore, I'm going to assume that west is not going to bid 7D after a >> >Blackwood misunderstanding from his opponents. >> >> While we appreciate from a later response that Henk had misunderstood >> that North was a defender, what I would like to know is what is the >> point of the above procedure? Suppose North had corrected the >> explanation illegally [it happens] then what is gained by the TD taking >> West away and asking him a hypothetical question? > >Lots. Let's change the hand and the problem slightly: > > West North East South > -- -- 3 D 4 NT > 5 D P' P 6 H > P P P > >' is explained as showing 0 aces (PODI) but NS play DOPI. West decides >against 7D because he thinks it's unlikely that S has 12 top tricks >in his hand. When west is about to lead, north informs him that NS >play DOPI. West now decides that he should have sacreficed and calls >the director in order to protect his side. > >Now, suppose the director tells the table to proceed. The hand is played >out, the whole table sees that 7D is only down 1100 against 1430 for 6H >(and that NS cannot make 7H). West now claims that he would have bid 7D >if he had had a correct explanation. Should the director believe him? > >This whole thing can be avoided by asking west before play starts. This, >obviously, has to happen away from the table in order to avoid UI. For >east there is no problem, under 21B, one can always reopen the bidding for >him. Thanks for the explanation, and I can see merits in this approach. I can also see problems as follows: 1) 40.10 of the EBL Commentary does not seem to me to envisage this procedure, talking as it does about questions to ask of the non-offenders in turn "at the end of the hand". Of course 40.10 could be amended, but it has not yet been, and at least in England TDs are advised to stick to the EBL Commentary except where the EBU have otherwise specified, so I would not expect an English TD to do this. 2) Many find defending difficult enough at the best of times, and more difficult when they have been given incorrect information, and the last thing they want is for them or their partner to be hauled off and questionned by a TD about a circumstance which didn't happen, particularly when the laws don't appear to contemplate such questionning. I agree that this case is not the best example, since it is quite likely that no defence will work. There will, however, be other instances where the defence is difficult, and one does not want this kind of interruption to one's thinking in the middle of the hand. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 01:31:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:31:38 +1100 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 BAA29898 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:31:25 +1100 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id PAA08075 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:31:07 +0100 Received: from smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via smap (V1.3+ESMTP) with ESMTP id sma007850; Tue Oct 28 15:30:14 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 PAA17850 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:30:13 +0100 Received: from pasadena (pasadena [130.144.63.226]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id PAA03673 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:30:06 +0100 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by pasadena (1.37.109.15/) id AA066699002; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:30:02 +0100 Message-Id: <199710281430.AA066699002@pasadena> Subject: Bad TD (Offspring of ZT) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:30:02 MET X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Oct 27 23:18:13 MET 1997 Michael Amos wrote: > The last time the TD got a Law book ruling completely wrong at my table, > I pointed out this (courteously - of course - he was a higher ranked TD > than me:) I got a verry verry bad score. I decided in future to let the > silly expletives go wrong, carry on, play, and then hit them with TD > errror and get 60% - is this unethical?? It is not unethical, but it works only in there is a competent Chief TD present (Law 82C). If this is not the case and you have to go to an AC, you will not get redress, because an AC can NOT overrule a TD on a simple point of law (Law 93B3). Very strange, but true! 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 Wed Oct 29 01:58:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:58:20 +1100 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 BAA29970 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:58:10 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id GAA21518; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:57:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma021284; Tue, 28 Oct 97 06:57:17 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id GAA29230 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 06:58:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710281458.GAA29230@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 14:43:37 GMT Subject: Re: POOR DOPI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: >EBU Supplement to the EBL TDs Guide Page 52. re 81.11.4 Page 52 I quote >"To rule in favour of an 'offending' side he will need to be convinced >that, in an appeals committe of, say, three persons, there will not be >*one* who argues contrary to his decision; if he suspects there COULD be >one who would suggest his decision be overturned, his decision cannot be >said to have the evident quality ..." ... This extract is talking about value-judgement rulings. If the TD thought this was a value judgement matter then he was of course quite right to rule as he did. But if he thought that, as a matter of law, EW were entitled to know that NS had had a misunderstanding then he was wrong, IMO (and no-one seems to have disagreed with me). The correct procedure for dealing with claims of damamge is set out in EBL Commentary 40.10. Basically it says the TD should ask (in this case) E first how he would have acted differently, given a correct explanation, then W how he would have acted differently. Following this procedure should make clear that no-one would have acted differently, and thus that there should be no reason to adjust the score (and apologies to John if he did indeed do this). All that said, it one thing to be wise in the cold light of day when sitting peacefully at one's desk, and quite another to be so sure in the hurly-burly that is Friday night at the YC. If the TD was not certain that his understanding of the law was correct, or thought that it was a matter of value judgement, then he was right to rule for the NOs. Of course, if he had understood the law correctly, then he ought also to have explained it to the AC. >I could not conceive (of the one International and two other competent >players on the AC) that all three would concur with a ruling of "result >stands". To rule as I did is the ONLY possible ruling. >As it happens the 'offender' and poster of the article accepted my >ruling was the only possible one. >I must admit that I was surprised I was totally upheld - I'd expected >something on the lines of 50% 7Dx- a zillion, 50% 6H-1 >Convince me otherwise please David Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 02:35:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:35:52 +1100 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 CAA00375 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:35:46 +1100 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 KAA20384 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00654; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:35:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:35:46 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199710281535.KAA00654@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 69 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Law 69 - Acquiescence in Claim or Concession > B. Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn > Within the correction period established in accordance with Law > 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's > claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his > side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, > in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal++ play of the > remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded > to the acquiescing side. > ++ For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play > that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but > not irrational. > ... acquiescence can > only be withdrawn if they have acquiesced in the loss of a trick that > could not "be lost by any normal++ play of the remaining cards". There > is *no* mention of following the original claim. This is a very important point, and I want to make sure we are all clear on it and agree with it. Suppose the last three cards are: A AQ x x Kx xx x xx with South, declarer, to lead. South claims without stating he is taking the finesse (perhaps even states he is declining the finesse). If the claim is disputed immediately, South will lose a trick.* If EW acquiesce, South wins all three. I trust we all agree so far. Suppose EW initially acquiesce but within the correction period want to withdraw acquiescence. South _now gets the benefit of the finesse_ under L69B because the finesse is a normal play. David is, I think, saying this is true even if the original claim explicitly rejected the finesse. Claimer benefits from _any_ normal play that works. Is everyone clear on this and happy with it? Much as I might like to disagree :-), I cannot find any reason to do so. ----- *Something that has always bothered me: when, if ever, can South state a line of play if his initial statement didn't include one? Suppose South says just "I have the rest." in a complex position where that may be true but not obvious. It may be obvious to South; let's say in the position above the auction and play have revealed that the finesse must work, but South neglects to say so, thinking (perhaps) it must be obvious to everyone at the table. L70E seems to cover this case; South is out of luck. What about a guaranteed squeeze, where the winners have to be cashed in the right order? Does South get a chance to prove he knows what order is right? I don't think L70E covers this. In general, is it permitted/proper/improper for defenders to ask for a clarification statement if one isn't given, and is it proper for the TD to do so if the defenders do not? (I once claimed three tricks with AJx opposite KTx in a suit the defenders had just led. The defenders disputed the claim because I didn't state a line of play! Don't I get a chance to explain?) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 02:58:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:58:24 +1100 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 CAA00447 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:58:19 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id HAA19877; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma019591; Tue, 28 Oct 97 07:56:59 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id HAA23364; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:57:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710281557.HAA23364@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 15:35:56 GMT Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: >Let me begin by saying I appreciate the effort that Al LeBendig and others >here have gone to, both on the list and in private emails, to explain >their position on the matter... whether I agree with their conclusions or >not, most of the remarks here have been thoughtful ones... I echo that. >As I said in my previous posting, I agree with the goals of ZT and agree >that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, though I have plenty >of misgivings about the details of how it is handled. > >Here is a specific question about ZT and the wording of L74A1 for us to >consider. The Law says players "should" be courteous at all times. In the >preface to the Laws (North American 1997 version) it is stated if >something "should" be done, failure to do so is an infraction, which may >jeopardise the rights of the offender, _but the infraction is rarely >subject to penalty_, in contrast to things that "must" or "shall" be done >which are routinely penalised. Whether the preface counts as an official >part of the law or not (I assume it doesn't), it is nonetheless a formal >statement of the lawmakers' intentions and is provided for the benefit of >those of us who have to interpret the Laws. The English version of the 1997 Laws does not include this in the preface but includes a similar statement "but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty" in the "Scope and Interpretation of the laws". I would emphasise "seldom". The SO (or at least I think it is the SO, not precisely understanding how the way the game is organised in the ACBL) has said what it thinks. Even if you read the Preface/Scope as expressing the views of the lawmakers, I think I accept that L80F entitles the SO to make a regulation such as they apparently have. >As I read the FLB, it seems to me that the ZT-endorsed position of >automatically penalising infractions of L74A1 is contrary to the law as it >is written. For the reasons I set out above I disagree. >As a director, I am certainly comfortable penalising repeat >offenders and particularly severe first violations Good for you. But if the SO issues a regulation which is not contrary to the law (and possibly even if it, misguidedly, does) the TD should follow it. >-- but I could not in >clear conscience point to anything the in law book to justify to myself >giving automatic 3MP penalties. Anyone else bothered by this particular >detail of how L74A1 is written? I think, as David Stevenson has, perhaps indirectly, said, it is perhaps a mistake to focus too much on L74A1 and L74A2. These Laws certainly set out aspects of "proper attitude". But they do not say how breaches should be punished. In most cases L90 would be appropriate, *but in this case the SO has said L91 is appropriate*. Whilst the state of affairs would, IMO, need to be pretty bad before these kind of offences were regarded as suitable for L91, that is that the SO has done. I think they have the power to do so (under L80F), and I am certainly not going to quarrel with their judgement. Of course the points you make are pertinent for the SO in determining their regulations, and it might that this is what you were talking about. But once the SO has formulated its regulations, and they are prima facie valid (and possibly even if not) it is for the the TD to enforce them. Of course the TD has, IMO, every right to expect support from the SO, when problems arise from his or or her enforcement of the regulations. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 03:28:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 03:28:01 +1100 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 DAA00628 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 03:27:51 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA16450 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:26:42 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:26:40 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: <199710281429.GAA18251@cactus.tc.pw.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > 2) Many find defending difficult enough at the best of times, and more > difficult when they have been given incorrect information, and the last thing > they want is for them or their partner to be hauled off and questionned by a TD > about a circumstance which didn't happen, particularly when the laws don't > appear to contemplate such questionning. I agree that this case is not the > best example, since it is quite likely that no defence will work. There will, > however, be other instances where the defence is difficult, and one does not > want this kind of interruption to one's thinking in the middle of the hand. I agree that it is an interruption while people are trying to concentrate. OTOH, this typically happens between auction and play, when there is a natural break in the action. When this happens to me as a player, I don't think that my concentration is affected by it. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Home: +31.20.6651962 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 03:40:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 03:40:15 +1100 Received: from ime.net (ime.net [209.90.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA00710 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 03:40:09 +1100 Received: from lizard (port-32.ime.net [209.90.193.62]) by ime.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA03757; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:40:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710281640.LAA03757@ime.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Tim Goodwin" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:43:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance and Meckwell Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <1.5.4.16.19971027203228.36970c50@ime.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:39:36 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: David Stevenson > Reply-to: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance and Meckwell > When Meckwell met in the men's room they either committed an > infraction under the laws and/or regulations or they didn't. > Final point: Meckwell were punished, I believe, and I doubt there was > an infraction in law anyway. I will defer to you on points of Law, but I was under the impression that Meckwell committed at least two procedural violations by 1) looking at a defender's hand and 2) leaving the table before necessary. If Meckstroth and Rodwell can meet in the men's room while a hand is in progress without violating the Laws, something is wrong. Here is the report that appeared in the Daily Bulletin: Meckstroth, Rodwell Receive Reprimand The ACBL Appeals and Charges Committee met Monday, July 21, to consider several procedural violations allegedly committed by Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell at the 1997 ITT. The committee, after a full and fair hearing, determined (1) that Jeff Meckstroth is guilty of looking in an opponents hand after becoming dummy, and (2) that both Jeff Meckstroth and Eric Rodwell are guilty of being together in a restroom without an escort while a hand is in progress. On Board 86 of the match between the Nickell and Katz teams, Meckstroth and Rodwell were alone in the Mens Room after Meckstroth had seen a defenders hand and before Rodwell had begun to play the hand. The committee imposed a discipline of issuing a reprimand which will be made public, but will not be made a matter of record on either players disciplinary file. There is no allegation that either player actually spoke to the other, or that Rodwell gained any advantage in the play of the hand. The committee did not receive any evidence that the violations were motivated by improper reasons and both players apologized for having created the situation which gave rise to the charges. The committee believes that ACBL should be more diligent in conducting this type of event to ensure that players follow established laws and regulations. Jay M. Apfelbaum Chair, Appeals and Committee Their punishment was a public reprimand -- a reprimand that does not become a matter of record in either player's disciplinary file. The Daily Bulletin is the only place I have seen the reprimand made public -- I would have expected to see mention of the findings in the ACBL Bulletin. Anyway, I find this to be nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I believe that disciplinary action for a violation of a law should not hinge on whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the violators are also cheaters. Accusing a player of cheating is a step which no one should take lightly, and should not be a prerequisite for disciplining a player that has committed some lesser (though still serious) infraction. This proposition is incorporated in the Laws. Law 73F1 provides that "[i]f the Director determines that a player chose from logical alternatives one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score." This Law does not require that the director determine whether the player actually took advantage of the UI, but only whether he could have done so. An inquiry into the subjective decisions of the player is foreclosed by the wording of the Law. Thus, an adjusted score does not embody a judgment that the player in question took advantage of UI, but only a decision that the available information might have influenced his play or call. The Meckwell incident should have been treated in the same manner. The question should not have been whether Meckstroth and Rodwell communicated in the men's room, but only whether they could have done so. There is no doubt that Meckstroth and Rodwell were in a position in which illegal communications could have taken place: Rodwell spent time in the men's room with Meckstroth, after Meckstroth had peeked at one of the defenders' hands. No further proof of impropriety should be necessary for the imposition of a penalty. I realize that my view is something of a hard line approach, but when it comes to the possibility of cheating, I believe this is an appropriate appoach. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 04:28:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 04:28:49 +1100 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 EAA00940 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 04:28:41 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id RAA13045 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:28:05 GMT Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 17:27 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: POOR DOPI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > A player claimed that with a one ace response to Blackwood he would > have sacrificed, but with a no ace response he would not. Is this the > damage? > So, if you want to convince me that I am wrong, please explain how > the difference of one ace results in damage. For your consideration. The auction, as explained, places South with 10.5+ tricks and a maximum of 2 quick losers (assuming sanity) and North with 1 trick. If the same auction occurred without MI & Misunderstanding then you would place south with 11.5+ tricks. The difference between the two is that in the "table" auction West "knows" that North also has an entry - given his spade holding that entry may be key to the contract actually making, thus the sacrifice is more attractive. It is a shame that the "reasons" behind West wishing to change his bid were not investigated(reported). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 10:19:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:19:41 +1100 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA02412 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:19:33 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic37.cais.com [207.226.56.37]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA23096; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:18:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971028182011.006b7bbc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:20:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ZT Clarification In-Reply-To: <971027223512_-1393025898@emout11.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 AM 10/28/97 -0500, AlLeBendig wrote: >There seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding about ZT and what it was >and is intended to be. I have covered all these points before but they seem >to have been missed by several. I'd like everyone to take a step back and >consider these thoughts: > >1. ZT in no way tries to expand the powers that are currently granted to TDs >or SOs when it comes to dealing with specific problems. Each remedy >suggested by ZT is clearly covered in the Laws. And each can be applied >whether or not ZT is in place. Suggestions to the contrary in other threads notwithstanding, I agree with Alan that ZT is entirely within the rights of the ACBL to promulgate (or to encourage their subordinate SOs to promulgate). >2. ZT is nothing more than a statement of policy as to the fact that a SO is >now prepared to deal with infractions of L74A1 & A2. But here we disagree. ZT is much more than a general statement of policy. It is a list of automatic penalties for specified offenses. >3. ZT addresses some very real problems. Anyone who doesn't recognize that >either is totally obtuse or has no contact with the majority of the members >in the ACBL - or both. And here comes the most important thing about ZT - >THE AVERAGE PLAYER HONESTLY BELIEVES THAT WE ARE FINALLY PREPARED TO DEAL >WITH THE PROBLEM. And this gives them hope PROVIDED they see some action. > In other words, their PERCEPTION of ZT is very important. Those of you who >have not seen it's inception to date cannot imagine how gratifying it is to >have 150 tables of bridge players burst into applause when it is announced >that ZT is in effect for this tournament. I have seen that reaction and >recognize that it is very sincere. And the glowing reports in the Bulletin >are NOT manufactured. They are trying to report what has been happening with >ZT. And the demands from clubs and Units and Districts for the posters and >more material has totally overwhelmed Unit 166, in District 2. Is there any >possibility that the naysayers here just might be wrong? This is the strongest argument for adopting ZT, that any action, even an ill-considered and misguided one, is better than doing nothing, since the one thing we feel certain of is that if we don't take some action we'll be sorry. I sympathize with this position, but don't believe that it justifies taking a bad draft, having a committee give it a quick polish-up, and rushing it through the BoD in time for the next NABC. The last thing we tried that with was Classic Bridge. Does anybody remember Classic Bridge -- from less than a year ago? If the ACBL wants to solve the behavior/rudeness problem for the long term, it will do much better to set forth its objectives, invite comment, take its time, and try (prior record on such matters notwithstanding) to get it right. >4. ZT, with it's current guidelines, may indeed have some flaws. And I will >agree that it is possible that some TDs or directors may in fact make some >errors in the application of ZT. But the fear of that is no reason, IMO, to >forestall the application of ZT. I expect the guidelines which come out of >the BOD committee will be much more even handed. But you will never agree >that it is "perfect". I tend to be very action oriented. When I see a >problem, I want to deal with it. I would much rather act with something >slightly flawed than take no action as I search for something "perfect". And >ZT is clearly action oriented. The problem with the ZT guidelines isn't its many individual flaws -- although I wish I were as optimistic as Alan that the BoD will correct some of these -- as the fact that it doesn't take the right approach. It should emphasize common sense, encouraging bad behavior to be dealt with harshly but fairly, rather than set standards of good behavior and mechanisms for dealing with non-conformance to those standards. We need to worry about attracting new players to our game before we worry about not driving them away. That (as we keep giving lip service to, but don't seem to really believe) means young people. Is the way to do that with a "behavior code" that addresses such things as dress, grooming and "hygiene"? The problem here is execrable behavior, not non-conformity. The problem of application isn't that directors will make errors per se; the problem is with their legitimatized exercises of bad judgment. This is not a small problem; it only takes a few to destroy the credibility of the entire program. Aunt Tillie may be driven away from her local duplicate by repeated encounters with rude opponents, but it will only take one encounter with a director PROPERLY AND CORRECTLY UNDER THE ZT GUIDELINES (at least as he reads them, with the letter of the guidelines to support him) automatically penalizing HER for stepping over the line to make sure she never comes back. >5. Even though all the tools are already in place for PPs and DPs, many >directors either don't know the best way to do things or have no solid idea >of how to deal with the violators. ZT makes it clear what the violations are >and sets down a uniform policy of how to dispense the penalties. This will >clearly level the playing field as far as dealing with these infractions in >any area that has ZT in place. That is a big plus, IMO. > >There are many players that have quit looking to the directors for help when >they have a problem because they so rarely get relief. TDs tend to just try >to make nice-nice and get everyone to calm down. The players have been >expressing their frustration by just quitting. And these are the ones I'm >concerned about. Don't those directors work for the ACBL, or for the ACBL's franchise holders? If they don't know what to do, or are too nicy-nicy to do it, whilst the ACBL is serious about getting tough on bad behavior, why isn't the ACBL busting the humps of those directors? As Alan says, the tools are already in place, but the people empowered to use them "have no solid idea" of what to do -- so why does the ACBL think that the solution is yet another tool? If they really want to get tough, why haven't they tried... well... uh... getting tough? >I have had ZT in place in my club long before it was put together by the >Toronto Unit. But it was only a feeling without ever being clearly put forth >on paper. We merely said that rudeness would not be tolerated. It was made >clear that we would suspend players that were repeat offenders. And we did >so more than once. But how many clubs or tournaments have you seen that >really enforced behavioral requirements like those put forth with ZT? And >how could you honestly perceive it as bad if we are really addressing this >repetitive problem? What the ACBL calls "ZT", which is what we're talking about, is a published code of correct behavior with automatic penalties for violation. That is NOT the same thing as "only a feeling". Alan's club's policy is just what Alan says it is: Rudeness will not be tolerated. Common sense will be used. The ACBL should forget about enacting Toronto's ZT policy, and adopt Alan's -- and then put their efforts where their mouth is. 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 Oct 29 13:12:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:12:01 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA02821 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:11:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017200; 29 Oct 97 1:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 01:50:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Whilst I agree with this, they can deduce (from the incorrect >explanation given and action taken as a result and the actual bid made >with its true explanation) that the Offenders have one fewer key card >than the 6H bidder thought and HAD they known this then they *might* >pass 6H. They have no right to this information and thus no ruling should be based on it. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 29 23:00:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:00:11 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA04034 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:00:02 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020971; 29 Oct 97 11:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:50:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, David Stevenson wrote: >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> >EW are entitled to a correct explanation of the NS agreements and they >> >didn't get that. North should have corrected the explanation before the >> >opening lead, at which point the director could have asked west (away from >> >the table) what he would have done if P was explained as P0D1. At that >> >point, he'd have to decide if south has AKx/AKQxxxxx/A/x or similar, >> >miscounted his aces, or has a useful void. Now that we can't do this >> >anymore, I'm going to assume that west is not going to bid 7D after a >> >Blackwood misunderstanding from his opponents. >> While we appreciate from a later response that Henk had misunderstood >> that North was a defender, what I would like to know is what is the >> point of the above procedure? Suppose North had corrected the >> explanation illegally [it happens] then what is gained by the TD taking >> West away and asking him a hypothetical question? >Lots. Let's change the hand and the problem slightly: > > West North East South > -- -- 3 D 4 NT > 5 D P' P 6 H > P P P > >' is explained as showing 0 aces (PODI) but NS play DOPI. West decides >against 7D because he thinks it's unlikely that S has 12 top tricks >in his hand. When west is about to lead, north informs him that NS >play DOPI. West now decides that he should have sacreficed and calls >the director in order to protect his side. > >Now, suppose the director tells the table to proceed. The hand is played >out, the whole table sees that 7D is only down 1100 against 1430 for 6H >(and that NS cannot make 7H). West now claims that he would have bid 7D >if he had had a correct explanation. Should the director believe him? > >This whole thing can be avoided by asking west before play starts. This, >obviously, has to happen away from the table in order to avoid UI. For >east there is no problem, under 21B, one can always reopen the bidding for >him. The damage on a hand [given an infraction] is decided by the TD [or AC] based on the possibilities in his view that would have occurred without the infraction. Something that might have happened is good enough to provide damage, so long as there is a reasonable chance of it happening. In the example given here, the TD takes the player away and asks him what he would have bid over 6H without the misexplanation. "I expect I would have passed" says the player. So the TD rules no damage. Well? The ruling is wrong. If you give a player a problem there is an excellent chance he will get it wrong - that is what bridge is about - but that is *not* the basis of a ruling of no damage. If you are 100% sure he will get it wrong then that is different, but asking him what he would bid and getting an answer when faced with a theoretical bidding problem does not mean that there is 0% chance that he would have chosen something else when it actually happened. Henk wrote >West now claims that he would have bid 7D >if he had had a correct explanation. Should the director believe him? The basis of damage is not based on whether West's statement is true nor on whether the TD believes him. The question is whether he *might* have bid 7D. I am not stupid, what ever else I am. If I was taken away from the table here and asked what I would bid with a correct explanation I would know that I should answer 7D, because that might gain me a ruling, and cannot lose. Now with my ethical approach, I would give an honest answer of pass, but many players with their wits about them would know that they would gain from saying 7D, and some of those players will say 7D for that reason. In the example given it is fairly simple to work out the possibilities of damage. Even so, there must be some doubt. What about East's pass over 5D? No, not the passout seat: the TD will give East the chance to take that back, but his other pass. Of course he will pass, you say. Why? Perhaps we should take him away from the table and ask him that! Suppose we have an infraction on the third round of the bidding. Do we take the NOs away from the table and ask them how it would affect their bids on the fourth, fifth and sixth round? I would just *love* to be asked all this when I am trying to decide what to lead! Superficially it sounds as though there it is a helpful approach to ask players away from the table. However, when analysed, it suffers from the following defects: [1] It is often difficult to work out the questions for the TD to ask [2] The answer is based on what a player would bid but the law isn't [3] It is an unwarranted intrusion into a player's decision-making process during the hand [4] For the questions to be valid the TD must look at the hand: now he will give UI [5] The answer gives no help as to whether there is damage [6] When a player afterwards claims he would have bid something the TD does not base his decision on whether he believes the player [7] An opinion at that moment as to what he would have bid does not mean he would not have bid something else if he had actually been faced with the position [8] The TD who follows this procedure will hardly be doing his job correctly unless he asks about *all* calls that could have been affected. [9] It is an invitation to unscrupulous players to benefit I consider it a very poor process that will result in upsetting players by interrupting them unnecessarily so as to cause poorer rulings. The process should not be followed. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 30 00:08:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:08:10 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04236 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:07:54 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020968; 29 Oct 97 11:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:07:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 69 In-Reply-To: <199710281535.KAA00654@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >*Something that has always bothered me: when, if ever, can South state >a line of play if his initial statement didn't include one? Suppose >South says just "I have the rest." in a complex position where that may >be true but not obvious. It may be obvious to South; let's say in the >position above the auction and play have revealed that the finesse must >work, but South neglects to say so, thinking (perhaps) it must be >obvious to everyone at the table. L70E seems to cover this case; South >is out of luck. What about a guaranteed squeeze, where the winners >have to be cashed in the right order? Does South get a chance to prove >he knows what order is right? I don't think L70E covers this. In >general, is it permitted/proper/improper for defenders to ask for a >clarification statement if one isn't given, and is it proper for the TD >to do so if the defenders do not? (I once claimed three tricks with >AJx opposite KTx in a suit the defenders had just led. The defenders >disputed the claim because I didn't state a line of play! Don't I get >a chance to explain?) I believe that the law gives TDs more judgement than any other part of the laws do. Furthermore, the addition of "or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational" to the end of L70E allows the TD more latitude in this area. It is not proper for the TD to ask for a further clarification. However, I am sure it is reasonable for the defence to ask for one, though whether it is legal is another matter. If declarer puts his hand down and says nothing, a defender who says "How do you intend to play it?" might be thought to be merely reminding declarer of L68C. Still, the TD has L70A in his quiver [golfbag?] and the opposition who argued about AJx opposite K10x should get short shrift from any TD. Under L70A, anything that is clear is allowed because this serves equity. In some ways, this means that whether a clarification is acceptable depends on the opponents' abilities. If you claimed with the aid of a double squeeze which must become proved by three rounds of hearts, and you claimed by saying "They're all mine" then I would give a trick to the defence unless I was convinced that the opponents actually believed your claim and were being bloody- minded [which would mean that the clarification was adequate]. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Visit Al Lochli's District 16 Proprieties' page * * http://www.txdirect.net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 30 02:34:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 02:34:11 +1100 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 CAA07195 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 02:33:55 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA11353 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:33:13 +0100 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:33:13 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > [1] It is often difficult to work out the questions for the TD to ask No, the question that he has to ask is whether a player would have done anything different from the moment that the infraction occurred until the moment that he got the correct information. I don't think that this is hard. Also, the goal of this is to find out if the player has considered alternatives to his bid, it is a lot easier to get an unbiased answer _before_ the player has seen the hands, the score-sheet and everything else, then _after_ he has seen them. > [2] The answer is based on what a player would bid but the law isn't No, the TD still has to decide if the player is damaged, the procedure is only intended to get unbiased answers. > [3] It is an unwarranted intrusion into a player's decision-making > process during the hand This will typically happen between the final pass and the opening lead, when there already is a natural break. Also, this only happens when a player _thinks_ that he might be damaged, isn't it reasonable to ask him why he feels damaged at this point? (And, IMHO, "I don't know, but I want to protect my side", is a perfectly reasonable answer). > [4] For the questions to be valid the TD must look at the hand: now he > will give UI No, why? > [5] The answer gives no help as to whether there is damage If a player claims that his bids weren't affected by the mis-explanation, then this is pretty strong evidence that there is no damage. > [6] When a player afterwards claims he would have bid something the TD > does not base his decision on whether he believes the player > [7] An opinion at that moment as to what he would have bid does not mean > he would not have bid something else if he had actually been faced > with the position Any statement about [7] seems much more reliable when it is made a few seconds after the auction is over, rather than 13 tricks later. > [8] The TD who follows this procedure will hardly be doing his job > correctly unless he asks about *all* calls that could have been > affected. This is trivial, see [1]. > [9] It is an invitation to unscrupulous players to benefit Well, isn't that the case of the present procedure as well? No matter when you ask, everybody will claim that would have done things differently if that works out to his advantage. Again, the TD has to establish the facts and judge if the non-offenders were damaged, what the procedure does is try to get an impression about what the players where thinking during the auction, just looking at 13 cards, rather than looking at all 52. 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 Oct 30 03:10:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:10:05 +1100 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 DAA07363 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 03:09:51 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:09:02 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 16:09:01 GMT Message-Id: <362.9710291609@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Law 69 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [snip] > > It is not proper for the TD to ask for a further clarification. > However, I am sure it is reasonable for the defence to ask for one, > though whether it is legal is another matter. If declarer puts his hand > down and says nothing, a defender who says "How do you intend to play > it?" might be thought to be merely reminding declarer of L68C. > [snip] There is a problem which sometimes arises. Declarer shows his hand and says "the rest are mine". He pauses (while defenders look at his hand) and is about about to make a statement of clarification when a defender says "Director!". Now, according to L68D, no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. In this case the director should allow a statement of clarification to be made by declarer. 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 Oct 30 05:40:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 05:40:35 +1100 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 FAA08231 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 05:40:18 +1100 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AB31207; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:40:07 -0900 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:40:07 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Poorly worded claim Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is mostly just a story, but anyone who would care to comment on how they would have handled it differently is welcome to do so. All this discussion of claims has reminded me of the very first ruling I was called upon to make after passing the club-level director's examination... that was quite a while ago now, but since this was also one of the more unpleasant situations I have ever been in as a director it has remained fresh in my mind ever since... South is playing 4S. He has won 9 of the first 11 tricks, East is on lead. N -- S: - H: 3 D: - C: 4 W -- S: K E -- S: - H: - H: 98 D: T D: - C: - C: - S -- S: Q H: - D: - C: 9 At approximately the same time as East leads the H9, West faces his hand and says "I have the rest." South calls me. (He said afterward he knew he wouldnt get another trick if the hand were played out, and he expected me to say "4S down 1, get on with life", but thought he'd better ask to make sure of correct procedure... he was a good but moderately inexperienced player, as were E and W.) Had W said "we have the rest" it would have been an easy 4S-1. Had W waited until S played to trick 12, it would have been an easy 4S-1. It was not clear whether he had seen his partner's lead when he claimed... presumably he was intending to either let his partner win if declarer discarded, or overruff declarer and cash his diamond... What it came down to was that he had said _I_, not _we_ have the rest of the tricks... so I felt I had no choice but to rule trick 12 was H9-C9-SK, trick 13 was DT-H8-SQ, 4S making 4. West was irate with this, understandably so since no rational line of play would have produced this result... he argued with me for a while... eventually I informed him of his right to appeal (which I should have done sooner rather than argue with him)... he chose to exercise that right... I spent the rest of the evening feeling very shaky... first ruling as a real live director, and it gets sent to a committee!... I was busy scoring at the end and didnt hear what the committee had to say... but they let 4S+4 stand, and West was just as irate at them as he was at me. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 30 06:29:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:29:45 +1100 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 GAA08521 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:29:38 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa05691; 29 Oct 97 11:29 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Poorly worded claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:40:07 PST." Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:29:03 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710291129.aa05691@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > This is mostly just a story, but anyone who would care to comment on how > they would have handled it differently is welcome to do so. > > All this discussion of claims has reminded me of the very first ruling I > was called upon to make after passing the club-level director's > examination... that was quite a while ago now, but since this was also one > of the more unpleasant situations I have ever been in as a director it has > remained fresh in my mind ever since... > > South is playing 4S. He has won 9 of the first 11 tricks, East is on lead. > > N -- S: - > H: 3 > D: - > C: 4 > > W -- S: K E -- S: - > H: - H: 98 > D: T D: - > C: - C: - > > S -- S: Q > H: - > D: - > C: 9 > > At approximately the same time as East leads the H9, West faces his hand > and says "I have the rest." South calls me. (He said afterward he knew he > wouldnt get another trick if the hand were played out, and he expected me > to say "4S down 1, get on with life", but thought he'd better ask to make > sure of correct procedure... he was a good but moderately inexperienced > player, as were E and W.) > > Had W said "we have the rest" it would have been an easy 4S-1. Had W > waited until S played to trick 12, it would have been an easy 4S-1. > > It was not clear whether he had seen his partner's lead when he claimed... > presumably he was intending to either let his partner win if declarer > discarded, or overruff declarer and cash his diamond... > > What it came down to was that he had said _I_, not _we_ have the rest of > the tricks... so I felt I had no choice but to rule trick 12 was H9-C9-SK, > trick 13 was DT-H8-SQ, 4S making 4. I think Law 70C applies: C. There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. Failed to Mention Trump claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. Was Probably Unaware of Trump it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and 3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play. It's hard to tell just what West intended by his claim; it seems likely to me that he thought his hand was good, presumably because he forgot about the outstanding trump. So applying the above law: (1) definitely applies, since West didn't mention declarer's trump. (2) seems to apply. (3) is the hard one. If West is a decent player, I think I'd rule that ruffing partner's good heart is an irrational play, and therefore the condition 70C3 is not fulfilled. Therefore, I'd let the score stand at 4S-1. Had West said something like "I'm going to ruff this trick and take the rest", I'd rule differently, since this is a positive statement that he intends to ruff partner's good heart. However, no such statement was made explicitly. It can be argued that "My hand is high" implies that there's an intent to ruff any lead of a suit you're out of. However, I believe that Law 70C was intended for just this sort of situation--where someone claims his hand is high and forgets there's a trump out. Thus, my opinion is that 70C should take precedence over the "intent to ruff" implied by the claim. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 30 11:30:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:30:57 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09593 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:30:51 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021412; 30 Oct 97 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 01:03:01 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: POOR DOPI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>Whilst I agree with this, they can deduce (from the incorrect >>explanation given and action taken as a result and the actual bid made >>with its true explanation) that the Offenders have one fewer key card >>than the 6H bidder thought and HAD they known this then they *might* >>pass 6H. > > They have no right to this information and thus no ruling should be >based on it. > I am now convinced that I was in error to rule as I did on the basis that I did. Thanks to all for pointing this out. However I am not unhappy with my ruling as the AC saw a lot more in the hand than I had time to. (I could write a whole article on the happenings last Friday) -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 30 11:34:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:34:49 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09619 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:34:40 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1014623; 30 Oct 97 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 01:08:09 +0000 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Poorly worded claim In-Reply-To: <9710291129.aa05691@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9710291129.aa05691@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes >> >> This is mostly just a story, but anyone who would care to comment on how >> they would have handled it differently is welcome to do so. >> >> All this discussion of claims has reminded me of the very first ruling I >> was called upon to make after passing the club-level director's >> examination... that was quite a while ago now, but since this was also one >> of the more unpleasant situations I have ever been in as a director it has >> remained fresh in my mind ever since... >> >> South is playing 4S. He has won 9 of the first 11 tricks, East is on lead. >> >> N -- S: - >> H: 3 >> D: - >> C: 4 >> >> W -- S: K E -- S: - >> H: - H: 98 >> D: T D: - >> C: - C: - >> >> S -- S: Q >> H: - >> D: - >> C: 9 >> >> At approximately the same time as East leads the H9, West faces his hand >> and says "I have the rest." South calls me. (He said afterward he knew he >> wouldnt get another trick if the hand were played out, and he expected me >> to say "4S down 1, get on with life", but thought he'd better ask to make >> sure of correct procedure... he was a good but moderately inexperienced >> player, as were E and W.) >> >> Had W said "we have the rest" it would have been an easy 4S-1. Had W >> waited until S played to trick 12, it would have been an easy 4S-1. >> >> It was not clear whether he had seen his partner's lead when he claimed... >> presumably he was intending to either let his partner win if declarer >> discarded, or overruff declarer and cash his diamond... >> >> What it came down to was that he had said _I_, not _we_ have the rest of >> the tricks... so I felt I had no choice but to rule trick 12 was H9-C9-SK, >> trick 13 was DT-H8-SQ, 4S making 4. > >I think Law 70C applies: > >C. There Is an Outstanding Trump > When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director > shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: > >1. Failed to Mention Trump > claimer made no statement about that trump, and > >2. Was Probably Unaware of Trump > it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was > unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and > >3. Could Lose a Trick to the Trump > a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play. > >It's hard to tell just what West intended by his claim; it seems >likely to me that he thought his hand was good, presumably because he >forgot about the outstanding trump. So applying the above law: > >(1) definitely applies, since West didn't mention declarer's trump. > >(2) seems to apply. > >(3) is the hard one. If West is a decent player, I think I'd rule > that ruffing partner's good heart is an irrational play, and > therefore the condition 70C3 is not fulfilled. Therefore, I'd let > the score stand at 4S-1. > >Had West said something like "I'm going to ruff this trick and take >the rest", I'd rule differently, since this is a positive statement >that he intends to ruff partner's good heart. However, no such >statement was made explicitly. It can be argued that "My hand is >high" implies that there's an intent to ruff any lead of a suit you're >out of. However, I believe that Law 70C was intended for just this >sort of situation--where someone claims his hand is high and forgets >there's a trump out. Thus, my opinion is that 70C should take >precedence over the "intent to ruff" implied by the claim. > > -- Adam could lose a trick by any normal play. IMO it's not normal to ruff one's partner's winner - but I'm usually wrong :) 4S-1 -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 30 11:47:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:47:54 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA09650 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:47:48 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021417; 30 Oct 97 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 01:04:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Delivery Status Notification MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > A player claimed that with a one ace response to Blackwood he would >have sacrificed, but with a no ace response he would not. Is this the >damage? > > I presumed from the original post that the TD had erred by thinking >that the player was damaged by not knowing the oppos had had a >misunderstanding but he has no right to this and there is no law to give >him that right. > > So, if you want to convince me that I am wrong, please explain how the >difference of one ace results in damage. > Having consulted with Jim Procter I have concluded that my original view is wrong, but I remain unsure that the sacrificer would have bid given a correct explanation. In fact the AC was, in part, of the view that with the Aces 2-1, the sacrificer could not see how to defeat 6H, but that with them 3-0, there would be chances to beat it which is not something I had considered. To be fair to me one doesn't get long to mull over a hand when one is directing 30 tables across two rooms, on a particularly wild YC evening and the AC will be able to give the matter much better consideration. -- John (MadDog) Probst /|_ !?! -^- phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road / @\__. \'/ 181 980 4947 London E3 4PA /\ __) -|- john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 /\:\ .--' | Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 30 13:17:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:17:51 +1100 Received: from UFO.star.net.il (UFO.star.net.il [195.8.204.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09875 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:17:31 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS3-162.star.net.il [195.8.208.162]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA19147; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 04:16:51 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <3457EE66.2CFD6742@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 04:18:14 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: POOR DOPI References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by UFO.star.net.il id EAA19147 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear John and all BLML contributors I read carefully and many times all the answers about this case. In spite of the fact that I believe the subject was clarified , I should like to establish some useful (IMHO....) ideas . GENERAL REMARKS 1. A TD is a human being=A0 ; he/she is not a perfect creature , neither for people believing in Bible nor for Darwinists=A0 !!! We must accept that "by (this) definition" we make mistakes from time to time and it is a natural phenomenon ; in spite of this accidents we should keep on our good mode and humor !! 1a. We must agree that there is a slight difference when making a decisio= n -----A.=A0 sitting in our very confortable arm chair , drinking coffee , caressing the cats , listening to Sinatra's songs and able to read a lot of papers , taking our time......=A0=A0=A0 OR -----B.=A0 during an "el ninho (it is very modern these days..)"=A0 tourn= ament , pressed by 100 pairs of so-called/thought world champs and some other 5-6 urgent tasks a TD has to do. 1b. I believe that a serious TD - like any kind of professional worker or games' player - learns from his/her own mistakes MORE than from a semestral course at university level !!! 1c. My suggestions is to learn from our mistakes,mistaken judgments or mistaken interpretation of laws in specific cases and try to agree abo= ut future actions in these cases. ROUTINE OF PROCEDURAL ACTING (when an irregularity occurred , suggesting score adjustment) 2. A TD should ask the classical 3 questions , when : 2a. Did an irregularity occurred -it is a "mechanics" question - it is TD's exclusive responsibility (only in case of non-agreed facts he should post it to an AC in order to let play "flowing") 2b. Was the non-offending side damaged - it is an 80% almost "mechanics" and 20% "bridge judgment" (IMHO) - so it is his responsibility and I should say that an AC is able to reconsider it in very few cases . 2c. Is a link between the irregularity and the damage - this is usually an inverted percentage question - 20% or less "mechanics" and 80% up "bridge judgment". BUT...... - it is TD's responsibility to remind the AC that if the answer to this third question is "NO" than the non-offending side shouldn't get any indemnity !!!!!!! FOR THE CASE POSTED 3. My very sound opinion is that TD should let score stand , without any doubt ; the AC would approve it and almost decide that E_W appeal is frivolous (if they should appeal) accordingly to their level and seniority - for senior or top level players there is no case. 4. In "wild" competitive bids it is very difficult to know the exact holding of the hands and in many occasions no one even knows who bids to play and who bids for sacrifice !!!! MORE PROCEDURAL REMARKS (for similar troubles) 5. Both TD=A0 and AC are forbidden to consider bridge judgment problems as experts but accordingly but accordingly to "the player's specific level" !!! Usually an AC includes experts because we believe that they are able to recognize and consider all play levels including the highest level . 6. A TD is TOTALLY FORBIDDEN to check hands - except in case someone complains about missing cards or misfit with the small cartoon known as card indicator. This is useless during the auction or the play and can only produce more damage to the natural progress of the auction or play=A0 , because even a request to do it irradiates an UI !! ----------- I believe that you all would agree with the above suggestions Dany ----------- John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In message , David Stevenson > writes > >David Martin wrote: > >>I was playing at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London last Friday > >>when the following happened on board 18. > > > >>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 North: Q974 > >>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 J74 > >> > >>West: 853=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 East: J62 > >>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 T=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 98 > > > >=A0 Please try to avoid tabs when posting to the Internet because they > >look different to different software.=A0 Spaces are recommended. > >Incidentally, the hand looked fine in Steve's answer. Is this because: > >[a] he edited it [the boring answer] > >[b] his software does the reverse of David's and put it right [the > >=A0 answer for the complete optimists] > > > >>This was appealed by North/South as they could see no causal link > >>between the mis-explanation and the 7D bid.=A0 The following arguemen= t was > >>offered.=A0 Given West's hand, it would appear to him, with the > >>mis-explanation, that South either has 2 Aces or 1 Ace + a useful voi= d > >>or is out of his tree!=A0 Given the correct explanation, it would app= ear > >>to West that South either has 3 Aces or 2 Aces + a useful void or is > >>still out of his tree!=A0 As West has no unsupported Kings that might= fall > >>to an Ace in the North hand, the decision to sacrifice over 6H does n= ot > >>seem to depend on the position of the Aces but only on his assessment= of > >>South in relation to his tree. > > > >=A0 Glad to see that BLs are alive and living in London.=A0 :)) > > > >>1=A0 Does the necessary causal link between the mis-information and t= he > >>claimed damage exist in this case? > > > >=A0 No.=A0 A BL made a phantom then looked for an excuse!=A0 Actually,= I may > >be being unfair: he may have actually believed he had a case. > > > >>2=A0 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > > > >=A0 No.=A0 there was no damage caused by the MI. > > > >>3=A0 What should the AC's ruling be? > > > >=A0 Table result: same reason. > > > >>4=A0 If North/South display no mannerisms to their opponents, is ther= e any > >>basis for supposing that they are entitled to know of the > >>misunderstanding? > > > >=A0 Eh?=A0 What law gives them any right to know their oppos are havin= g a > >misunderstanding?=A0 None whatever, IMO. > > > >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --------- > > > > > >>David Martin wrote: > >>> 2=A0 Was the TD's initial ruling correct? > > > >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >>Yes, I'd consider this automatic.=A0 NS have not given a correct expl= anation > >>of their agreements and West's bidding might have been affected by th= at. > > > >Alexey Gerasimov wrote: > >>This is normal ruling. It is hardly to answer "yes" or "no" to questi= on from > >>point 1 for TD usually (well, if he is not expert player). If TD have= doubts > >>- he must decide in favor on non-offending side. > > > >Sergei Litvak wrote: > >>Yes. Question above is for AC, TD shuld not be expert-player. > > > >=A0 This may be the difference between the British approach and the Re= st > >of the World [*very* old British joke: Newspaper headline: Fog in > >Channel: Europe isolated] but a British TD is taught to rule right, an= d > >only use the technique of ruling for the NOs if he is not at all sure. > >In this case I do not believe it is right for *any* TD to rule for the > >NOs. > > > >=A0 What actually happened?=A0 West said [in effect] "My LHO showed on= e ace, > >so I sacrificed when they bid the slam.=A0 If he had shown no aces, I > >would not have sacrificed when they bid the slam."=A0 No TD should rul= e in > >his favour for that argument! > > > >=A0 I believe that the TD actually ruled in the NOs favour for the sam= e > >reason as the AC, namely not realising that the argument over knowing > >about the bidding misunderstanding was totally without merit.=A0 I thi= nk > >it would be unfortunate if a TD who did understand this point of law > >ruled for the NOs because that really makes such a TD a meaningless > >cipher and transfers the bulk of rulings to the AC which is undesirabl= e > >at club level: IMO it is undesirable at any level below international. > > > EBU Supplement to the EBL TDs Guide Page 52. re 81.11.4 Page 52 I quote > "To rule in favour of an 'offending' side he will need to be convinced > that, in an appeals committe of, say, three persons, there will not be > *one* who argues contrary to his decision; if he suspects there COULD b= e > one who would suggest his decision be overturned, his decision cannot b= e > said to have the evident quality ..." ... > I could not conceive (of the one International and two other competent > players on the AC) that all three would concur with a ruling of "result > stands". To rule as I did is the ONLY possible ruling. > As it happens the 'offender' and poster of the article accepted my > ruling was the only possible one. > I must admit that I was surprised I was totally upheld - I'd expected > something on the lines of 50% 7Dx- a zillion, 50% 6H-1 > Convince me otherwise please David > -- > John (MadDog) Probst=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 /|_=A0 !?!=A0=A0=A0 -^-=A0=A0=A0= =A0 phone before fax to: > 451 Mile End Road=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 /=A0 @\__.=A0=A0=A0=A0 \'/=A0= =A0=A0=A0 181 980 4947 > London E3 4PA=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 /\=A0=A0=A0 __)=A0=A0=A0= =A0 -|-=A0=A0=A0=A0 john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818=A0=A0=A0=A0 /\:\=A0 .--'=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 |=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 Dealing is my best game =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 31 08:23:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:23:03 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14827 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:22:56 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA25324; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 15:22:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.34) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025247; Thu Oct 30 15:21:39 1997 Received: by har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCE54F.993389C0@har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 16:19:29 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE54F.993389C0@har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com> From: rts48u To: Adam Beneschan Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Zero Tolerance Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 16:19:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >The last time the TD got a Law book ruling = completely wrong at my table, >I pointed out this (courteously - of course - he was a higher ranked TD >than me:) I got a verry verry bad score. I decided in future to let = the >silly expletives go wrong, carry on, play, and then hit them with TD >errror and get 60% - is this unethical?? It certainly is. As a trained director you are subject to an even higher = standard of ethics than some poor schlub whose idea of a law book is = something that is bound in leather and supplies his barrister with an = attractive wall decoration. If you knew the ruling to be wrong as a matter of law, you should have = at least attempted to guide the TD to a correct ruling he must have = inadvertantly overlooked. From your earlier posts I doubt that you are = the sort who wants to win on a blown call. Is this a duty to the = field?...or to your opponents?....No, even more its a duty to the man = you must face in the mirror. If you intended the comment in jest...as I suspect...then we agree. :-) Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 31 08:31:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:31:50 +1100 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 IAA14897 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:31:44 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa07872; 30 Oct 97 13:31 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Oct 1997 16:19:17 PST." <01BCE54F.993389C0@har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 13:31:04 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710301331.aa07872@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Michael Amos wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >The last time the TD got a Law book ruling completely wrong at my > >table, I pointed out this (courteously - of course - he was a > >higher ranked TD than me:) I got a verry verry bad score. I > >decided in future to let the silly expletives go wrong, carry on, > >play, and then hit them with TD errror and get 60% - is this > >unethical?? > > It certainly is. . . . Just to clarify that it wasn't my comment . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 31 13:18:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:18:13 +1100 Received: from MajorD.xtra.co.nz (terminator.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA15682 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:18:07 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (p15-m4-ch7.dialup.xtra.co.nz [202.27.179.207]) by MajorD.xtra.co.nz (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA08401 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:17:30 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <345A681B.4B4D@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:22:03 -0800 From: B A Small Reply-To: Bruce.Small@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-XTRA (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: bidding pad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All, We use bidding pads for written bidding in NZ. At the commencement of play (after the third card on the first trick) the pad is turned over and stays that way. We recently had a situation where a player wanted to see the bidding half way through the play and was told he could not. He is entitled to a review of auction and explanation of bids (law 20 C and F2 and 41 B) but was told the pad stays turned over. Is this the case and where is the justification? (I presume we are being encouraged to leave the pad face up to avoid this) Thanks in advance Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 31 13:38:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:38:37 +1100 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 NAA15742 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:38:29 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23372; 30 Oct 97 18:37 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: bidding pad In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:22:03 PST." <345A681B.4B4D@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 18:37:54 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710301837.aa23372@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Hi All, > > We use bidding pads for written bidding in NZ. At the commencement of > play (after the third card on the first trick) the pad is turned over > and stays that way. We recently had a situation where a player wanted to > see the bidding half way through the play and was told he could not. He > is entitled to a review of auction and explanation of bids (law 20 C and > F2 and 41 B) but was told the pad stays turned over. Is this the case > and where is the justification? (I presume we are being encouraged to > leave the pad face up to avoid this) Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but you are *not* entitled to a review of the auction after your first turn to play to the first trick is over (20C2 and 41B make this clear). You are still entitled to the final contract and an explanation of any calls. -- Adam