From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 1 01:06:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:06:55 +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 BAA19599 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:06:37 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-38.star.net.il [195.8.208.38]) by apm12.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA07134; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:04:45 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3459E60C.F6A3993@star.net.il> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:07:09 +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: Member of L&EC shows what to do after claim! 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 QAA07134 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David You wrote that TD decided 1 trick + 10% for defenders=A0 and pointed that it is standard in EBU .=A0 Please kindly explain what this 10% are , because if I understand it "as is" - i.e. +10% of the 12 tricks made result we don't use this kind of score here. Second , it is very unfair to discuss an AC decision without having all facts in front of you , but if no very special information was available I"ll not let my young cats Joseph & Hersha serve with that AC - the mature Rosario will not accept himself and I suggest that Quago & Nanki Poo will not join that committee too. =A0 David Stevenson wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > =A0 Quango and Nanki Poo have gone on strike for better types of cat fo= od, > so I have had to add these up myself. > > =A0 Well, it wasn't meant to be too serious.=A0 However, the answers to= #1 > and #4 are not all the same [though totally consistent with each other]= , > which is interesting. > > >1=A0 What should the TD have ruled? > > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 4 votes > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 11 tricks, defenders 2 tricks=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 2 votes > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 vote > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 + 25% fine > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 11 tricks, defenders 1 trick=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 vote > > =A0 Interesting that 3 out of 8 do not give declarer 12 tricks > > >2=A0 What did the TD rule? > > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 4 votes > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 11 tricks, defenders 2 tricks=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 3 votes > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer ave -,=A0=A0=A0=A0 defenders ave -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 vote > > =A0 Hehehe.=A0 No points.=A0 What actually happened was: > > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 votes > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 + 10% fine > > =A0 David [Grabiner]: you should have stuck by your guns!=A0 Basically = the > TD ruled what you considered right.=A0 Note 10% is standard in the EBU. > > >3=A0 Who appealed? > > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 5 votes > =A0=A0=A0 Defenders=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 2 votes > =A0=A0=A0 Both=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 vot= e > > =A0 Well done Jac [Fuchs]: both sides did appeal! > > >4=A0 What should the AC have ruled? > > =A0 Same answer as #1: fair enough! > > >5=A0 What did the AC rule? > > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 1 trick=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 vote > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 11 tricks, defenders 1 tricks=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 4 votes > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 12 tricks, defenders 2 tricks=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 1 vote > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer ave -,=A0=A0=A0=A0 defenders ave -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 1 vote > =A0=A0=A0 Declarer 11.5 trks, defenders 1.5 trks=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 1 vote > > =A0 At least here the majority got the answer right.=A0 I cannot commen= t on > the reasons since I did not see the AC form, but they duly gave declare= r > 11 tricks, but only one to the defence. > > -- > David Stevenson=A0 ****************************************************= * > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 *=A0 Visit Al Lochli's= District 16 Proprieties' page=A0 * > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 * http://www.txdirect.= net/users/biigal/d16bprop.htm * > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 **********************= ******************************* =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 1 03:49:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:49:27 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20242 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:49:20 +1100 Received: from mike (ip102.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.102]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA05250 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:49:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971031114928.0068cb68@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:49:28 -0500 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <01BCE54F.993389C0@har-pa1-02.ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:19 PM 10/30/97 -0500, rts48u wrote: >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 > No joking matter, this. Why would you suppose that a trained director should be subject to a higher standard of ethics (as a player) than anyone else? Certainly the legal and ethical requirements are no less than for other players, but neither are they any greater. As to the substance of his question, I might have agreed you in the pre-ZT era, but with the ACBL prepared to slap penalties on players for "disputing a director's ruling", I would say that Adam's proposed approach enjoys (as yet unofficial) ACBL endorsement. I would take this even further. I have (rarely) disputed director's rulings which I knew to be incorrectly favorable to my side, and would have considered this to be proper and ethical, so long as it was done politely. But I certainly won't assume the risk of a penalty to my side for defending the opponents' rights. Just another minor and presumably unintended consequence of the ZesT for behavioral correctness. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 1 03:55:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:55:27 +1100 Received: from m3.sprynet.com (m3.sprynet.com [165.121.2.55]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20288 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:55:22 +1100 Received: from dd20-074.dub.compuserve.com (dd20-074.dub.compuserve.com [199.174.177.74]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA03614 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:00:11 -0800 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:00:11 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19971031105641.33b70c6c@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: trick arrangement and dummy Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all. This question arose at the local (U.S.) club, and no one was sure of the answer. It's not a burning question, but it does come up now and then. I was declarer and after losing the first trick I won the second, but absentmindedly turned the card from trick two the same way as trick one's. Dummy, my regular partner, said something like "We won that trick" to indicate that I had placed that card incorrectly. (He knew that I knew we had won the trick and that I would understand his remark as referring to how I had turned that card.) One of the defenders said, not as a challenge, "You know, there's a penalty for that now." L65B states in which direction the cards from quitted tricks are to point, so dummy *might* have the right to prevent an irregularity under that Law. OTOH, L43A1c says dummy may not participate in the play nor communicate anything about the play to declarer. It's not clear (to us, anyway) which applies in the instance above. The consensus seemed to be that (a) it's the TD's discretion whether calling attention to a trick-arrangement problem constitutes an irregularity, and (b) if dummy says something *right away* rather than later, most TDs, at least around here, won't penalize the declaring side. Is there something more specific in the ACBL regulations about dummy's rights and restrictions in that situation? How should TDs handle that situation? And what about one defender reminding the other? Thanks and best regards, Brian P. Baresch baresch@sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 1 05:29:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:29:38 +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 FAA20724 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:29:30 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2009221; 31 Oct 97 18:20 GMT Message-ID: <07u0MAAf1hW0Ewss@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:03:11 +0000 To: Brian Baresch Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19971031105641.33b70c6c@m3.sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <2.2.16.19971031105641.33b70c6c@m3.sprynet.com>, Brian Baresch writes >Hi all. This question arose at the local (U.S.) club, and no one was sure of >the answer. It's not a burning question, but it does come up now and then. > >I was declarer and after losing the first trick I won the second, but >absentmindedly turned the card from trick two the same way as trick one's. >Dummy, my regular partner, said something like "We won that trick" to >indicate that I had placed that card incorrectly. (He knew that I knew we >had won the trick and that I would understand his remark as referring to how >I had turned that card.) One of the defenders said, not as a challenge, "You >know, there's a penalty for that now." > >L65B states in which direction the cards from quitted tricks are to point, >so dummy *might* have the right to prevent an irregularity under that Law. >OTOH, L43A1c says dummy may not participate in the play nor communicate >anything about the play to declarer. It's not clear (to us, anyway) which >applies in the instance above. > >The consensus seemed to be that (a) it's the TD's discretion whether calling >attention to a trick-arrangement problem constitutes an irregularity, and >(b) if dummy says something *right away* rather than later, most TDs, at >least around here, won't penalize the declaring side. > >Is there something more specific in the ACBL regulations about dummy's >rights and restrictions in that situation? How should TDs handle that >situation? And what about one defender reminding the other? > >Thanks and best regards, > >Brian P. Baresch >baresch@sprynet.com >Lawrence, Kansas USA > I rule based on L42B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer". If he sees declarer turning his trick incorrectly then provided he *immediately* (as soon as he can get it out) says "It's ours" or "It's theirs". But I don't allow it after that, and award a PP of 10%. To clarify 10% Butler (Imp Pairs) -2 Imps Teams Imps -3 Imps Pairs -10% of a Top -- 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 Nov 1 07:54:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:54:59 +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 HAA21569 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:54:53 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2009124; 31 Oct 97 20:44 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCE63A.9127AF40@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:21:27 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: trick arrangement and dummy Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 20:21:25 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MadDog writes: > >[David Martin] SNIP >[David Martin] > >I rule based on L42B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity by >declarer". If he sees declarer turning his trick incorrectly then >provided he *immediately* >[David Martin] >I almost agree! I rule that dummy can prevent declarer from pointing his >card the wrong way provided he starts to draw attention to this irregularity >before declarer has let go of the card, as this is the point at which it is >quitted and the irregularity has has become established. (cf Endicott & >Hansen). Defenders are not allowed to warn each about this as it is a breach >of Law 73 which should be penalised as below and an adjusted score might >also need to be given. > >(as soon as he can get it out) says "It's >ours" or "It's theirs". But I don't allow it after that, and award a PP >of 10%. >To clarify 10% >Butler (Imp Pairs) -2 Imps >Teams Imps -3 Imps >Pairs -10% of a Top >-- >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 Nov 1 11:38:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:38:57 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22506 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:38:42 +1100 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA14986; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:37:52 -0900 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:37:52 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: FW: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [snip] > >[David Martin] SNIP > >[David Martin] > > > >I rule based on L42B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity by > >declarer". If he sees declarer turning his trick incorrectly then > >provided he *immediately* > >[David Martin] > >I almost agree! I rule that dummy can prevent declarer from pointing his > >card the wrong way provided he starts to draw attention to this irregularity > >before declarer has let go of the card, as this is the point at which it is > >quitted and the irregularity has has become established. I would prefer not to consider the irregularity established until after declarer's side has played to the next trick. Once a card has been quitted it cannot be re-exposed (unless someone else whose card is still faced asks to see it, of course), but one can look at one's own play to the previous trick until the next trick is in progress. This seems to suggest that declarer can pick up, fidget with, or rotate to the proper orientation, his card even after he has let go of it. I would therefore allow the dummy to tell declarer to rotate his card so long as neither dummy nor declarer has contributed a card to the next trick. Come to think of it, I forget whether the right to inspect, without exposing, one's play to the previous trick is in the laws or is just common practice in the US... if it's not in the laws my opinion on this might change. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 1 12:13:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 12:13:19 +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 MAA22553 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 12:13:13 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa24362; 31 Oct 97 17:11 PST To: "G. R. Bower" cc: David Martin , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" , adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: FW: trick arrangement and dummy In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:37:52 PST." Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 17:11:24 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9710311711.aa24362@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Come to think of it, I forget whether the right to inspect, without > exposing, one's play to the previous trick is in the laws or is just > common practice in the US... if it's not in the laws my opinion on this > might change. > > Gordon Bower Law 66B: "Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card played." -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 1 13:34:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 13:34:08 +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 NAA22687 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 13:33:58 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS3-156.star.net.il [195.8.208.156]) by apm12.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA14790; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 04:31:41 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <345A951D.947ECB8A@star.net.il> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 04:34:05 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "G. R. Bower" CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Poorly worded claim 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 EAA14790 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Gordon I think your decision was wrong - irrational enough to ruff your partner' s winning card even if there is an outstanding trump in declarer's hand . It is not 100% wrong , but almost irrational... But don't mind , it may happen.=A0 Just read ,please, my remarks for POOR=A0 DOPI . If we"ll be able to consider them , I hope we"ll be respectable TDs. Dany =A0 G. R. Bower wrote: > This is mostly just a story, but anyone who would care to comment on ho= w > 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 le= ad. > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 N -- S: - > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 H: 3 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 D: - > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 C: 4 > > W -- S: K=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E -- S: - > =A0=A0=A0=A0 H: -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 H: 98 > =A0=A0=A0=A0 D: T=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 D: - > =A0=A0=A0=A0 C: -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 C: - > > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S -- S: Q > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 H: - > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 D: - > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 C: 9 > > At approximately the same time as East leads the H9, West faces his han= d > 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 ma= ke > 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 o= f > 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 p= lay > 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 d= one > 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 scor= ing > 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 =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 2 12:26:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:26:43 +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 MAA27859 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:26:36 +1100 Received: from default (cph13.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.13]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA21527 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 02:26:26 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199711020126.CAA21527@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 02:26:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:03:11 +0000 > To: Brian Baresch > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Reply-to: John Probst > Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy > In message <2.2.16.19971031105641.33b70c6c@m3.sprynet.com>, Brian > Baresch writes > >Hi all. This question arose at the local (U.S.) club, and no one was sure of > >the answer. It's not a burning question, but it does come up now and then. > > > >I was declarer and after losing the first trick I won the second, but > >absentmindedly turned the card from trick two the same way as trick one's. > >Dummy, my regular partner, said something like "We won that trick" to > >indicate that I had placed that card incorrectly. (He knew that I knew we > >had won the trick and that I would understand his remark as referring to how > >I had turned that card.) One of the defenders said, not as a challenge, "You > >know, there's a penalty for that now." > > > >L65B states in which direction the cards from quitted tricks are to point, > >so dummy *might* have the right to prevent an irregularity under that Law. > >OTOH, L43A1c says dummy may not participate in the play nor communicate > >anything about the play to declarer. It's not clear (to us, anyway) which > >applies in the instance above. > > > >The consensus seemed to be that (a) it's the TD's discretion whether calling > >attention to a trick-arrangement problem constitutes an irregularity, and > >(b) if dummy says something *right away* rather than later, most TDs, at > >least around here, won't penalize the declaring side. > > > >Is there something more specific in the ACBL regulations about dummy's > >rights and restrictions in that situation? How should TDs handle that > >situation? And what about one defender reminding the other? > > > >Thanks and best regards, > > > >Brian P. Baresch > >baresch@sprynet.com > >Lawrence, Kansas USA > > > I rule based on L42B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity by > declarer". If he sees declarer turning his trick incorrectly then > provided he *immediately* (as soon as he can get it out) says "It's > ours" or "It's theirs". But I don't allow it after that, and award a PP > of 10%. > To clarify 10% > Butler (Imp Pairs) -2 Imps > Teams Imps -3 Imps > Pairs -10% of a Top The EBL guide (based on the 1987 laws, but that makes little difference here) includes the following comment on Law 42: 42.4: Note that the Laws do not authorize dummy to inform declarer of the number of tricks he has won or lost at some stage in the play. Although it is difficult to point to a place in the Laws where this is made explicit, the normal attitude in Denmark is that defenders may not tell each other that they have positioned their quitted tricks wrong, and dummy may not tell declarer. In Denmark, we thus consider any such remark to be an infraction of the laws, but we would normally not fine the perpetrator (except in obnoxious cases where a player repeatedly ignores such rulings). Of course it is possible to conjure up a situation where such a remark is damaging to the opponents and an adjusted score is called for, but I have never seen such a case in practice. Interestingly, I played in a tournament in England a few months ago, and an opponent (dummy at the time) actually pointed out to declarer that she had pointed a trick wrong (immediately, no doubt about that). I said something like "I do not believe that you have the right...", and dummy immediately and very sincerely apologized; since no damage seemed to be done, I smiled at dummy, I did not call the director, and everyone was happy. I am now surprised to find that this dummy, who genuinely felt bad about it, might not have been criticized if I had called the director and John had answered the call. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 2 14:32:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:32:59 +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 OAA28086 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:32:53 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2007798; 2 Nov 97 3:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 03:14:44 +0000 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <199711020126.CAA21527@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199711020126.CAA21527@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >> > >> >I was declarer and after losing the first trick I won the second, but >> >absentmindedly turned the card from trick two the same way as trick one's. >> >Dummy, my regular partner, said something like "We won that trick" to >> >indicate that I had placed that card incorrectly. (He knew that I knew we >> >had won the trick and that I would understand his remark as referring to how >> >I had turned that card.) One of the defenders said, not as a challenge, "You >> >know, there's a penalty for that now." big snip >Interestingly, I played in a tournament in England a few months ago, >and an opponent (dummy at the time) actually pointed out to declarer >that she had pointed a trick wrong (immediately, no doubt about >that). I said something like "I do not believe that you have the >right...", and dummy immediately and very sincerely apologized; since >no damage seemed to be done, I smiled at dummy, I did not call the >director, and everyone was happy. I am now surprised to find that >this dummy, who genuinely felt bad about it, might not have been >criticized if I had called the director and John had answered the >call. :) John. I said elsewhere in thread that I believe most UK TDs rule this way. Can Nanki Poo or Quango help 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 Sun Nov 2 20:30:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:30:20 +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 UAA28738 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:30:13 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-218.innet.be [194.7.10.218]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA04040 for ; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:30:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <345C4562.659AE35@innet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:18:26 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <2.2.16.19971031105641.33b70c6c@m3.sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm surprised no-one has quoted the correct laws yet : Brian Baresch wrote: > > Hi all. This question arose at the local (U.S.) club, and no one was sure of > the answer. It's not a burning question, but it does come up now and then. > > I was declarer and after losing the first trick I won the second, but > absentmindedly turned the card from trick two the same way as trick one's. > Dummy, my regular partner, said something like "We won that trick" to > indicate that I had placed that card incorrectly. (He knew that I knew we > had won the trick and that I would understand his remark as referring to how > I had turned that card.) One of the defenders said, not as a challenge, "You > know, there's a penalty for that now." > > L65B states in which direction the cards from quitted tricks are to point, > so dummy *might* have the right to prevent an irregularity under that Law. > OTOH, L43A1c says dummy may not participate in the play nor communicate > anything about the play to declarer. It's not clear (to us, anyway) which > applies in the instance above. > > The consensus seemed to be that (a) it's the TD's discretion whether calling > attention to a trick-arrangement problem constitutes an irregularity, and > (b) if dummy says something *right away* rather than later, most TDs, at > least around here, won't penalize the declaring side. > > Is there something more specific in the ACBL regulations about dummy's > rights and restrictions in that situation? How should TDs handle that > situation? And what about one defender reminding the other? > > Thanks and best regards, > > Brian P. Baresch L42B2 : he may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer In this case, the irregularity has already occurred and he is can no longer prevent it. L443A1c : Dummy may not participate in the play or (stronger wording in new law, but retranslated since I don't have an engilsh text at hand) **communicate anything about the play to declarer** As I see it, even the 1987 Laws could be used to prevent this (make any comment on the play), but the 1997 laws cover it quite conclusively. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 3 03:32:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 03:32:48 +1100 Received: from pimaia2w.prodigy.com (pimaia2w.prodigy.com [198.83.19.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA02234 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 03:32:40 +1100 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia2w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA47768; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:32:35 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id LAA25216; Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:32:34 -0500 Message-Id: <199711021632.LAA25216@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: burghard@prodigy.com (MR KENT V BURGHARD) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:32:34, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, msd@mindspring.com Subject: RE: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:49:28, Mike Dennis (msd@mindspring.com) wrote: > Why would you suppose that a trained director should > be subject to a higher standard of ethics (as a player) than anyone > else? Certainly the legal and ethical requirements are no less than for > other players, but neither are they any greater. Tournament directors are employees of the ACBL and as a condition of employment, they are held (by their employer) to a higher standard of ethics, deportment, and behavior than the ACBL holds other members. Employees of the ACBL are expected to set an example for other members, and for the most part in my observation do so in an exemplary manner. Kent Burghard ACBL internet guy, a proud employee of the ACBL From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 3 05:51:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:51:38 +1100 Received: from imo05.mx.aol.com (imo05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.107]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02940 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:51:28 +1100 From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <7d5ccbe6.345ccb3b@aol.com> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:50:16 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Turning Tricks in the Wrong Direction Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The 1975 Laws (L42B2) gave dummy the right to inform any player that he/she was turning a trick in the wrong direction, including ANY previously played trick. This right was deleted from L42B2 in the 1987/1990 Laws. At that time we were told by TDs that the only statement dummy can make about wrongly turned tricks is a correction of declarer's action when winning the current trick, and that this correction could be made before declarer plays to the next trick, but not thereafter. The implication was that an irregularity has not occurred until declarer plays to the next trick. This is analogous to the questioning of declarer about a possible revoke, which dummy can do before the revoke becomes established. The question therefore turns on when declarer's misturned trick becomes "established" as an irregularity, after which the dummy can say nothing. The Laws are not explicit on this matter, but common sense agrees with what TDs told us in 1987. (I don't know the source of the TDs' instructions, but it may have been the ACBL Bulletin). As in the case of a revoke, there is no established irregularity until declarer plays to the next trick. Before that time, dummy can correct the direction of declarer's turned trick in order to prevent an irregularity. However, I found something in the ACBL archives that may contradict this opinion: This is from DIRECTIONS (to TDs, I presume) dated July/October 1992: Law 43.A.1.c: "Dummy may not participate in the play or make any comment, or ask any question, on the bidding or play", prohibits dummy from saying just about everything, including that which has to do with the way another player's cards are arranged. However, dummy is allowed to attempt to stop declarer from leading out of turn, which might serve to alert declarer to the fact that he did not win the previous trick. (Law 42.B.2: He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.) (Spider Harris adds the following on turning a card the wrong way) It is, in general, not proper to announce that another player has turned a card the wrong way. Such notification might be construed as a suggestion to partner as to how play should be conducted thereafter, such as suggesting that partner take a trick if he can, or some such. Certain exceptions might be noted, however. If declarer tells either the dummy or an opponent, there can hardly have been any unauthorized communication, and a later dispute as to the result might thus be avoided. In addition, it will frequently be all right to call attention to such a card on the just-completed trick. This would often serve to prevent a lead out of turn, or an unreasonable delay by the person who does not realize that he won the trick. A defender or the dummy should be careful about speaking up, since such action might affect the result. If the action may have constituted the transfer of unauthorized information, the Director should consider assigning an adjusted score if such information was likely to have influenced the play. In short, if you are the dummy or a defender, just leave it alone until the hand is over. However, it would seem that declarer can never be wrong to call attention to anyone else at the table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------- I wish someone could find an old Bulletin article confirming what TDs told us in 1987. I feel there must have been one, since TDs were so explicit when issuing the new instructions. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 3 13:05:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:05:41 +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 NAA03964 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:05:35 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1029749; 3 Nov 97 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 01:05:13 +0000 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: <3459E60C.F6A3993@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: >Hi David > >You wrote that TD decided 1 trick + 10% for defenders=A0 and >pointed that it is standard in EBU .=A0 Please kindly explain what >this 10% are , because if I understand it "as is" - i.e. +10% >of the 12 tricks made result we don't use this kind of score here. *And* 10% fine. It is common to write '+' for 'and' on the Internet: that is all I=20 meant. --=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 Mon Nov 3 13:05:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:05:38 +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 NAA03961 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:05:30 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018792; 3 Nov 97 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 01:02:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Zero Tolerance In-Reply-To: <199711021632.LAA25216@mime2.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MR KENT V BURGHARD wrote: >Tournament directors are employees of the ACBL Not all Tournament Directors. -- 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 Nov 3 13:05:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:05:49 +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 NAA03975 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:05:43 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018791; 3 Nov 97 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 01:25:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <345C4562.659AE35@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I'm surprised no-one has quoted the correct laws yet : > >Brian Baresch wrote: >> >> Hi all. This question arose at the local (U.S.) club, and no one was sure of >> the answer. It's not a burning question, but it does come up now and then. >> >> I was declarer and after losing the first trick I won the second, but >> absentmindedly turned the card from trick two the same way as trick one's. >> Dummy, my regular partner, said something like "We won that trick" to >> indicate that I had placed that card incorrectly. (He knew that I knew we >> had won the trick and that I would understand his remark as referring to how >> I had turned that card.) One of the defenders said, not as a challenge, "You >> know, there's a penalty for that now." >> >> L65B states in which direction the cards from quitted tricks are to point, >> so dummy *might* have the right to prevent an irregularity under that Law. >> OTOH, L43A1c says dummy may not participate in the play nor communicate >> anything about the play to declarer. It's not clear (to us, anyway) which >> applies in the instance above. >> >> The consensus seemed to be that (a) it's the TD's discretion whether calling >> attention to a trick-arrangement problem constitutes an irregularity, and >> (b) if dummy says something *right away* rather than later, most TDs, at >> least around here, won't penalize the declaring side. >> >> Is there something more specific in the ACBL regulations about dummy's >> rights and restrictions in that situation? How should TDs handle that >> situation? And what about one defender reminding the other? >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> >> Brian P. Baresch > >L42B2 : he may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer > >In this case, the irregularity has already occurred and he is can no >longer prevent it. This is correct. In other articles people have suggested that declarer might fiddle with the trick so its wrong direction is not yet established. I have no idea where this idea comes from. L65B tells you how to put your tricks down so once you put it wrong you have committed an irregularity, however trivial that irregularity is, and dummy is too late to prevent it. The possibility that the player may correct the irregularity does not mean that the irregularity has not occurred. >L443A1c : Dummy may not participate in the play or (stronger wording in >new law, but retranslated since I don't have an engilsh text at hand) >**communicate anything about the play to declarer** > >As I see it, even the 1987 Laws could be used to prevent this (make any >comment on the play), but the 1997 laws cover it quite conclusively. I agree. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 3 22:10:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 22:10:48 +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 WAA05034 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 22:10:37 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005199; 3 Nov 97 10:56 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCE846.DA1FC080@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:54:26 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: trick arrangement and dummy Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:54:25 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 17 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens wrote: SNIP > >The EBL guide (based on the 1987 laws, but that makes little >difference here) includes the following comment on Law 42: > 42.4: Note that the Laws do not authorize dummy to inform declarer of the number of tricks he has won or lost at some stage in the play. > > >The EBL Guide also explicitly states that dummy can warn declarer about >pointing a card in the wrong direction until declarer lets go of it as this >is the point that it is quitted and the irregularity established. >Unfortunately, I am at work and do not have my EBL Guide to hand but I think >that it is in the commentary on Law 43 rather than that on Law 42. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 3 23:44:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 23:44:58 +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 XAA05404 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 23:44:52 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2010084; 3 Nov 97 12:35 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCE854.C32B1A10@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: trick arrangement and dummy Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:33:58 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 24 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Jens wrote: > >SNIP > >> >>The EBL guide (based on the 1987 laws, but that makes little >>difference here) includes the following comment on Law 42: >> >42.4: Note that the Laws do not authorize dummy to inform declarer >of the number of tricks he has won or lost at some stage in the play. >> >> >>The EBL Guide also explicitly states that dummy can warn declarer about >>pointing a card in the wrong direction until declarer lets go of it as this >>is the point that it is quitted and the irregularity established. >>Unfortunately, I am at work and do not have my EBL Guide to hand but I think >>that it is in the commentary on Law 43 rather than that on Law 42. >[David Martin] > >Someone has kindly looked this up for me and the relevant paragraph is EBL >43.4 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 4 00:04:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:04:40 +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 AAA05479 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:04:34 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id FAA21186; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:05:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma020863; Mon, 3 Nov 97 05:05:12 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id FAA12622 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:05:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711031305.FAA12622@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 3 Nov 97 12:58:30 GMT Subject: RE: Zero Tolerance Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kent Burghard wrote: >On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:49:28, Mike Dennis (msd@mindspring.com) >wrote: >> Why would you suppose that a trained director should >> be subject to a higher standard of ethics (as a player) than anyone >> else? Certainly the legal and ethical requirements are no less than for >> other players, but neither are they any greater. > >Tournament directors are employees of the ACBL and as a condition >of employment, they are held (by their employer) to a higher >standard >of ethics, deportment, and behavior than the ACBL holds other >members. Employees of the ACBL are expected to set an example >for other members, and for the most part in my observation do so >in an exemplary manner. In fact, as David Stevenson has noted, not all TDs are employees of the ACBL, and this is relevant as the discussion (whether a player should have accepted the ruling even though the player knew the ruling was incorrect) was, I think, started by an English player (who is also an English TD). In England I am not aware of any who are employees of the ACBL: indeed I am only aware of one who is an employee of the EBU. In any case, Mr Burghard's comments appear to relate to the *employment* relationship between the ACBL and its directors, and do not seem to suggest any difference in rulings, etc. which should apply to them. The EBU's Supplement to the EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws includes a paragraph (81.9) on the effect of a player's lack experience on: (i) procedural penalties; (ii) "could reasonably have been suggested" in L16. It would be rare for a qualified TD to be treated as inexperienced for this purpose, and perhaps the ACBL have a similar view. Beyond that I am not sure why TDs should be subject to any higher standard of ethics than anyone else. I have certainly seen cases where TDs have been subject to provocation well beyond that which a player would be expected to put up with. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 4 05:37:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:37:07 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA09034 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 05:36:58 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA27330; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:36:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-13.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.45) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025585; Mon Nov 3 12:27:52 1997 Received: by har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCE85B.F35604A0@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:25:28 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE85B.F35604A0@har-pa1-13.ix.NETCOM.com> From: rts48u To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com'" Subject: RE: Zero Tolerance Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:25:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me rephrase the original comment to say that a TD should always = possess and display only the highest ethics. As a figure of authority = the responsibility falls upon the director to exemplify the standard of = conduct that is expected of all players. All SHOULD strive toward = equally high ethics...but those who run the show should demonstrate it. = "Take up the TD's burden" as it were (with apologies to RK). Letting the = inmates run the asylum worked poorly in much of the former empire...it = works poorly in bridge as well. Btw, as an ACBL Certified Director I am NOT an employee of the ACBL. = I on occasion as an independent contractor have accepted small fees that = partially offset my expenses. I suspect I am rather typical of the = club-level director in not-for-profit clubs in this regard. My apologies = for my countrymen who on occasion forget the global scope of this = forum...jingoism is alive and well and living in the USA. :-) Craig Senior =20 Above in response to Steve Barnfield who wrote: (snip)> I am not sure why TDs should be subject to any higher standard = of=20 >ethics than anyone else. I have certainly seen cases where TDs have = >been subject to provocation well beyond that which a player would be = >expected to put up with. >Steve Barnfield >Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 4 06:43:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 06:43:37 +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 GAA09437 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 06:43:30 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028373; 3 Nov 97 18:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:58:26 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <345C4562.659AE35@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <345C4562.659AE35@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >I'm surprised no-one has quoted the correct laws yet : > >Brian Baresch wrote: >> >> Hi all. This question arose at the local (U.S.) club, and no one was sure of >> the answer. It's not a burning question, but it does come up now and then. >> >> I was declarer and after losing the first trick I won the second, but >> absentmindedly turned the card from trick two the same way as trick one's. >> Dummy, my regular partner, said something like "We won that trick" to >> indicate that I had placed that card incorrectly. (He knew that I knew we >> had won the trick and that I would understand his remark as referring to how >> I had turned that card.) One of the defenders said, not as a challenge, "You >> know, there's a penalty for that now." >> >> L65B states in which direction the cards from quitted tricks are to point, >> so dummy *might* have the right to prevent an irregularity under that Law. >> OTOH, L43A1c says dummy may not participate in the play nor communicate >> anything about the play to declarer. It's not clear (to us, anyway) which >> applies in the instance above. >> >> The consensus seemed to be that (a) it's the TD's discretion whether calling >> attention to a trick-arrangement problem constitutes an irregularity, and >> (b) if dummy says something *right away* rather than later, most TDs, at >> least around here, won't penalize the declaring side. >> >> Is there something more specific in the ACBL regulations about dummy's >> rights and restrictions in that situation? How should TDs handle that >> situation? And what about one defender reminding the other? >> >> Thanks and best regards, >> >> Brian P. Baresch > >L42B2 : he may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer > >In this case, the irregularity has already occurred and he is can no >longer prevent it. > In the UK we believe that the irregularity occurs once declarer has let go of his card, until then he is about to commit an irregularity and dummy can say "It's ours" >L443A1c : Dummy may not participate in the play or (stronger wording in >new law, but retranslated since I don't have an engilsh text at hand) >**communicate anything about the play to declarer** > You refer here to L43A1c Turning the trick is nothing to do with play. Part I Procedure Part II Penalty Card Part III Irregular leads and Plays Part IV Tricks L44 is in Part I, not part IV and applies to Sequence and Procedure of Play However L42 gives rights, absolute and qualified to dummy which he can use at any time >As I see it, even the 1987 Laws could be used to prevent this (make any >comment on the play), but the 1997 laws cover it quite conclusively. > -- 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 Nov 4 10:25:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:25:17 +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 KAA10227 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:25:10 +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 SAA18312 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:25:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04564; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:25:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:25:09 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711032325.SAA04564@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > In the UK we believe that the irregularity occurs once declarer has let > go of his card, until then he is about to commit an irregularity and > dummy can say "It's ours" One thing this thread shows is that the matter is very much one of local or national custom. Brent Manley had an article on this subject in the November ACBL Bulletin. Alas, my copy is not here at the moment. Personally, I prefer the local (US?) interpretation that the time when dummy may say something ends when declarer plays (or calls a card from dummy) for the next trick. This seems consistent with L66B, as someone else (another American) mentioned. It also seems less prone to ambiguity as to which event (dummy's remark or the end of the legal time for correction) happened first. I think my second choice would be simply to prohibit any correction. At least this is unambiguous although it goes against the usual American tendency to allow correction of mechanical errors (cf. defenders' asking about each other's revokes). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 4 13:46:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:46:56 +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 NAA10635 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:46:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1024211; 4 Nov 97 2:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:56:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Herman De Wael writes >>I'm surprised no-one has quoted the correct laws yet : [s] >>L443A1c : Dummy may not participate in the play or (stronger wording in >>new law, but retranslated since I don't have an engilsh text at hand) >>**communicate anything about the play to declarer** >You refer here to L43A1c >Turning the trick is nothing to do with play. >Part I Procedure >Part II Penalty Card >Part III Irregular leads and Plays >Part IV Tricks > >L44 is in Part I, not part IV and applies to Sequence and Procedure of >Play L43 is in Chapter VI, "The Play". It refers to what dummy may do concerning "play". Any other law in Chapter VI, ie L41 to L71, is to with "play". It does not seem credible that a restriction that applies to "play" refers to one part of the Chapter on play, but not another part, unless [of course] it specifically says so. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 4 13:50:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:50:10 +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 NAA10662 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 13:50:01 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014111; 4 Nov 97 2:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:58:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <199711032325.SAA04564@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> In the UK we believe that the irregularity occurs once declarer has let >> go of his card, until then he is about to commit an irregularity and >> dummy can say "It's ours" > >One thing this thread shows is that the matter is very much one of >local or national custom. Brent Manley had an article on this subject >in the November ACBL Bulletin. Alas, my copy is not here at the >moment. > >Personally, I prefer the local (US?) interpretation that the time when >dummy may say something ends when declarer plays (or calls a card from >dummy) for the next trick. This seems consistent with L66B, as someone >else (another American) mentioned. While true, I do not see the relevance of being consistent with a Law that is not similar. > It also seems less prone to >ambiguity as to which event (dummy's remark or the end of the legal >time for correction) happened first. I think my second choice would be >simply to prohibit any correction. At least this is unambiguous >although it goes against the usual American tendency to allow >correction of mechanical errors (cf. defenders' asking about each >other's revokes). It also goes against the Law, which seems unfair. -- 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 Nov 4 20:23:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:23:00 +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 UAA11367 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:22:53 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA07134; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:24:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma007079; Tue, 4 Nov 97 01:23:44 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA03597 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:24:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711040924.BAA03597@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 09:09:36 GMT Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk willner @ cfa183.harvard.edu wrote: >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> In the UK we believe that the irregularity occurs once declarer has let >> go of his card, until then he is about to commit an irregularity and >> dummy can say "It's ours" Actually, as I think someone else has noted, the EBU guidance comes from the EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws, para43.4. In England we generally follow the EBL Commentary, and this is no exception. I have come late into this thread, so I may have missed something. L65B says: "If the player's side has won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward his partner." Some, possibly all, of the earlier comments in this thread are on the basis that this is equivalent to: "If the player's side has won the trick, he or she points the card lengthwise towards his partner." Being devil's advocate, I might argue that the sentence is passive rather than active. I hope someone (are you there Mr Burn?) will discuss more deeply the use of English in L65B1. If the sentence is active, then I am happy, just about, with EBL43.4. If, however, the sentence is passive, then it appears to create a continuing obligation to have the card pointing the right way. If that is so, then declarer is committing an irregularity *all the time* he allows the card to point that way. On such a view dummy can point out the error any time. This is not a view I would be happy with, with, but one of the good things about BLML is that different views can be put forward, and I am surprised not to have seen this one argued. Let me put forward an analogy. One might summarise a law on parking in England as being: "It is not permitted to park on double-yellow lines." If the sentence is interpreted as we are generally arguing in this thread, then an onlooker can only "try to prevent [an] irregularity" if the tells the "parker" in the *act* of parking, and the onlooker is not "[trying] to prevent [an] irregularity" if the onlooker tells the parker of the irregularity whilst the parker is walking away from the car parked on the double-yellow line. This would be a rather strange view, IMO. As I said earlier, I think I prefer what appears to be the generally-accepted view, namely the active sense for L65B1, but I don't think it is as clear as everyone else seems to. >One thing this thread shows is that the matter is very much one of >local or national custom. Brent Manley had an article on this subject >in the November ACBL Bulletin. Alas, my copy is not here at the >moment. > >Personally, I prefer the local (US?) interpretation that the time when >dummy may say something ends when declarer plays (or calls a card from >dummy) for the next trick. This seems consistent with L66B, as someone >else (another American) mentioned. It also seems less prone to >ambiguity as to which event (dummy's remark or the end of the legal >time for correction) happened first. I think my second choice would be >simply to prohibit any correction. At least this is unambiguous >although it goes against the usual American tendency to allow >correction of mechanical errors (cf. defenders' asking about each >other's revokes). Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 4 22:09:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:09:26 +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 WAA11636 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:08:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027265; 4 Nov 97 10:48 GMT Message-ID: <$DQsEmASyvX0Ewn5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:44:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <199711040924.BAA03597@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Barnfield wrote: >willner @ cfa183.harvard.edu wrote: > >>From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >>> In the UK we believe that the irregularity occurs once declarer has let >>> go of his card, until then he is about to commit an irregularity and >>> dummy can say "It's ours" > >Actually, as I think someone else has noted, the EBU guidance comes from the >EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws, para43.4. In England we generally follow the >EBL Commentary, and this is no exception. > >I have come late into this thread, so I may have missed something. L65B says: > >"If the player's side has won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward >his partner." > >Some, possibly all, of the earlier comments in this thread are on the basis >that this is equivalent to: > >"If the player's side has won the trick, he or she points the card lengthwise >towards his partner." > >Being devil's advocate, I might argue that the sentence is passive rather than >active. I hope someone (are you there Mr Burn?) will discuss more deeply the >use of English in L65B1. If the sentence is active, then I am happy, just >about, with EBL43.4. If, however, the sentence is passive, then it appears to >create a continuing obligation to have the card pointing the right way. If >that is so, then declarer is committing an irregularity *all the time* he >allows the card to point that way. On such a view dummy can point out the >error any time. The law says "prevent" not "point out". >This is not a view I would be happy with, with, but one of the good things >about BLML is that different views can be put forward, and I am surprised not >to have seen this one argued. > >Let me put forward an analogy. One might summarise a law on parking in England >as being: > >"It is not permitted to park on double-yellow lines." > >If the sentence is interpreted as we are generally arguing in this thread, then >an onlooker can only "try to prevent [an] irregularity" if the tells the >"parker" in the *act* of parking, and the onlooker is not "[trying] to prevent >[an] irregularity" if the onlooker tells the parker of the irregularity whilst >the parker is walking away from the car parked on the double-yellow line. This >would be a rather strange view, IMO. I think it is an excellent analogy. If I warn you as you walk away from your car, then that would be too late to stop the traffic warden who has shot out from behind a bush and is busily writing a ticket: ie I have failed to "prevent" you from committing an irregularity. When you stop a car, it is not parked. I do not know the actual legal definition of parked, but let us assume that it is a car that is stationary with no-one in it. To prevent an irregularity I have to speak to you and warn you about the double-yellow line before you get out of the car, because that is the moment that the irregularity starts. After that I cannot prevent it. The definition of a card the wrong way is also unclear, but an inspection of L65A and L65B seems to indicate that it is wrong once it is turned over pointing the wrong way. I do not believe you know which way it is pointing until the player lets go of it. Assuming that, it becomes an irregularity at that moment. Thus, at that moment, it becomes too late for dummy to prevent it. >As I said earlier, I think I prefer what appears to be the generally-accepted >view, namely the active sense for L65B1, but I don't think it is as clear as >everyone else seems to. I am quite happy with the passive sense but do not see that it changes anything. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 02:34:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:34:38 +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 CAA14670 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:34:31 +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 KAA29636 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04915; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:34:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:34:27 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711041534.KAA04915@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday, some bozo wrote: > Brent Manley had an article on this subject in the November ACBL Bulletin. It wasn't Brent Manley, it was Brian Moran. It wasn't an article, it was an answer to a question. It was, however, in the November Bulletin. p. 32, in the "Ruling the Game" article. The entire text relevant to this issue: As a trick is being quitted (turned), dummy or a defender may point out that his partner's card is being turned wrongly. To do so at any later time is improper. This seems not to specify the exact instant when "as a trick is being quitted" ends. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 04:46:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:46:41 +1100 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 EAA15286 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 04:46:34 +1100 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xSnBy-0005La-00; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:55:06 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.45.39] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xSn4d-0006hA-00; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:47:31 +0000 From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:45:22 -0000 Message-ID: <01bce949$6ce40ae0$272d63c3@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 [much familiar stuff snipped] >I have come late into this thread, so I may have missed something. L65B says: > >"If the player's side has won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward >his partner." > >Some, possibly all, of the earlier comments in this thread are on the basis >that this is equivalent to: > >"If the player's side has won the trick, he or she points the card lengthwise >towards his partner." Well, "his or her partner", but I see what you mean. That is certainly the most likely reading, i.e. "...the card is pointed [by the player] lengthwise toward..." >Being devil's advocate, I might argue that the sentence is passive rather than >active. I hope someone (are you there Mr Burn?) will discuss more deeply the >use of English in L65B1. I am here, but only just, since I got back from the World Championships a couple of days ago. I haven't followed this thread too closely, but I'm quite happy to discuss the use of English in the Laws. "...the card is pointed lengthwise toward..." is certainly in the passive voice, but strongly implies an agent who does the pointing - obviously the player in this case. >If the sentence is active, then I am happy, just >about, with EBL43.4. If, however, the sentence is passive, then it appears to >create a continuing obligation to have the card pointing the right way. Such a construction is barely plausible, but I would not place much faith in it. A continuing obligation would be better expressed by: "...the card points lengthwise towards..." implying that it starts by pointing that way and continues to do so. >If >that is so, then declarer is committing an irregularity *all the time* he >allows the card to point that way. On such a view dummy can point out the >error any time. > >This is not a view I would be happy with, with, but one of the good things >about BLML is that different views can be put forward, and I am surprised not >to have seen this one argued. > I'm not. It's pretty thin, even by bridge lawyers' standards (is this an oxymoron?). For my own part, I'm content that EBL43.4 is correct, though personally I do not believe that dummy has any business at all telling declarer that he's won or lost a trick when declarer does not know. To allow dummy to jog declarer's memory under the pretext of "preventing an irregularity" has always struck me as singularly daft. But, as I read it, that's the position. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 05:56:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:56:34 +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 FAA15631 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:56:27 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028971; 4 Nov 97 18:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:58:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <199711041534.KAA04915@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Yesterday, some bozo wrote: >> Brent Manley had an article on this subject in the November ACBL Bulletin. > >It wasn't Brent Manley, it was Brian Moran. It wasn't an article, it >was an answer to a question. It was, however, in the November >Bulletin. p. 32, in the "Ruling the Game" article. The entire text >relevant to this issue: > > As a trick is being quitted (turned), dummy or a defender may point > out that his partner's card is being turned wrongly. To do so at any > later time is improper. > >This seems not to specify the exact instant when "as a trick is being >quitted" ends. I am happy with dummy doing so, and think that the ambiguity of when the last moment is does not matter. But what gives a defender the right to point this out? -- 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 Nov 5 09:30:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:30:35 +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 JAA16457 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:30:29 +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 RAA07005 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:30:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA05193; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:30:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:30:30 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711042230.RAA05193@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I am happy with dummy doing so, and think that the ambiguity of when > the last moment is does not matter. This seems a practical position. On the time scale of the ambiguity, there is unlikely to be any harm done. > But what gives a defender the right to point this out? An interesting question indeed! Is there any reason the SO cannot adopt a regulation allowing the defenders to do so? (In spite of Mr. Moran's statement, I'm not aware that there is any formal ACBL regulation on the subject.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 11:45:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:45:47 +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 LAA16881 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:45:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1015653; 5 Nov 97 0:19 GMT Message-ID: <4aelCYAB$2X0EwWy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:56:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <01bce949$6ce40ae0$272d63c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I'm not. It's pretty thin, even by bridge lawyers' standards (is this >an oxymoron?). For my own part, I'm content that EBL43.4 is correct, >though personally I do not believe that dummy has any business at all >telling declarer that he's won or lost a trick when declarer does not >know. To allow dummy to jog declarer's memory under the pretext of >"preventing an irregularity" has always struck me as singularly daft. >But, as I read it, that's the position. Of course, David, we know why your dummy is not allowed to prevent you putting a trick the wrong way. Because he should be at the bar, right? -- 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 Nov 5 11:58:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:58:00 +1100 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 LAA16929 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:57:56 +1100 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 LAA17149 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:57:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri4p51.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.67]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23640 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:57:52 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 10:17:32 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Nexus broken? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids 4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. 5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 15:55:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:55:44 +1100 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA17591 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:55:35 +1100 Received: from mike (ip143.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.163.143]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14279 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 23:53:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971104235358.0068c6ec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 23:53:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:17 AM 1/5/00 +1100, Reg Busch wrote: >In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. > >5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? > >Reg Busch. > Nope, the causal link between the infraction and the bad result has clearly been broken by South's egregiously bad play. Score stands. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 17:31:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:31:22 +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 RAA17764 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:30:57 +1100 Received: from oracle.sapr.gaz (unverified [192.9.200.152]) by shark.sapr.gaz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:29:37 +0300 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.0544.0 From: "Alexey Gerasimov" To: Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:30:13 +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: Reg Busch Subject: Nexus broken? >In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. This situation is described at "Appeal committee" written by E. Kaplan and J. Rubens (sorry, I can be wrong at English name of this book: I have Russian translate only). We must know about pass by W : forcing or no. If it is forcing this means "I don't change between double and 5H, partner you must decide" and there is no UI. If this pass isn't forcing - we have UI but using of UI is depend from bidding and real hands: are you accured that W cann't think about double? > >5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? -50 for both sides and no return money. There is no link between urregularity and damage ABSOLUTELY. > >Reg Busch. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 19:11:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:11:52 +1100 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 TAA17952 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:11:45 +1100 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:10:53 +0100 Message-ID: <34602A3B.241@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:11:39 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? References: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: > > In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids > 4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts > the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. > > 5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, > declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS > apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, > they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? Say it this way: The TD is allowed to change the score if the bad score is the restult of an infraction. Here it is not the infraction the cause but declarer himself. So no adjusted score. If you need to punish them for using UI than give them a fine of 20%/Top if this is the only way to convince them not to use any UI again. Cheers -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 19:51:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:51:14 +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 TAA18044 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:51:08 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-74.innet.be [194.7.10.74]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA29545 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:51:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <345F09D7.B60CA7ED@innet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:41:11 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <$DQsEmASyvX0Ewn5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Steve Barnfield wrote: > >I have come late into this thread, so I may have missed something. L65B says: > > > >"If the player's side has won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward > >his partner." > > > >Some, possibly all, of the earlier comments in this thread are on the basis > >that this is equivalent to: > > > >"If the player's side has won the trick, he or she points the card lengthwise > >towards his partner." > > > >Being devil's advocate, I might argue that the sentence is passive rather than > >active. I hope someone (are you there Mr Burn?) will discuss more deeply the > >use of English in L65B1. If the sentence is active, then I am happy, just > >about, with EBL43.4. If, however, the sentence is passive, then it appears to > >create a continuing obligation to have the card pointing the right way. If [snip] David Stevenson wrote: > > I am quite happy with the passive sense but do not see that it changes > anything. > So am I, and I do think the passive voice is used to avoid having to always say he/she points, but rather : the card is pointed. The passive voice can still mean two things : - the card is laid down. - the card is lying down. I think the first is what is meant. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 22:28:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:28:38 +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 WAA18376 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:28:28 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1018144; 5 Nov 97 11:04 GMT Message-ID: <3RaOg8A689X0EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:51:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. > >5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? I don't see why not. The causal link has not been snapped [see, I know American ] in causing them to be in 5S not 4S, but only making ten tricks. The damage from the UI did not cause them to make a trick fewer. So give NS +420. -- 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 Nov 5 22:40:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:40:03 +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 WAA18426 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:39:57 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-93.innet.be [194.7.10.93]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA15328 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:39:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34603EF1.1E1B507F@innet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:40:01 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: > > In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids > 4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts > the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. > > 5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, > declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS > apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, > they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? > > Reg Busch. I've read the first comments from my colleagues and I'm sad to say I don't agree. -50 is a bad result. This result is due to two factors : 1) opponents pushing to the 5 level. 2) declarer making 10 tricks in stead of eleven. factor 1) should be corrected for, factor 2) of course not. It is easy to say that factor 1) alone would not have contributed damage (+450 -> +450) and so attribute the bad result solely to factor 2), but that is not correct : In fact, factor 2) alone would not cause the damage in full as this alone would reduce the score from +450 to +420. There is therefor a third factor involved : 3) the fact that both events happened. Let me give an example on how I would proceed. Suppose the field are in two results : 70% of the field are in +450, 30% went to slam and are in -50. The normal scores for these results (in pairs' play) are 65% and 15% respectively. There are no scores of +420 obviously, but that would score 30% (believe me). Now the push to the five level ought not to have changed anything, so factor 1) contributes -0%. The making of 10 tricks in 4S would in itself reduce the score by -35%. But the total loss is 50%, so -15% is to be attributed to factor 3) I would like to see, as an equitable result to be awarded by an AC, that this -15% be split equally by the two pairs having contributed to factor 3), and I would award an Art Adj Sc of 22.5% to both pairs (well, 77.5 to the offenders of course). I know I am breaking new ground here, but isn't that what this group is all about ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 5 22:42:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:42:19 +1100 Received: from UFO.star.net.il (UFO.star.net.il [195.8.207.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA18446 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:42:07 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS2-93.star.net.il [195.8.208.93]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA04381; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:41:51 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <34605BCF.335E51C0@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:43:11 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re:trick arrangement Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by UFO.star.net.il id NAA04381 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read a lot of messages , I consulted Quango and I think there are two things which it will help us , if clarified : 1) The meaning of "ATTEMPT to prevent Declarer's irregularity...." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Law 42B2 defines the dummy's right to ... "ATTEMPT to prevent irregularity" (I capitalized attempt) Let consider the case of declarer's lead from the wrong hand. When declarer wins a trick in his hand and says -"..Q of Club" which is in dummy - by the very Law approach there occurred an irregularity , no doubt . The moment the dummy says : "you in hand......." is already after the legal irregularity occurred but I never heard a TD didn't allow him to speak or thought it is a Law violation .....The dummy can't "punch" declarer's mouth before he finishes "Q of..." , so it is still considered as dummy's Attempt . The lawmaker understood that it is AN ATTEMPT !! and by the way there is no substantial penalty for it , the defenders can ask the declarer to play from the right hand , or "profit" and accept the lead !! By analogy - the very moment the declarer arranged the trick in the wrong direction , the irregularity already occurred . If we are realistic - I try to describe an actual situation I met many times - sometimes it takes less then 0.1 sec. until declarer put a card on the table , playing to the next trick !!! The same time the dummy lifted up the coffee cup and it takes=A0 other 2 or 3 sec. until he sees the wrong arrangement . Well ...is any difference between this event and the former ??? I believe that the lawmaker considered such an irregularity as very minor and meaningless that didn't pay too much attention to it. Just remember : BRIDGE is a PLAY for PLAYERS , governed by laws , which a TD should "attempt" to enforce. PROPOSAL=A0 ( to be accepted as "uniform decisions" ) A. The dummy is allowed to draw declarer's attention about a wrong arrangement of a trick as soon as possible , but never after the subsequent trick was finished and a card is played to the new trick after the subsequent. B. If dummy drew attention to the wrong arrangement after the first card was was played to the trick next to the subsequent to "wrong arranged" trick , the dummy looses all his rights achieved by Law 42 and the Director may consider a penalty - by Law 12A1 - if he finds that the "speech" could influence the play. C. Play out of turn by declarer , caused by the wrong arrangement will be treated accordingly to Law 55. Maybe it is a change of law or an appendix.... and it should be updated in the first possible occasion , but I suggest all of us to rule this way. =A0 2) The meaning of "established irregularity" ------------------------------------------- There shouldn't be such a definition . It must be decided - either an irregularity occurred or not. We should try to be as accurate as possible , describing facts , events or interpretations. I believe that the TD=A0 has the right to decide if=A0 an irregularity occurred or what to do , according to the place , tournament level , players' level some SO 's supplementary regulations... and his clever mind ..... I should like to see your opinions . Dany =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 02:14:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:14:23 +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 CAA21425 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:14:14 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008623; 5 Nov 97 15:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:23:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alexey Gerasimov wrote: >From: Reg Busch >>In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >>4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >>the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the >UI. >This situation is described at "Appeal committee" written by E. Kaplan and J. >Rubens (sorry, I can be wrong at English name of this book: I have Russian >translate only). We must know about pass by W : forcing or no. If it is >forcing this means "I don't change between double and 5H, partner you must >decide" and there is no UI. If this pass isn't forcing - we have UI but >using of UI is depend from bidding and real hands: are you accured that W >cann't think about double? I do not believe that Reg means that 5H will never be allowed in such a situation: I believe he means he was offering us a problem which happened where 5H was not justified, so obviously the pass was not forcing. -- 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 Nov 6 02:25:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:25:32 +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 CAA21494 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:25:24 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029293; 5 Nov 97 15:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:24:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <34603EF1.1E1B507F@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >> In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >> 4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >> the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. >> >> 5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >> declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >> apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >> they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? >I've read the first comments from my colleagues and I'm sad to say I >don't agree. > >-50 is a bad result. This result is due to two factors : >1) opponents pushing to the 5 level. >2) declarer making 10 tricks in stead of eleven. >factor 1) should be corrected for, factor 2) of course not. > >It is easy to say that factor 1) alone would not have contributed damage >(+450 -> +450) and so attribute the bad result solely to factor 2), but >that is not correct : >In fact, factor 2) alone would not cause the damage in full as this >alone would reduce the score from +450 to +420. > >There is therefor a third factor involved : >3) the fact that both events happened. > >Let me give an example on how I would proceed. >Suppose the field are in two results : 70% of the field are in +450, 30% >went to slam and are in -50. The normal scores for these results (in >pairs' play) are 65% and 15% respectively. There are no scores of +420 >obviously, but that would score 30% (believe me). > >Now the push to the five level ought not to have changed anything, so >factor 1) contributes -0%. >The making of 10 tricks in 4S would in itself reduce the score by -35%. >But the total loss is 50%, so -15% is to be attributed to factor 3) > >I would like to see, as an equitable result to be awarded by an AC, that >this -15% be split equally by the two pairs having contributed to factor >3), and I would award an Art Adj Sc of 22.5% to both pairs (well, 77.5 >to the offenders of course). > >I know I am breaking new ground here, but isn't that what this group is >all about ? > I don't understand this, Herman. My opinion was that the adjustment should be +420, which in my view takes account of the fact that the infraction causes them to play in 5S not 4S but that the infraction did not cause the misplay. You seem to be of the same opinion as to what is right, so why the long-winded calculation which I cannot understand anyway? Please explain further. -- 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 Nov 6 02:49:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:49:42 +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 CAA21582 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:49:36 +1100 Received: from cph37.ppp.dknet.dk (cph37.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.37]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA29937 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:49:27 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:49:27 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34608eef.178737@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, 4 Nov 1997 17:58:58 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > But what gives a defender the right to point this out? How about L9A2a: "Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period." What law prohibits a defender to call attention to the irregularity that his partner (or declarer) has turned a trick the wrong way? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 02:55:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:55:22 +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 CAA21603 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:55:16 +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 KAA19443 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05537; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:55:21 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:55:21 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711051555.KAA05537@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > So give NS +420. David carefully does not say, but isn't there a case for giving EW, the offenders, -450? After all, that is the worst score that was likely, even though it wasn't achieved at the table. Herman's calculation may well be fairer, but I think it would be up to an AC, not a TD, and arguably only outside North America. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 03:01:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 03:01:49 +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 DAA21639 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 03:01:43 +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 LAA19625 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:02:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05560; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:01:48 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:01:48 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711051601.LAA05560@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL news X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not directly related to bridge laws, but some readers may be interested to hear that BLML regular Alan LeBendig has just been elected to the ACBL Board of Directors. (The BoD is the 25-member governing body of the ACBL.) Congratulations, Al! How long until we can start blaming you for everything the ACBL does wrong? :-) (In all seriousness, I have no doubt Al will be a valuable member of the reform party within the ACBL leadership.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 04:00:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:00:50 +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 EAA22070 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:00:42 +1100 Received: from mike (ip47.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.8.47]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA31112 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:00:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 12:00:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3RaOg8A689X0EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:51 AM 11/5/97 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >>In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >>4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >>the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. >> >>5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >>declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >>apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >>they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? > > I don't see why not. The causal link has not been snapped [see, I >know American ] in causing them to be in 5S not 4S, but only making >ten tricks. The damage from the UI did not cause them to make a trick >fewer. > > So give NS +420. > In the Appeals Committee series under the section "Redress for Damage", Kaplan describes a very similar situation. West preempts with 3S holding KQJ9xxx and the diamond ace, North huddles for 60 seconds before passing, South reopens on marginal values and NS declare 3NT. Inexplicably, West leads the spade 9, won by declarer's 10 and NS proceed to fulfill their contract, while the normal lead of the spade King would lead to an easy set. Kaplan denies any redress to EW here, despite the clear infraction of UI. I quote: "In this instance, again, the innocent players would be damaged AFTER the infraction but not BY it -- their damage, their zero, would be a direct consequence of West's own flagrant error." (TBW, December 1981, p. 24) Unless you are arguing that a revoke is somehow less egregious an error than the silly "fourth-best" lead in the above example, it seems that the same principle should apply to the present case. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 04:42:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:42:42 +1100 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 EAA22307 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:42:35 +1100 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aagw2.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.199]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA11305.; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:04:56 -0500 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA2921; Wed, 05 Nov 97 12:42:00 -0500 Message-Id: <9711051742.AA2921@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC1256546004F9B81; Wed, 5 Nov 97 12:42:00 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 5 Nov 97 15:45:29 Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, >> I know I am breaking new ground here, but isn't that what this group is all about ? << while ploughing new terrains, your logic has suffered. Take these two examples: Somebody is making an insufficient bid, which is changed to a pass. Afterwards get a good score, because his opponents bid a grand slam missing the ace of trumps. The auction wouldn't have been the same without the mistake by the offender. A case for an adjusted score? The road is blocked because of an accident. I have to take another street and crash against a wall because I fall asleep. Whose fault was this? Should I try to sue the participants of the accident? The revoke was a mistake all of its own - therefore no adjustment. Yours, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 04:51:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:51:50 +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 EAA22369 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:51:41 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id JAA05086; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma005017; Wed, 5 Nov 97 09:52:49 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id JAA15851; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:53:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711051753.JAA15851@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 5 Nov 97 16:53:53 GMT Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >>In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >>4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >>the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. >> >>5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >>declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >>apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >>they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? > > I don't see why not. The causal link has not been snapped [see, I >know American ] in causing them to be in 5S not 4S, but only making >ten tricks. The damage from the UI did not cause them to make a trick >fewer. > > So give NS +420. I agree. I would also give EW the score for -420. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 05:24:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 05:24:15 +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 FAA22468 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 05:24:09 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id SAA14781 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:23:45 GMT Date: Wed, 5 Nov 97 18:19 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: <34602A3B.241@uni-duesseldorf.de> > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Nov 5 08:31:28 1997 > Received: from mail-relay.compulink.co.uk (mail-relay.cix.co.uk > [194.153.0.121]) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id > IAA28599 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:31:28 GMT > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) > by mail-relay.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA07425 > for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:31:25 GMT > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) > id TAA17957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:11:52 +1100 > 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 TAA17952 for > ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:11:45 +1100 > Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) > by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); > Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:10:53 +0100 > Message-ID: <34602A3B.241@uni-duesseldorf.de> > Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:11:39 +0100 > From: Richard Bley > Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de > Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Nexus broken? > References: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > Reg Busch wrote: > > > > In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South > > bids > > 4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably > > accepts > > the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified > > after the UI. Of course I might not agree if I could see the hands but I'll take it as a given for now:-) > > > > 5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. > > However, > > declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are > > -50. NS > > apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the > > infraction, > > they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? Is this materially different from a declarer with a (successful) 55% line available who, due to inferior analysis, instead chooses an (unsuccessful) 45% line? I believe that the normal ruling would be 4S just making for both sides. We roll the contract back to the correct one but have no reason to assume the play would be different. > If you need to punish them for using UI than give them a fine of 20%/Top > if this is the only way to convince them not to use any UI again. There is no suggestion in the original problem that the pair concerned *used* UI, and that is not the purpose/intent of an adjustment. IMO a fine is appropriate when the TD suspects deliberate use of UI regardless of the effect of any adjustment on the players score. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 06:42:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 06:42:52 +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 GAA22885 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 06:42:46 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa04031; 5 Nov 97 11:42 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL news In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:01:48 PST." <199711051601.LAA05560@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:41:58 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9711051142.aa04031@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Not directly related to bridge laws, but some readers may be interested > to hear that BLML regular Alan LeBendig has just been elected to the > ACBL Board of Directors. (The BoD is the 25-member governing body of > the ACBL.) > > Congratulations, Al! How long until we can start blaming you for > everything the ACBL does wrong? :-) > > (In all seriousness, I have no doubt Al will be a valuable member of > the reform party within the ACBL leadership.) I second the congratulations. I was pleased to read about this. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 09:17:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:17:46 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23409 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:17:40 +1100 Received: from mike (ip232.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.8.232]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA31595; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:17:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105171752.006924b4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:17:52 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:19 PM 11/5/97 GMT0, Tim West-meads wrote: >Is this materially different from a declarer with a (successful) 55% line >available who, due to inferior analysis, instead chooses an (unsuccessful) >45% line? I believe that the normal ruling would be 4S just making for >both sides. We roll the contract back to the correct one but have no >reason to assume the play would be different. It's hard to imagine how a revoke could ever be a 45% line. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 09:40:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:40:33 +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 JAA23500 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:38:47 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1016500; 5 Nov 97 22:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:22:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 02:51 AM 11/5/97 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>Reg Busch wrote: >>>In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >>>4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >>>the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after >the UI. >>> >>>5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >>>declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >>>apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >>>they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? >> >> I don't see why not. The causal link has not been snapped [see, I >>know American ] in causing them to be in 5S not 4S, but only making >>ten tricks. The damage from the UI did not cause them to make a trick >>fewer. >> >> So give NS +420. >> >In the Appeals Committee series under the section "Redress for Damage", >Kaplan describes a very similar situation. West preempts with 3S holding >KQJ9xxx and the diamond ace, North huddles for 60 seconds before passing, >South reopens on marginal values and NS declare 3NT. Inexplicably, West >leads the spade 9, won by declarer's 10 and NS proceed to fulfill their >contract, while the normal lead of the spade King would lead to an easy set. > >Kaplan denies any redress to EW here, despite the clear infraction of UI. I >quote: "In this instance, again, the innocent players would be damaged >AFTER the infraction but not BY it -- their damage, their zero, would be a >direct consequence of West's own flagrant error." (TBW, December 1981, p. 24) > >Unless you are arguing that a revoke is somehow less egregious an error >than the silly "fourth-best" lead in the above example, it seems that the >same principle should apply to the present case. In the case we have in front of us there are two acts which it is possible to separate, namely being forced up a level to 5S and only making ten tricks. The first is based on UI, so correctable: the second is a flagrant error so the contestant is stuck with it. Thus I am prepared to rule 4S=, since only 4S would be reached without the UI, but a let the contestant keep his ten tricks. In the case you are quoting you cannot consider the two acts in the same way. If you disallow the 3NT bid then you cannot make any allowance for the lead. Thus if you follow Kaplan's doctrine that the contestant must not gain from a flagrant error the only legal way to do so seems to be to let the result stand for the NOs. -- 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 Nov 6 09:54:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:54:30 +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 JAA23565 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:54:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2004132; 5 Nov 97 22:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:23:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <34608eef.178737@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:58:58 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >> But what gives a defender the right to point this out? > >How about L9A2a: >"Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call >attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period." > >What law prohibits a defender to call attention to the >irregularity that his partner (or declarer) has turned a trick >the wrong way? L73A1. -- 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 Nov 6 10:50:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:50:44 +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 KAA23770 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:50:37 +1100 Received: from cph15.ppp.dknet.dk (cph15.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.15]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA17312 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:50:26 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:50:28 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3461044e.273433@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:23:55 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>How about L9A2a: >>"Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call >>attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period." >> >>What law prohibits a defender to call attention to the >>irregularity that his partner (or declarer) has turned a trick >>the wrong way? > > L73A1. But is calling attention to partner's irregularity "communication between partners"? If it is in this case, then surely it must be so in general - calling attention to partner's irregularity will in general often communicate something to him (wake him up from some misunderstanding) - a trick turned the wrong way is not a particularly special case in this respect. Is a player not allowed to call attention to his partner's insufficient call, call out of turn, lead out of turn, or revoke? If L73A1 means that L9A2a in general does not apply in the case of partner's irregularity, then I would expect L9A2a to say so explicitly. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 12:18:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:18:12 +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 MAA23984 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:18:05 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1003127; 6 Nov 97 1:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:59:45 +0000 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 02:51 AM 11/5/97 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>Reg Busch wrote: >>>In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >>>4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >>>the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after >the UI. >>> >>>5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >>>declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >>>apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >>>they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? >> >> I don't see why not. The causal link has not been snapped [see, I >>know American ] in causing them to be in 5S not 4S, but only making >>ten tricks. The damage from the UI did not cause them to make a trick >>fewer. >> >> So give NS +420. >> >In the Appeals Committee series under the section "Redress for Damage", >Kaplan describes a very similar situation. West preempts with 3S holding >KQJ9xxx and the diamond ace, North huddles for 60 seconds before passing, >South reopens on marginal values and NS declare 3NT. Inexplicably, West >leads the spade 9, won by declarer's 10 and NS proceed to fulfill their >contract, while the normal lead of the spade King would lead to an easy set. > >Kaplan denies any redress to EW here, despite the clear infraction of UI. I >quote: "In this instance, again, the innocent players would be damaged >AFTER the infraction but not BY it -- their damage, their zero, would be a >direct consequence of West's own flagrant error." (TBW, December 1981, p. 24) > >Unless you are arguing that a revoke is somehow less egregious an error >than the silly "fourth-best" lead in the above example, it seems that the >same principle should apply to the present case. > >Mike Dennis Leading 9 from KQJ9xxx is wild and haphazard. Revoking is *always* careless. So yes I do so argue -- 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 Nov 6 12:19:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:19:42 +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 MAA24005 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:19:36 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1003124; 6 Nov 97 1:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:49:46 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <4aelCYAB$2X0EwWy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <4aelCYAB$2X0EwWy@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >David Burn wrote: > >>I'm not. It's pretty thin, even by bridge lawyers' standards (is this >>an oxymoron?). For my own part, I'm content that EBL43.4 is correct, >>though personally I do not believe that dummy has any business at all >>telling declarer that he's won or lost a trick when declarer does not >>know. To allow dummy to jog declarer's memory under the pretext of >>"preventing an irregularity" has always struck me as singularly daft. >>But, as I read it, that's the position. > > Of course, David, we know why your dummy is not allowed to prevent you >putting a trick the wrong way. Because he should be at the bar, right? > Declarer does know who won the trick, he's just having mechanical handling difficulties and is thinking about the next trick. You're just telling the silly p*****k to put the trick down correctly. I believe I'm entitled to *know* how many tricks I've got and, playing rubber, I would know (Don't whinge about Laws on facing of tricks - I'm just trying to make a point) so when you see partner counting his tricks and you know he's faced one wrong you could try saying "Why don't you count my tricks pard". Hmmm. I'm not convinced, but you could try it on ;-} -- 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 Nov 6 12:21:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:21:29 +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 MAA24021 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:21:24 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021714; 6 Nov 97 1:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:41:32 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3RaOg8A689X0EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3RaOg8A689X0EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Reg Busch wrote: >>In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >>4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >>the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. >> >>5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >>declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >>apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >>they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? > > I don't see why not. The causal link has not been snapped [see, I >know American ] in causing them to be in 5S not 4S, but only making >ten tricks. The damage from the UI did not cause them to make a trick >fewer. > > So give NS +420. > It makes a nice change to agree with David. Without the UI NS would have made 420. End of story. Finish. No discussion required. Revoking is not wild and haphazard action, it's carelessness. -- 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 Nov 6 12:23:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:23:57 +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 MAA24038 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:23:51 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021718; 6 Nov 97 1:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:56:49 +0000 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <199711051555.KAA05537@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199711051555.KAA05537@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> So give NS +420. > >David carefully does not say, but isn't there a case for giving EW, the >offenders, -450? After all, that is the worst score that was likely, >even though it wasn't achieved at the table. > >Herman's calculation may well be fairer, but I think it would be up >to an AC, not a TD, and arguably only outside North America. > Whatever else IMO NS get 420, and I don't see how you can avoid giving EW -420. There may well be a causal link in that declarer is p****d off with the oppo for using UI and loses concentration. It is possible. I might throw in a PP for the UI, and let the AC sort the mess out. -- 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 Nov 6 13:13:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:13:25 +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 NAA24168 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:13:19 +1100 Received: from mike (ip44.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.163.44]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA02917 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:13:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105211325.0068eb98@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:13:25 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:59 AM 11/6/97 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Leading 9 from KQJ9xxx is wild and haphazard. Revoking is *always* >careless. So yes I do so argue And what exactly is the difference between "careless" and "haphazard"? Revoking is just about the most flagrantly incompetent thing declarer can do. Yes, of course, we've all been there, just as we've all miscounted trumps, called for the wrong card from dummy, or failed to make an easy unblocking play. These are, in general, "flagrant errors", that are not different in kind from the example cited by Kaplan. And according to Kaplan, a declarer who commits such a mistake forfeits the right to redress for damage from an infraction which may have played a critical role in putting him in the spot in the first place. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 13:21:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:21:57 +1100 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 NAA24190 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:21:51 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-09.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.168]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA15633 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:21:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <346129DF.3F9BB65A@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:22:24 -0500 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: blml-ssFinland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! 12 clubs associated with BLML have just completed a wonderful competition organized by Herman De Wael. I am sure I am speaking for all of us who entered this world wide game when I say we all enjoyed the friendly competition and the fabulous job done by Herman in putting this together. My club will be playing against Herman's group on the fifth Friday of the month and hopefully this will develop into a lasting , fun competition. Perhaps the clubs who meet other than Friday can try something like this. Well done, HermY and thanks for letting us join you in this effort. Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 13:29:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:29:15 +1100 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 NAA24210 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:29:03 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-09.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.168]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA16306; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:28:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34612B8B.62840D53@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:29:31 -0500 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 17:58:58 +0000, David Stevenson > > wrote: > >> But what gives a defender the right to point this out? > > > >How about L9A2a: > >"Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call > >attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period." > > > >What law prohibits a defender to call attention to the > >irregularity that his partner (or declarer) has turned a trick > >the wrong way? > > L73A1. > > -- > 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 ~ I am really surprised at all the discussion regarding this simple little thing. Wouldn't the best solution be to call the director as an irregularity has occurred at the table? Or tho save time and misunderstandings allow the partner of the offender to point out the misplaced card and get on the the next play. Of course, after the next lead, no one should mention the misplaced card. Is this situation similar to declarer leading from the wrong hand and whoever says you're on the board or in your hand, whichever is the case. Declarer corrects the lead and on with the game. This should also be a director call but how many people make the call and do we really want them to?? ;-) Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 14:41:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:41:22 +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 OAA24376 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:41:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008103; 6 Nov 97 3:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:50:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL news In-Reply-To: <9711051142.aa04031@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Not directly related to bridge laws, but some readers may be interested >> to hear that BLML regular Alan LeBendig has just been elected to the >> ACBL Board of Directors. (The BoD is the 25-member governing body of >> the ACBL.) >> >> Congratulations, Al! How long until we can start blaming you for >> everything the ACBL does wrong? :-) Immediately! >> (In all seriousness, I have no doubt Al will be a valuable member of >> the reform party within the ACBL leadership.) > >I second the congratulations. I was pleased to read about this. I am very pleased too. Cheers. -- 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 Nov 6 15:22:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:22:48 +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 PAA24461 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:22:42 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029240; 6 Nov 97 4:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:08:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: blml-ssFinland In-Reply-To: <346129DF.3F9BB65A@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T.Dressing wrote: >Hi! 12 clubs associated with BLML have just completed a wonderful >competition organized by Herman De Wael. I am sure I am speaking for >all of us who entered this world wide game when I say we all enjoyed the >friendly competition and the fabulous job done by Herman in putting this >together. My club will be playing against Herman's group on the fifth >Friday of the month and hopefully this will develop into a lasting , fun >competition. Perhaps the clubs who meet other than Friday can try >something like this. Well done, HermY and thanks for letting us join >you in this effort. Nancy I am very sorry that it was not suitable for my club to be involved. I hope that it worked well, and I have not heard that my services [as Honorary Appeals Chairman] were needed. I really do wish this enterprise well, and hope it continues next year. Incidentally, I run a Simultaneous Pairs myself on the last Tuesday in June [people from other countries can run it on any day in that week] and I hope that you will all join me then. Perhaps Herman would like to score it? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 16:33:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:33:25 +1100 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 QAA24594 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:33:14 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-11.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.201]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA28999; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:32:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <346156BE.BB2363E5@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:33:50 -0500 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blml-ssFinland References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Nancy T.Dressing wrote: > >Hi! 12 clubs associated with BLML have just completed a wonderful > >competition organized by Herman De Wael. I am sure I am speaking for > >all of us who entered this world wide game when I say we all enjoyed the > >friendly competition and the fabulous job done by Herman in putting this > >together. My club will be playing against Herman's group on the fifth > >Friday of the month and hopefully this will develop into a lasting , fun > >competition. Perhaps the clubs who meet other than Friday can try > >something like this. Well done, HermY and thanks for letting us join > >you in this effort. Nancy > > I am very sorry that it was not suitable for my club to be involved. > I hope that it worked well, and I have not heard that my services [as > Honorary Appeals Chairman] were needed. I really do wish this > enterprise well, and hope it continues next year. > > Incidentally, I run a Simultaneous Pairs myself on the last Tuesday in > June [people from other countries can run it on any day in that week] > and I hope that you will all join me then. Perhaps Herman would like to > score it? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ We told our folks that if they had an appeal, they would have to hop the Concord to get there and back in time so we could get eveything done. I can't understand why they weren't lining up!!! :-) I also have a beginer game on Monday afternoon who I know would love something like this. They played our Friday night hands and enjoyed it. Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 16:41:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:41:23 +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 QAA24626 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:41:19 +1100 Received: from bucks.voyager.co.nz (ts1p03.net.ashburton.voyager.co.nz [203.21.25.167]) by host02.net.voyager.co.nz (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA07669; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:40:56 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:45:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Chris and Mary Buckland Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy To: "Nancy T.Dressing" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson In-Reply-To: <34612B8B.62840D53@pinehurst.net> 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 On Thu 06 Nov, Nancy T.Dressing wrote: > I am really surprised at all the discussion regarding this simple little > thing. Wouldn't the best solution be to call the director as an > irregularity has occurred at the table? Who is going to call for the director? Surely dummy cannot, if no-one has else has called attention to the irregularity, by L9A2b(1) and L9B1b. I have always thought that dummy may not tell declarer that a card is turned the wrong way until the end of the hand. Mary Buckland -- Buck Ashburton, New Zealand (bucks@voyager.co.nz) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 21:48:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:48:51 +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 VAA25021 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:48:45 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id CAA27203; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma027057; Thu, 6 Nov 97 02:50:23 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id CAA00219; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:50:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711061050.CAA00219@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 5 Nov 97 16:53:53 GMT Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >>In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >>4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >>the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. >> >>5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >>declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >>apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >>they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? > > I don't see why not. The causal link has not been snapped [see, I >know American ] in causing them to be in 5S not 4S, but only making >ten tricks. The damage from the UI did not cause them to make a trick >fewer. > > So give NS +420. I agree. I would also give EW the score for -420. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 6 22:06:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:06:54 +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 WAA25116 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:06:48 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-93.innet.be [194.7.10.93]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA05866 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:06:24 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3460B3CA.CF7D0F58@innet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 18:58:34 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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 don't understand this, Herman. My opinion was that the adjustment > should be +420, which in my view takes account of the fact that the > infraction causes them to play in 5S not 4S but that the infraction did > not cause the misplay. You seem to be of the same opinion as to what is > right, so why the long-winded calculation which I cannot understand > anyway? Please explain further. > So here's nothing new. David alone against The World. Let's resumee : David says that since the pair cannot be blamed for being in 5S anyway, they should get +420. The World says that since the opponents cannot be blamed for the bad score, the result should stand at -50. I'm half way. There are three factors involved. one factor can be blamed on an offense and should be eliminated. the second is blamed on bad play and should stand. the third is a result of the combination. David says that offenders are to blame for this factor. The World says that declarer is alone to blame. I say this factor should be split down the middle. I think something can be said for either point of view, so neither can be the gospel. Why not go for the new approach and take the middle ground ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 01:21:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:21:22 +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 BAA27881 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:21:08 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2016084; 6 Nov 97 13:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:19:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3460B3CA.CF7D0F58@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 don't understand this, Herman. My opinion was that the adjustment >> should be +420, which in my view takes account of the fact that the >> infraction causes them to play in 5S not 4S but that the infraction did >> not cause the misplay. You seem to be of the same opinion as to what is >> right, so why the long-winded calculation which I cannot understand >> anyway? Please explain further. >So here's nothing new. > >David alone against The World. Since two or three others have agreed with my ruling [more that with yours] that seems a somewhat unfair comment. >Let's resumee : > >David says that since the pair cannot be blamed for being in 5S anyway, >they should get +420. >The World says that since the opponents cannot be blamed for the bad >score, the result should stand at -50. > >I'm half way. > >There are three factors involved. one factor can be blamed on an >offense and should be eliminated. the second is blamed on bad play and >should stand. the third is a result of the combination. > >David says that offenders are to blame for this factor. >The World says that declarer is alone to blame. The World did not: kindly re-read the thread. >I say this factor should be split down the middle. > >I think something can be said for either point of view, so neither can >be the gospel. > >Why not go for the new approach and take the middle ground ? One reason was because your previous post was very difficult to understand: only now when I can see what you are driving at can I understand it. I believe that your "new approach" might be acceptable if it was not so complicated. You say that the cause of the very bad score should be partly down to declarer, partly down to opponents' UI + declarer. Ok, so let's give them 50% of +420, and 50% of -50. I am not convinced that the approach is right in this case, but if it is right let's apply it in a simple fashion. -- 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 Nov 7 01:25:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:25:14 +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 BAA27915 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:25:06 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026173; 6 Nov 97 14:18 GMT Message-ID: <4BMfcfBi$cY0EwPU@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:10:42 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3460B3CA.CF7D0F58@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3460B3CA.CF7D0F58@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> I don't understand this, Herman. My opinion was that the adjustment >> should be +420, which in my view takes account of the fact that the >> infraction causes them to play in 5S not 4S but that the infraction did >> not cause the misplay. You seem to be of the same opinion as to what is >> right, so why the long-winded calculation which I cannot understand >> anyway? Please explain further. >> > >So here's nothing new. > >David alone against The World. > No! Its the British against the world (as usual) :) There are three *competent* UK TDs here ruling +420 and I bet DWS a whisky that most EBU Directors would do so. In my case I'm just wondering whether I should try on a PP for the use of UI without getting hit with an AC, since the burocracy involved in setting up an appeal might dissuade me. >Let's resumee : > >David says that since the pair cannot be blamed for being in 5S anyway, >they should get +420. >The World says that since the opponents cannot be blamed for the bad >score, the result should stand at -50. > >I'm half way. > >There are three factors involved. one factor can be blamed on an >offense and should be eliminated. the second is blamed on bad play and >should stand. the third is a result of the combination. > >David says that offenders are to blame for this factor. >The World says that declarer is alone to blame. > >I say this factor should be split down the middle. > >I think something can be said for either point of view, so neither can >be the gospel. > >Why not go for the new approach and take the middle ground ? > -- 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 Nov 7 02:10:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:10:50 +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 CAA28254 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:10:43 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006832; 6 Nov 97 15:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:54:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <34612B8B.62840D53@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T.Dressing wrote: >Is this situation similar to declarer leading from the wrong hand and >whoever says you're on the board or in your hand, whichever is the >case. Declarer corrects the lead and on with the game. This should >also be a director call but how many people make the call and do we >really want them to?? Since what you are saying is that they then get the ruling wrong then **of course** we want them to. This is exactly the sort of situation for which the TD should always be called: the situation where everyone "knows" the Law and over half of them are wrong! [Anyone who is snoozing at the back: either defender may accept the LooT: *of course* everone here knows 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 Nov 7 02:27:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:27:51 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA28308 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:27:46 +1100 Received: from mike (ip21.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.21]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA01843 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:27:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971106102745.00685b6c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:27:45 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > In the case we have in front of us there are two acts which it is >possible to separate, namely being forced up a level to 5S and only >making ten tricks. In both cases, we have "we have two acts which it is possible to separate": the first a bid involving UI and the second a fagrant error by the NO's. (John Probst's opinions to the contrary, I am glad that we can agree that a revoke does qualify as a "flagrant error"). >The first is based on UI, so correctable: the second >is a flagrant error so the contestant is stuck with it. Thus I am >prepared to rule 4S=, since only 4S would be reached without the UI, but >a let the contestant keep his ten tricks. Although I rule -50, I can at least parse the argument for +450. Your adjusted score of +420, however, seems muddled. As I understand the law, if we choose to redress the NO's, we are obligated to assign the most favorable score that was at all probable without the UI. Given that the hand is cold for 11 tricks, isn't a score of +450 at least "at all probable"? > In the case you are quoting you cannot consider the two acts in the >same way. If you disallow the 3NT bid then you cannot make any >allowance for the lead. Thus if you follow Kaplan's doctrine that the >contestant must not gain from a flagrant error the only legal way to do >so seems to be to let the result stand for the NOs. > The essential principle laid down by Kaplan is that redress may only be given for damage which is a direct consequence of the infraction, and that a flagrant error by the NO's, without which the damage would not have occurred, should not be given any redress. In each case, the damage is the direct result of a flagrant error by the NOs. Although it is true they would not have been in this fix without the infraction, the proximate cause was the error, and not the infraction. BTW, I realize that my original response (score stands) is in any case incomplete/incorrect. The NO's don't get any redress, IMO, but the heart bidders don't get to keep their good result, since their infraction was clearly a contributing factor. Rule a split score, -50 NS, -450 EW (if I have the directions straight, at least). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 02:37:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:37:56 +1100 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 CAA28362 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:37:45 +1100 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn42.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:33:30 +0100 Message-ID: <3461E3A0.7B5F@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:34:56 +0100 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 Subject: Re: Nexus broken? References: <4BMfcfBi$cY0EwPU@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hi again John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > No! Its the British against the world (as usual) :) > There are three *competent* UK TDs here ruling +420 and I bet DWS a (what are the asterisks for????) > whisky that most EBU Directors would do so. In my case I'm just > wondering whether I should try on a PP for the use of UI without getting > hit with an AC, since the burocracy involved in setting up an appeal > might dissuade me. If the declarer wouldnt have this bloody mistake of revoking, there would have been no job for me as a TD to do (and no burocracy at all). The same is true for the AC. As a TD I always believed in protecting the NO-side. But only if I have to. And if there would have been no silly mistake by declarer, I wouldnt have to protect him. IMO there is no reason for protecting the NO-side here. They could haVe done by themself with very easy tools (e. g. revokes). Another question is, if the offending side deserves the good result. I think it is fairly reasonable to rule a split score (-50 for the revokers, -420 for the UI-users) because they dont.... I would not do that here, because there is no link to see here between the using of UI and the revoke. So just an easy one-score board (Christian F. will be happy about this...) Just my 2c worth Cheers -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 03:06:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:06:51 +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 DAA28474 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:06:44 +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 LAA02216 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:06:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:06:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971106110242_1669626683@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL news Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-11-05 11:03:57 EST, Steve Willner writes: > Not directly related to bridge laws, but some readers may be interested > to hear that BLML regular Alan LeBendig has just been elected to the > ACBL Board of Directors. (The BoD is the 25-member governing body of > the ACBL.) > > Congratulations, Al! Thanks, Steve. And thanks to each of you who has sent congratulations. > How long until we can start blaming you for > everything the ACBL does wrong? :-) Since I've been blamed for much of it for years, why wait? > (In all seriousness, I have no doubt Al will be a valuable member of > the reform party within the ACBL leadership.) Have I already been identified as a Reformist? I will try to be effective. And you should each know that I am always available to listen. However, don't think that this now means that I can no longer debate issues with you. They'll have to put me under before I'll give up that priviledge. Thanks again for the support, folks... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 03:24:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:24:02 +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 DAA28598 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:23:51 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-93.innet.be [194.7.10.93]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05702 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:23:45 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3461B304.BC9D67D3@innet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 13:07:32 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9711051742.AA2921@notes2.compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk christian.farwig made some interesting points : > > Herman, > >> > I know I am breaking new ground here, but isn't that what this group is > all about ? > << > > while ploughing new terrains, your logic has suffered. Take these two examples: > > Somebody is making an insufficient bid, which is changed to a pass. Afterwards > get a good score, because his opponents bid a grand slam missing the ace of > trumps. The auction wouldn't have been the same without the mistake by the > offender. A case for an adjusted score? > No, because the insufficient bid would not lead to a score adjustment anyway. > The road is blocked because of an accident. I have to take another street and > crash against a wall because I fall asleep. Whose fault was this? Should I try > to sue the participants of the accident? > If you cold prove that by having to take a detour there is a reason to fall asleep, then a judge might well award a percentage of the damages as being caused by the original accident! Stranger things have happened. > The revoke was a mistake all of its own - therefore no adjustment. > But the score (-50, or rather : 15% or such) was a result of two things : a) the revoke and b) the use of UI by opponents. Surely some of the blame (for 15%, not for ten tricks) has to be portioned on opponents ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 03:24:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:24:21 +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 DAA28605 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:24:08 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-93.innet.be [194.7.10.93]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05753 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:23:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3461ED89.8DE2F19C@innet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:17:13 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: blml-ssFinland X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Nancy T.Dressing wrote: > >together. My club will be playing against Herman's group on the fifth > >Friday of the month and hopefully this will develop into a lasting , fun > >competition. Perhaps the clubs who meet other than Friday can try > >something like this. Well done, HermY and thanks for letting us join > >you in this effort. Nancy > I still have to get this proposition past the committee of my club but I don't think they will not follow me, if I organize things. However, you will then have to allow me to play even though I would also be involved with the duplication (I shall not watch - honestly). David Stevenson wrote: > I am very sorry that it was not suitable for my club to be involved. > I hope that it worked well, and I have not heard that my services [as > Honorary Appeals Chairman] were needed. I really do wish this > enterprise well, and hope it continues next year. > I plan the next event for the weekend of 30 october (friday) - 31 october - 1 november (sunday) 1998. Perhaps we could include events on thursday or wednesday. > Incidentally, I run a Simultaneous Pairs myself on the last Tuesday in > June [people from other countries can run it on any day in that week] > and I hope that you will all join me then. Perhaps Herman would like to > score it? > I will ask my club if they are interested - we have a tuesday duplicate as well. I am not volunteering to score everyone's simultaneous, but I am willing to try and make my program "Brigitte" in a smaller version (English language) so that everyone can enter scores in that. For these 200 pairs, I spent three mornings introducing scores. You can imagine the work. But if you all enter your scores into Brigitte, I will gladly do the gathering and distribution. (of course yur tournament is calculated as well - you don't have to enter the scores twice!) Does that seem like a good idea ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 03:39:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:39:51 +1100 Received: from crypto2.uwaterloo.ca (mfare@crypto2.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.12.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28728 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:39:45 +1100 Received: (from mfare@localhost) by crypto2.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA05597 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:39:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 11:39:13 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Farebrother Message-Id: <199711061639.LAA05597@crypto2.uwaterloo.ca> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Jesper Dybdal again: >On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:23:55 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>>How about L9A2a: >>>"Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call >>>attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period." >>> >>>What law prohibits a defender to call attention to the >>>irregularity that his partner (or declarer) has turned a trick >>>the wrong way? >> >> L73A1. > >But is calling attention to partner's irregularity "communication >between partners"? > >If it is in this case, then surely it must be so in general - >calling attention to partner's irregularity will in general often >communicate something to him (wake him up from some >misunderstanding) - a trick turned the wrong way is not a >particularly special case in this respect. > As Nancy said - later - what is illegal about calling the director, and drawing attention to the irregularity that way? Not "communicating between partners", but "calling attention to an irregularity" (L9A2a), and "summoning the director" (L9B1a and b). And, assuming that that is legal, and that the director will rectify the irregularity (L81C6 and L84A) by having the card pointed in the correct direction (as the wording is "is pointed" in L65B), doesn't this effect the intended action (letting everyone, including your partner, the other defender, know how many tricks are in)? And how do we deal with something that is illegal if the director is called, but legal when e is? Yes, I know there is a procedure, but do we now see large numbers of "she turned this last trick wrong" calls? (Not that I'd mind more director calls at my club, and at the ones I play at. It would be nice if some people thought of me more as a referee and less as a "cop"). Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 04:09:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:09:31 +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 EAA28829 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:09:24 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-34.innet.be [194.7.10.34]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA17942 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:09:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3461F4BF.185ECCAA@innet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:47:59 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: > > > One reason was because your previous post was very difficult to > understand: only now when I can see what you are driving at can I > understand it. I believe that your "new approach" might be acceptable > if it was not so complicated. > > You say that the cause of the very bad score should be partly down to > declarer, partly down to opponents' UI + declarer. Ok, so let's give > them 50% of +420, and 50% of -50. I am not convinced that the approach > is right in this case, but if it is right let's apply it in a simple > fashion. > As usual I'm making things too difficult. If your suggestion above is to be read as 50% of the result equivalent to +420 and 50% of the result of -50, then we arrive at the same result (50% of 15% and 50% of 30% = 22.5%, which was what I suggested in the first place). However, we did not arrive at it by the same way. I should think a bit more about it and try it on other examples to see if it always turns out this way. I'll get back on that one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 04:09:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:09:28 +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 EAA28828 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:09:21 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-34.innet.be [194.7.10.34]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA17921 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:09:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3461F25D.82E94EC@innet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:37:49 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: > > >So here's nothing new. > > > >David alone against The World. > > Since two or three others have agreed with my ruling [more that with > yours] that seems a somewhat unfair comment. > These others came later, after I'd written my comment. I'm glad you're not alone, David. I knew I would be alone. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 06:36:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:36:38 +1100 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 GAA29624 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:36:29 +1100 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 QAA21869.; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:34:15 -0500 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA1801; Thu, 06 Nov 97 14:11:06 -0500 Message-Id: <9711061911.AA1801@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by CSERVE (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC1256547005E6715; Thu, 6 Nov 97 14:11:06 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 6 Nov 97 18:13:01 Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>I would not do that here, because there is no link to see here between the using of UI and the revoke. So just an easy one-score board (Christian F. will be happy about this...)<< I would, because I'm fed up with feeding split-scores into the computer. All those TD's who think that they have to use those glitzy gadgets provided by law create a mayor hassle to the people responsible for the scoring. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 08:15:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:15:42 +1100 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 IAA00226 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:15:38 +1100 From: ardelm@ozemail.com.au 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 IAA02199; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:15:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port1.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.51]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA27717; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:15:32 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:15:32 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199711062115.IAA27717@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: final results Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Congratulations Herman on a nicely organised competition. Our members were very impressed with the speed with which the results were posted. This compares very favourably with similar events run here in Australia in which some months can separate the posting of final results from the date of the actual competition. We enjoyed the anecdotes - a shame there were not more of them. Please put us down for next year as I have entered the event onto our calendar. I am sure the extra days over which the event can be played will substantially add to the table numbers, and also to your job. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 13:39:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:39:56 +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 NAA00980 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:39:49 +1100 Received: from ptp16.ac.net (ptp16.ac.net [205.138.54.116]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id VAA27833 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:39:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3462A90E.65F5@ac.net> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:37:18 -0800 From: "L. Weinstein" Reply-To: lobo@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: blml-ssFinland References: <3461ED89.8DE2F19C@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I still have to get this proposition past the committee of my club but I > don't think they will not follow me, if I organize things. > However, you will then have to allow me to play even though I would also > be involved with the duplication (I shall not watch - honestly). > So, we had a Unit wide Sectional Tournament in Clubs and a Director had made up a half table with a walk in partner. He had preduplicated the hands. Lo and behold, he won! Unit wide! His wife (a few thousand ACBL masterpoints) didn't understand why some folks were upset, after all, in her words "he duplicated the hands face down"!! *honest* a true story - I heard her with my own ears... Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 13:48:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:48:12 +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 NAA01019 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:48:07 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1018657; 7 Nov 97 2:45 GMT Message-ID: <$ddW1EAp$nY0Ew+H@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:41:45 +0000 To: ardelm@ozemail.com.au Cc: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: final results In-Reply-To: <199711062115.IAA27717@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199711062115.IAA27717@oznet07.ozemail.com.au>, ardelm@ozemail.com.au writes >Congratulations Herman on a nicely organised competition. Our members were >very impressed with the speed with which the results were posted. This >compares very favourably with similar events run here in Australia in which >some months can separate the posting of final results from the date of the >actual competition. We enjoyed the anecdotes - a shame there were not more >of them. > >Please put us down for next year as I have entered the event onto our >calendar. I am sure the extra days over which the event can be played will >substantially add to the table numbers, and also to your job. > >Tony Musgrove > Can you tell me more about what this event was please -- 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 Nov 7 15:55:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:55:12 +1100 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 PAA01239 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:55:06 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-06.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.196]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA07354; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:54:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34629F41.FBB7D068@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:55:29 -0500 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Nancy T.Dressing wrote: > > >Is this situation similar to declarer leading from the wrong hand and > >whoever says you're on the board or in your hand, whichever is the > >case. Declarer corrects the lead and on with the game. This should > >also be a director call but how many people make the call and do we > >really want them to?? > > Since what you are saying is that they then get the ruling wrong then > **of course** we want them to. This is exactly the sort of situation > for which the TD should always be called: the situation where everyone > "knows" the Law and over half of them are wrong! > > [Anyone who is snoozing at the back: either defender may accept the > LooT: *of course* everone here knows 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 ~ But as soon as either defender says "you are in your hand/on the board" aren't they saying "without confering with their partner" that they do not accept the lead from the wrong hand? Do we need the director to say "lead from the correct hand"? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 16:59:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:59:30 +1100 Received: from UFO.star.net.il (UFO.star.net.il [195.8.207.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA01359 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:59:12 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS3-156.star.net.il [195.8.208.156]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA08659; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:58:59 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <3462AE6E.BD598661@star.net.il> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:00:15 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: trick arrangement Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by UFO.star.net.il id HAA08659 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read a lot of messages , I consulted Quango and I think there are two things which it will help us , if clarified : 1) The meaning of "ATTEMPT to prevent Declarer's irregularity...." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Law 42B2 defines the dummy's right to ... "ATTEMPT to prevent irregularity" (I capitalized attempt) Let consider the case of declarer's lead from the wrong hand. When declarer wins a trick in his hand and says -"..Q of Club" which is in dummy - by the very Law approach there occurred an irregularity , no doubt . The moment the dummy says : "you in hand......." is already after the legal irregularity occurred but I never heard a TD didn't allow him to speak or thought it is a Law violation .....The dummy can't "punch" declarer's mouth before he finishes "Q of..." , so it is still considered as dummy's Attempt . The lawmaker understood that it is AN ATTEMPT !! and by the way there is no substantial penalty for it , the defenders can ask the declarer to play from the right hand , or "profit" and accept the lead !! By analogy - the very moment the declarer arranged the trick in the wrong direction , the irregularity already occurred . If we are realistic - I try to describe an actual situation I met many times - sometimes it takes less then 0.1 sec. until declarer put a card on the table , playing to the next trick !!! The same time the dummy lifted up the coffee cup and it takes=A0 other 2 or 3 sec. until he sees the wrong arrangement . Well ...is any difference between this event and the former ??? I believe that the lawmaker considered such an irregularity as very minor and meaningless that didn't pay too much attention to it. Just remember : BRIDGE is a PLAY for PLAYERS , governed by laws , which a TD should "attempt" to enforce. PROPOSAL=A0 ( to be accepted as "uniform decisions" ) A. The dummy is allowed to draw declarer's attention about a wrong arrangement of a trick as soon as possible , but never after the subsequent trick was finished and a card is played to the new trick after the subsequent. B. If dummy drew attention to the wrong arrangement after the first card was was played to the trick next to the subsequent to "wrong arranged" trick , the dummy looses all his rights achieved by Law 42 and the Director may consider a penalty - by Law 12A1 - if he finds that the "speech" could influence the play. C. Play out of turn by declarer , caused by the wrong arrangement will be treated accordingly to Law 55. Maybe it is a change of law or an appendix.... and it should be updated in the first possible occasion , but I suggest all of us to rule this way. =A0 2) The meaning of "established irregularity" ------------------------------------------- There shouldn't be such a definition . It must be decided - either an irregularity occurred or not. We should try to be as accurate as possible , describing facts , events or interpretations. I believe that the TD=A0 has the right to decide if=A0 an irregularity occurred or what to do , according to the place , tournament level , players' level some SO 's supplementary regulations... and his clever mind ..... I should like to see your opinions . Dany =A0 =A0 P.S. -=A0 I am not sure this message was sent .... maybe it is second trip... =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 17:44:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:44:15 +1100 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 RAA01483 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:43:55 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm3-09.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.199]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA11419; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 01:43:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3462B8B9.7E382E71@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 01:44:09 -0500 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dany Haimovici CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: trick arrangement References: <3462AE6E.BD598661@star.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > I read a lot of messages , I consulted Quango and I think > there are two things which it will help us , if clarified : > > 1) The meaning of "ATTEMPT to prevent Declarer's irregularity...." > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Law 42B2 defines the dummy's right to ... > "ATTEMPT to prevent irregularity" (I capitalized attempt) > > Let consider the case of declarer's lead from the wrong hand. > When declarer wins a trick in his hand and says -"..Q of Club" > which is in dummy - by the very Law approach there occurred > an irregularity , no doubt . > The moment the dummy says : "you in hand......." is already after > the legal irregularity occurred but I never heard a TD didn't allow him > to speak or thought it is a Law violation .....The dummy can't "punch" > declarer's mouth before he finishes "Q of..." , so it is still > considered > as dummy's Attempt . > The lawmaker understood that it is AN ATTEMPT !! and by the way > there is no substantial penalty for it , the defenders can ask the > declarer > to play from the right hand , or "profit" and accept the lead !! > > By analogy - the very moment the declarer arranged the trick in the > wrong > direction , the irregularity already occurred . If we are realistic - > I try to describe an actual situation I met many times - sometimes > it takes less then 0.1 sec. until declarer put a card on the table , > playing > to the next trick !!! The same time the dummy lifted up the coffee cup > and it takes other 2 or 3 sec. until he sees the wrong arrangement . > Well ...is any difference between this event and the former ??? > > I believe that the lawmaker considered such an irregularity as very > minor and meaningless that didn't pay too much attention to it. > Just remember : BRIDGE is a PLAY for PLAYERS , governed > by laws , which a TD should "attempt" to enforce. > > PROPOSAL ( to be accepted as "uniform decisions" ) > > A. The dummy is allowed to draw declarer's attention about a wrong > arrangement of a trick as soon as possible , but never after the > subsequent > trick was finished and a card is played to the new trick after the > subsequent. > B. If dummy drew attention to the wrong arrangement after the first card > > was was played to the trick next to the subsequent to "wrong arranged" > trick , the dummy looses all his rights achieved by Law 42 and the > Director may consider a penalty - by Law 12A1 - if he finds that the > "speech" could influence the play. > C. Play out of turn by declarer , caused by the wrong arrangement will > be treated accordingly to Law 55. > > Maybe it is a change of law or an appendix.... and it should be updated > in the first possible occasion , but I suggest all of us to rule this > way. > > > 2) The meaning of "established irregularity" > ------------------------------------------- > > There shouldn't be such a definition . It must be decided - either > an irregularity occurred or not. We should try to be as accurate as > possible , describing facts , events or interpretations. > > I believe that the TD has the right to decide if an irregularity > occurred or what to do , according to the place , tournament > level , players' level some SO 's supplementary regulations... > and his clever mind ..... > > I should like to see your opinions . > > Dany > > > P.S. - I am not sure this message was sent .... maybe it is second > trip... I think you've said it just right!!! Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 20:06:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:06:47 +1100 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 UAA01690 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:06:41 +1100 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 GAA17225.; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 06:29:21 -0500 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA3359; Fri, 07 Nov 97 04:06:05 -0500 Message-Id: <9711070906.AA3359@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by CSERVE (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC12565480028D256; Fri, 7 Nov 97 04:06:04 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 7 Nov 97 8:30:53 Subject: Quoting-mania Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Recently some mails hat quota-to-content-ratios of about 50 to 1. It would be kind of everybody to reduce quoting. Thanks, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 21:21:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:21:03 +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 VAA01777 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:20:57 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-206.innet.be [194.7.10.206]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA02138 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:20:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3462E693.9028D4C0@innet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 10:59:47 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9711061911.AA1801@notes2.compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk christian.farwig wrote: > > >>I would not do that here, because there is no link to see here between > the using of UI and the revoke. So just an easy one-score board > (Christian F. will be happy about this...)<< > > I would, because I'm fed up with feeding split-scores into the computer. All > those TD's who think that they have to use those glitzy gadgets provided by > law create a mayor hassle to the people responsible for the scoring. > > Christian I agree with you that directors often over-splitscore I do not agree with you when as "calculator" you complain about that. Get a good program that handle split-scores! You are there to do your job. Do it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 7 22:32:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:32:14 +1100 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 WAA01966 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:31:56 +1100 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:30:21 +0100 Message-ID: <3462FC00.74AD@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:31:12 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? References: <9711061911.AA1801@notes2.compuserve.com> <3462E693.9028D4C0@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hermann wrote: > I agree with you that directors often over-splitscore > > I do not agree with you when as "calculator" you complain about that. > Get a good program that handle split-scores! > You are there to do your job. Do it. :-))))))) In fact christian has a program to handle split scores. But he dont like to have more work than absolutely necessary.... Cheers -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 00:00:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:00:55 +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 AAA02174 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:00:47 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1005383; 7 Nov 97 12:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:31:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: <34629F41.FBB7D068@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T.Dressing wrote: > But as soon as either defender says "you are in your hand/on the >board" >aren't they saying "without confering with their partner" that they do >not >accept the lead from the wrong hand? Do we need the director to say >"lead >from the correct hand"? No, they are drawing attention to an irregularity. They still have a perfect right to accept the lead out of term. You need the TD to make this clear! -- 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 Nov 8 00:07:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:07:31 +1100 Received: from UFO.star.net.il (UFO.star.net.il [195.8.207.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA02196 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:07:22 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-42.star.net.il [195.8.208.42]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09283; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:06:57 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <346312BD.4F9F02C4@star.net.il> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 15:08:14 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Blml - ssFinland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by UFO.star.net.il id PAA09283 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Herman It was a wonderful experiment. All players who were involved tried to do it in the best way and the fact we didn't need David's services should encourage us . The players enjoyed and no troubles - I am sure that David is happy too - even if there will be no need for AC in next tourney... I believe we should organize such a tournament sooner and I "ll try to help with scoring ..... Meanwhile I spoke with a potential sponsor - non-profit prizes would be a nice improvement. Thank you very much for this good time. Dany =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 00:08:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:08:45 +1100 Received: from UFO.star.net.il (UFO.star.net.il [195.8.207.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA02213 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:08:31 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-42.star.net.il [195.8.208.42]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09289; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:07:48 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <346312F1.85C9FCF2@star.net.il> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 15:09:05 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Farebrother CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy References: <199711061639.LAA05597@crypto2.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by UFO.star.net.il id PAA09289 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Michael I liked your definition for TDs - it fits the Laws' scope and my=A0 belief.... If you don't mind I would like to use : "TDs are referees but no cops" as a motto . Practically , if we consider TDs as referees they should be summoned every time an irregularity occurs - or a player thinks/deems/etc.s it occurred.- just in order to let the referee explain the true and right ru= ling. [My experience taught me that every event is different from any other that no person , but a clever TD , is able to distinguish.... It avoids t= he well-known trouble "... but Forester (just for this e.g..) told me yesterday...=A0 so & so ...." ] Dany =A0 Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > Jesper Dybdal again: > >On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:23:55 +0000, David Stevenson > > wrote: > >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>>How about L9A2a: > >>>"Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call > >>>attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period." > >>> > >>>What law prohibits a defender to call attention to the > >>>irregularity that his partner (or declarer) has turned a trick > >>>the wrong way? > >> > >>=A0 L73A1. > > > >But is calling attention to partner's irregularity "communication > >between partners"? > > > >If it is in this case, then surely it must be so in general - > >calling attention to partner's irregularity will in general often > >communicate something to him (wake him up from some > >misunderstanding) - a trick turned the wrong way is not a > >particularly special case in this respect. > > > As Nancy said - later - what is illegal about calling the director, and > drawing attention to the irregularity that way?=A0 Not "communicating > between partners", but "calling attention to an irregularity" (L9A2a), = and > "summoning the director" (L9B1a and b). > > And, assuming that that is legal, and that the director will rectify th= e > irregularity (L81C6 and L84A) by having the card pointed in the correct > direction (as the wording is "is pointed" in L65B), doesn't this effect > the intended action (letting everyone, including your partner, the othe= r > defender, know how many tricks are in)? > > And how do we deal with something that is illegal if the director is ca= lled, > but legal when e is?=A0 Yes, I know there is a procedure, but do we now= see > large numbers of "she turned this last trick wrong" calls? (Not that I'= d > mind more director calls at my club, and at the ones I play at.=A0 It w= ould > be nice if some people thought of me more as a referee and less as a "c= op"). > > Michael. =A0 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 01:49:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:49:18 +1100 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 BAA04714 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:49:10 +1100 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 MAA16754.; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:11:52 -0500 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA9191; Fri, 07 Nov 97 09:48:33 -0500 Message-Id: <9711071448.AA9191@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by CSERVE (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027440012F8CCC12565480044482C; Fri, 7 Nov 97 09:48:33 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 7 Nov 97 13:25:49 Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I do not agree with you when as "calculator" you complain about that. Get a good program that handle split-scores!<< The program has no problem about split-scores - it handles them smoothly (after hearing about yours, I might change the name to "BARDOT"). But the players have problems, since the calculated MP's are less than transparent to them. You always have a bunch of questions when you hang out a frequency chart with a split score. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 06:08:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 06:08:26 +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 GAA05887 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 06:08:19 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2008366; 7 Nov 97 19:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:18:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3462FC00.74AD@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Hermann wrote: > >> I agree with you that directors often over-splitscore >> >> I do not agree with you when as "calculator" you complain about that. >> Get a good program that handle split-scores! >> You are there to do your job. Do it. > >:-))))))) >In fact christian has a program to handle split scores. But he dont like >to have more work than absolutely necessary.... What a shame! -- 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 Nov 8 07:07:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:07:56 +1100 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 HAA06219 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:07:49 +1100 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 XAA00980; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:03:51 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199711072003.XAA00980@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: Subject: Re: final final results Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:44:58 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > The results from Ekateringrad arrived only yesterday. Not Ekateringrad but Ekaterinburg. Oh, that diffcult Russian language. :-) > Here is a (last?) final result. I think not, because i know for sure that tournament was played in Moscow. I don'tknow why you have not receive their results yet. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm > Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 08:32:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:46 +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 IAA06475 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:37 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic230.cais.com [207.226.56.230]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18895 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:32:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105113329.00691768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:33:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: bidding pad In-Reply-To: <9710301837.aa23372@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:37 PM 10/30/97 PST, Adam wrote: >> 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. I think this exposes a flaw in the Laws. L20C2 and L41B do seem to be every bit as explicit as Adam suggests. But they also seem to contradicted by L20F2, "...throughout the play period, either defender... may request an explanation of opposing auction [sic, in the ACBL's official edition of the Laws]". So at any time during the hand, a defender may say "Please explain the meaning of your auction", and the other side is obligated to do so. To find a way to resolve this apparent contradiction, we would have to say that the correct way to respond to such a request would be to state the meaning of each of the bids that were made in such a way as not to reveal what those bids were. Expecting anyone to do this in real life falls somewhere between unrealistic and impossible. Perhaps this should go on our list of issues for the 2007 revisions. 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 Nov 8 08:32:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:49 +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 IAA06479 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:39 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic230.cais.com [207.226.56.230]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18888 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:32:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105111641.00691768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:16:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Poorly worded claim In-Reply-To: <9710291129.aa05691@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:29 AM 10/29/97 PST, Adam wrote: >> 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. While I agree with Adam's bottom line (defenders take both tricks), I think this is an easier ruling than he makes it out to be. It is proper for a player making a claim to indicate the number of tricks he is claiming. The common phraseology used by bridge players to indicate that a claim is for all of the remaining tricks is invariably along the lines of "I have the rest" or "the rest are mine". In 35 years of tournament play, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "WE have the rest" or "the rest are OURS" even when that is clearly what was meant. On the facts as Gordon presented them, I see no reason to assume that West was unaware of South's SQ or was otherwise unaware of what the remaining cards were. It sounds to me like he was just indicating that the claim was for all of the remaining tricks, and was doing so in the common idiom. To adjust the score to down one strikes me as punishing linguistic imprecision rather than being based on anything related to bridge. I don't think we need L70C at all. I don't think we'd even be discussing the difference between "I" and "we" had West been declarer rather than a defender, nor do I see any reason why this should affect the ruling. 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 Nov 8 08:32:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:53 +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 IAA06485 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:41 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic230.cais.com [207.226.56.230]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18917 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:32:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105171150.00691768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:11:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <9711051742.AA2921@notes2.compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:45 PM 11/5/97, christian.farwig wrote: >Somebody is making an insufficient bid, which is changed to a pass. Afterwards >get a good score, because his opponents bid a grand slam missing the ace of >trumps. The auction wouldn't have been the same without the mistake by the >offender. A case for an adjusted score? No. But only because you would have no reason to think that his opponents would not have bid the same grand slam if he hadn't made the insufficient bid. >The road is blocked because of an accident. I have to take another street and >crash against a wall because I fall asleep. Whose fault was this? Should I try >to sue the participants of the accident? Presumably not, because there'd be no reason to think that you wouldn't have fallen asleep even if you'd followed your original route. However, if the accident that caused you to take another street was one in which the driver of a truck carrying tanks of a gaseous medical anesthetic fell asleep at the wheel causing the truck to crash, which caused the tanks to crack, and you breathed some of the gas, and that caused you to fall asleep and crash into a wall, then you should sue, and you'd win. >The revoke was a mistake all of its own - therefore no adjustment. In Reg's case, the normal result would have been declarer taking 11 tricks in 4S for +450. At the table in question, declarer took 10 tricks in 5S for -50. The revoke was declarer's mistake, and caused him to take 10 tricks instead of 11 tricks, while the opponent's infraction, which was certainly not declarer's fault, caused him to take 10 tricks in 5S instead of 10 tricks in 4S. That's damage, and should be adjusted to restore equity. Nobody is suggesting that he should be given his mistake back, i.e. that he should be awarded 11 tricks. He should be given back only what he lost as a direct consequence of the infraction, which put him in 5S instead of 4S; he made only 10 tricks on his own, and deserves +420, not +450. 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 Nov 8 08:32:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:52 +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 IAA06487 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:42 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic230.cais.com [207.226.56.230]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18922 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:32:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971107083527.00691768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:35:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 11/5/97 +0000, David wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>In the Appeals Committee series under the section "Redress for Damage", >>Kaplan describes a very similar situation. West preempts with 3S holding >>KQJ9xxx and the diamond ace, North huddles for 60 seconds before passing, >>South reopens on marginal values and NS declare 3NT. Inexplicably, West >>leads the spade 9, won by declarer's 10 and NS proceed to fulfill their >>contract, while the normal lead of the spade King would lead to an easy set. >> >>Kaplan denies any redress to EW here, despite the clear infraction of UI. I >>quote: "In this instance, again, the innocent players would be damaged >>AFTER the infraction but not BY it -- their damage, their zero, would be a >>direct consequence of West's own flagrant error." (TBW, December 1981, p. 24) >> >>Unless you are arguing that a revoke is somehow less egregious an error >>than the silly "fourth-best" lead in the above example, it seems that the >>same principle should apply to the present case. > > In the case we have in front of us there are two acts which it is >possible to separate, namely being forced up a level to 5S and only >making ten tricks. The first is based on UI, so correctable: the second >is a flagrant error so the contestant is stuck with it. Thus I am >prepared to rule 4S=, since only 4S would be reached without the UI, but >a let the contestant keep his ten tricks. > > In the case you are quoting you cannot consider the two acts in the >same way. If you disallow the 3NT bid then you cannot make any >allowance for the lead. Thus if you follow Kaplan's doctrine that the >contestant must not gain from a flagrant error the only legal way to do >so seems to be to let the result stand for the NOs. We don't have the full hand, but suppose, as might well be the case, that W is entitled to six spade tricks plus the DA either on play at 3S or on defense against 3NT. At the table he was -400 (3NT=), when, without the "flagrant error" (failure to lead SK), he would have been +150 (3NT-3). If we find UI and adjust to the result that would have been obtained without the infraction, he will get -100 (3S-2). So he has hardly gained from his error; had he not committed it he would have +150 instead of -100. At the table, he lost 250 points to his own play, plus 300 points as a consequence of the infraction. By adjusting we restore equity by giving him the score he would have gotten absent the infraction. Therefore it seems to me that the cases are indeed analogous. IMO David's decision (4S=) is correct, and Kaplan's (result stands at 3NT=) wrong. 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 Nov 8 08:32:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:50 +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 IAA06481 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:32:40 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic230.cais.com [207.226.56.230]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18911 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:32:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105164409.00691768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:44:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3RaOg8A689X0EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:00 PM 11/5/97 -0500, Michael wrote: >In the Appeals Committee series under the section "Redress for Damage", >Kaplan describes a very similar situation. West preempts with 3S holding >KQJ9xxx and the diamond ace, North huddles for 60 seconds before passing, >South reopens on marginal values and NS declare 3NT. Inexplicably, West >leads the spade 9, won by declarer's 10 and NS proceed to fulfill their >contract, while the normal lead of the spade King would lead to an easy set. > >Kaplan denies any redress to EW here, despite the clear infraction of UI. I >quote: "In this instance, again, the innocent players would be damaged >AFTER the infraction but not BY it -- their damage, their zero, would be a >direct consequence of West's own flagrant error." (TBW, December 1981, p. 24) > >Unless you are arguing that a revoke is somehow less egregious an error >than the silly "fourth-best" lead in the above example, it seems that the >same principle should apply to the present case. Only if you believe that the principle Mr. Kaplan espouses is sound. The contrary argument is that when it's clear that there was damage that would not have occured had there been no infraction, then the infraction caused that damage, by definition. 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 Nov 8 08:33:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:33:21 +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 IAA06558 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:33:11 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic230.cais.com [207.226.56.230]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18882; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:32:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971105103501.00691768@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:35:01 -0500 To: Reg Busch From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:17 AM 1/5/00 +1100, you wrote: >In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids >4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts >the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. > >5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, >declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS >apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, >they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? This issue has been the subject of debate for nearly 25 years, and has come up several times on BLML (look for references to "Kaplan doctrine"). Is equity restored when the NOs reach a "cold" contract -- even if they don't make it, which some would argue proves by definition that it WASN'T cold? There is no accepted consensus on this. My personal view is that you should adjust, but lately the tide of opinion (in North America at least) seems to be trending the other way. I wrote an article on this a long time ago, which can still be found in The Bridge World's Ruling the Game reprint series. If you can find a copy you might want to take a look at it. /eric 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 Nov 8 10:42:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:42:05 +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 KAA07116 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:41:58 +1100 Received: from cph43.ppp.dknet.dk (cph43.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.43]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA18463 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:41:48 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 00:41:49 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3463a5ba.867958@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3460B3CA.CF7D0F58@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <3460B3CA.CF7D0F58@innet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 18:58:34 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >David alone against The World. I am on David's side here. 420 seems obviously right, provided the expected number of tricks in 4S and the expected number of tricks in 5S are equal. An exception might be a hand in which declarer in 4S would naturally make a safety play for exactly 10 tricks: lose three tricks early and then revoke to get only 9, where in 5S he played for 11 tricks and revoked to get only 10. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 11:49:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:49:47 +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 LAA07228 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:49:41 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009600; 8 Nov 97 0:45 GMT Message-ID: <2qG+unA172Y0Ewsp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:41:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Nancy T.Dressing wrote: > >> But as soon as either defender says "you are in your hand/on the >>board" >>aren't they saying "without confering with their partner" that they do >>not >>accept the lead from the wrong hand? Do we need the director to say >>"lead >>from the correct hand"? > > No, they are drawing attention to an irregularity. They still have a >perfect right to accept the lead out of term. You need the TD to make >this clear! > Lead out of term? Drunk again! -- 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 Nov 8 14:50:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:50:36 +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 OAA07741 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 14:50:30 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin44.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id WAA19666 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:49:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:49:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971107224955_-489815095@mrin44.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bidding pad Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: An explanation of the auction should not include a review of the auction, and it's realistic to expect that it be given correctly. It goes like this: If declarer is explaining, he explains only those calls for which there was a special partnership agreement, per L75. He does not give the level of any call, saying something like "My spade bid showed such-and-such, while his second diamond bid showed other such-and-such., etc., etc. We have no special partnership agreement about any of the other calls." For defenders, each gives a similar explanation of the other's call(s). Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 15:41:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:41:52 +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 PAA07869 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:41:45 +1100 Received: from mike (ip41.baltimore18.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.8.41]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA32527 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:41:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971107234136.0068f984@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:41:36 -0500 To: From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971105164409.00691768@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> <3RaOg8A689X0EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In response to the analogy with the Kaplan hand, 11/5/97 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >Only if you believe that the principle Mr. Kaplan espouses is sound. The >contrary argument is that when it's clear that there was damage that would >not have occured had there been no infraction, then the infraction caused >that damage, by definition. > Thanks for your analysis. I'm glad to see somebody debating the issue on what seems to me appropriate grounds, namely whether the "Kaplan doctrine" is a sound basis for analysis, rather than on whether this is essentially analogous to the original Kaplan hand. As may be obvious from my occasional comments, I am a comparative newcomer to these discussions, and much of my understanding of the proper application of the Laws is based on my reading of Kaplan's writings. Certainly his opinions are something short of gospel, but I will still tend to accept his interpretations over contrary views unless the arguments are pretty persuasive. One of the things I particularly admired about his writings on the Laws was his reliance on underlying principles in his analysis. In the case of "Kaplan doctrine", the principle is that the damage should be the direct result of the infraction, rather than simply a necessary pre-condition. This seems a pretty reasonable principle to me, and my sense of equity is not perturbed in the least by his recommended application of it in cases like the present one. On the other hand, the ruling of +420 seems to be based on a fairly ad hoc notion of equity, lacking any clear foundation in the laws. In redressing damages with an adjusted score, we are directed to award the NO's "the most favorable likely result." Nobody knows, of course, what would have happened in the subjunctive universe corresponding to no infraction. Perhaps declarer would have revoked anyway (he certainly did in this universe). Perhaps he was flustered or distracted by the infraction and attendant brouhaha, and would have not been so in the 10-trick contract. The debate over whether 10 or 11 tricks is the more likely outcome in the subjunctive case is just silly. Plainly both outcomes are at least somewhat likely, and +450 is clearly the more favorable, and so the correct amount of redress. That is, IF you reject Mr. Kaplan's reasoning... :) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 18:17:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:17:20 +1100 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 SAA08253 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:17:15 +1100 From: ardelm@ozemail.com.au 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 SAA00316; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:17:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port1.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.51]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA16508; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:17:01 +1100 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:17:01 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199711080717.SAA16508@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:41 PM 7/11/97 -0500, Michael Dennis wrote: > snip snip > >On the other hand, the ruling of +420 seems to be based on a fairly ad hoc >notion of equity, lacking any clear foundation in the laws. In redressing >damages with an adjusted score, we are directed to award the NO's "the most >favorable likely result." Nobody knows, of course, what would have happened >in the subjunctive universe corresponding to no infraction. Perhaps >declarer would have revoked anyway (he certainly did in this universe). >Perhaps he was flustered or distracted by the infraction and attendant >brouhaha, and would have not been so in the 10-trick contract. The debate >over whether 10 or 11 tricks is the more likely outcome in the subjunctive >case is just silly. Plainly both outcomes are at least somewhat likely, and >+450 is clearly the more favorable, and so the correct amount of redress. > >That is, IF you reject Mr. Kaplan's reasoning... :) > >Mike Dennis > I guess I'm almost on my own here as well. I have never been called to the table for UI where the call had not considerably increased the table temperature. Tempers are frequently at breaking point. By the time South is forced to play the hand many things have happened. He has had to call the director for a blatant use of UI by East. The director has asked for play to proceed, whereupon South decides to try 5S. At this stage he is not sure whether the contract will be rolled back to 4S, but feels rightly aggrieved that he has to make a decision at this level in any case. When the dummy goes down, he may well be wondering whether it was better to double 5H. All of these considerations have been unfairly put upon him by East's misuse of UI. (We must assume that there is no question of this, as in the original posting). I can imagine that East for his part, is hotly protesting his innocence,,,would have bid it anyway etc. I would have to be there, but it would take little to convince me that the revoke was a direct cause of the table brouhaha, and in the interest of equity would rule -450 EW. Since I cannot give a split score, I would give the same score to NS and let EW appeal if they wished. If I was in the AC, I might be persuaded to give NS some lower score between 420 and 450. The last time something like this happened to me, my partner called the director for a blatant opposition infringement. We allowed the perpetrator to play her contract since she was by this time in tears, and scarcely able to control her cards. She revoked, which still didn't give us sufficient compensation, but by which time we were not going to call the director back to the table. Its only a game after all. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 8 22:37:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:37:11 +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 WAA08935 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:37:05 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008743; 8 Nov 97 11:32 GMT Message-ID: <04meqXAz1EZ0EwEE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:30:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: final final results In-Reply-To: <199711072003.XAA00980@adm.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> The results from Ekateringrad arrived only yesterday. >Not Ekateringrad but Ekaterinburg. Oh, that diffcult Russian language. :-) Indeed? Surely everyone has heard of Ekaterinburg? Or do I have the place wrong? I believe it be famous - well, infamous. >> Here is a (last?) final result. >I think not, because i know for sure that tournament was played in Moscow. >I don'tknow why you have not receive their results yet. People have congratulated Herman on his speed of results: but ... we now see a well known problem with Simultaneous Pairs. I am now running and scoring three a year, and regrettably I take about six weeks to get the results out. The first four weeks involve waiting for all the results to arrive. ------------------------ Just to go completely off-topic, what on earth do you need to commit a felony in Iowa? I am feeling a little anti-Iowa just now, I'm afraid. -- 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 Nov 9 00:45:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:45:21 +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 AAA11565 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:45:15 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id NAA19198 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:44:50 GMT Date: Sat, 8 Nov 97 13:41 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: <199711080717.SAA16508@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> > At 11:41 PM 7/11/97 -0500, Michael Dennis wrote: > > I guess I'm almost on my own here as well. I have never been called to > the > table for UI where the call had not considerably increased the table > temperature. Tempers are frequently at breaking point. If this is really the case then maybe Australia needs to look towards some sort of ZT policy. > By the time South is forced to play the hand many things have happened. > He has had to call the director for a blatant use of UI by East. The Why? He has not seen East's hand and has no reason to assume any misuse of UI. Indeed he is obliged to assume that East has bid in good faith. > director has asked for play to proceed, whereupon South decides to try > 5S. At this stage he is not sure whether the contract will be rolled > back to 4S, but feels rightly aggrieved that he has to make a decision > at this level in any case. When the dummy goes down, he may well be > wondering whether it was better to double 5H. > All of these considerations have been unfairly put upon him by East's > misuse of UI. (We must assume that there is no question of this, as in > the original posting). I can imagine that East for his part, is hotly > protesting his innocence,,,would have bid it anyway etc. All the original post suggests is that East felt *at the table* that sufficient of his peers would bid 5H to make it justified in spite of the UI - there is even an implication that East does not dispute the director's assessment that his initial analysis was wrong. If directors permit players to view requests for rulings, or the rulings themselves as ethical criticism then the future of bridge looks far from rosy. The stricter the standards set for post-UI actions the more important it is to clarify this principle. I could be persuaded to rule +420/-450 or even +450/-450 in exceptional circumstances (I'd probably issue a DP to East as well) but I'd expect a ruling of +420/-420 to be not only legally justifiable but seen to be fair by all concerned. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 00:45:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:45:30 +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 AAA11571 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:45:23 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id NAA19226 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:44:59 GMT Date: Sat, 8 Nov 97 13:41 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Should one request a ruling? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following situation arose at the local club: Hearts trumps, West on lead, expert declarer (North). Kxx 9 - - QJ4 xxx - - - - 9 5 AT9 8 - - After some considerable thought West chose to lead a club. But what if he had chosen SJ? Under what circumstances, if any, would South be justified in requesting a ruling under 73D1, and when, if ever should an adjusted score be given? Thanks Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 00:55:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:55:35 +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 AAA11608 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:55:28 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2027837; 8 Nov 97 13:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:10:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971107234136.0068f984@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >One of the things I particularly admired about his writings on the Laws was >his reliance on underlying principles in his analysis. In the case of >"Kaplan doctrine", the principle is that the damage should be the direct >result of the infraction, rather than simply a necessary pre-condition. >This seems a pretty reasonable principle to me, and my sense of equity is >not perturbed in the least by his recommended application of it in cases >like the present one. The thing that seems wrong to me about the Kaplan doctrine, and the whole NAmerican approach to causality, is the apparent notion that B is caused by A. There seems a feeling that in some cases damage is caused by an infraction, and in some cases it is caused by something else and not the infraction. In the latter case, of course, there would be no redress because redress requires the damage to be the result of the infraction. In fact, of course, it is not true. Suppose an opponent commits an infraction: as a result you are in a situation that you would not be in without the infraction. You now do something really stupid [an egregious error!!]. People say that your result now is a result of the error and *not* the infraction, but ***they are wrong***. How do you test whether something is a result of something else? You take the original thing away, and see whether the result is still there. Are men the cause of babies? Remove the men, and see whether you get any babies! Let us consider our original case. Without the UI, the contract would have been 4S. With the UI, the contract was 5S. 11 tricks were easy, 10 were stupid, 10 were made. Was the result of -50 the result of the UI? If there had been no UI the result would have been +420 or +450 [as someone else has pointed out, feelings sometimes run high, and that might be a cause of the silly play]. Let's say that it would have been +420. What caused the -50? Most people will say that it was caused by the stupidity of the play - and they will be right! However, if there had been no infraction, the score would not have been -50, just as if there had been no egregious error it would not have been -50, so the -50 was *also* a result of the infraction. When this type of thing has been discussed before people have said that after one side has committed an infraction, the other side is required to play bridge. Why? Which law says so? Is this natural justice? Let us look at other sports. Last weekend my American Football team, the San Francisco 49ers, played their arch-rivals, the Dallas Cowboys [and won after Dallas had led for most of the match - wahey!]. At one point the 49ers' quarterback, Steve Young, had the ball and was considering whether to throw the ball forward, give it to someone else to run with, or run himself. The main danger in throwing it forward is that an opponent might catch it ["intercept it"] and he loses possession, which is more costly than in most games. Suddenly, there was a penalty, a bright yellow handkerchief [called "a flag"] was thrown on the floor by one of the officials. Either because of which official had thrown the flag, or because he saw the infraction, he knew that the penalty was against Dallas. This gave him a "free play": he could try a dangerous play: if it worked the penalty would be declined: if it failed, the penalty would be accepted. A classic double shot. He actually threw it to one of his players who was well guarded. The player didn't catch it, the Cowboy did intercept, the play cost nothing, the penalty was gratefully accepted and the 49ers still had the ball. This is not the only sport where this type of thing happens. In Rugby Union, when there is an infraction, the referee lets play continue to see whether the NOs gain an advantage. If they do not, he whistles and brings play back to the place of the infraction. The NOs are not required "to play Rugby" or to avoid egregious errors: if they get an advantage, good: if they don't, they get the benefit of the infraction. Furthermore the referee lets them know when he is trying to play "the advantage rule" so they can try a dangerous play knowing play will be recalled if it goes wrong. In bridge, I really do not see what is wrong with someone trying for the double shot *at all*. An infraction has occurred, and I fail to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. It certainly seems contrary to natural justice. In my view the only ruling on the board in question that accords to natural justice is +450, applied to both sides. All well and good, but as I can hear the hounds baying at me from the next field back, I freely admit that our job is to interpret and apply the rules that exist and ignore natural justice! [By rules I mean laws plus regulations.] So let's consider the laws. Which one says that you are required to play bridge after an irregularity? ????? Well? [While you are thinking about that, I appreciate the practical difficulty of knowing whether an irregularity has occurred: I believe this is an "at your own risk" position. If you are allowed to gamble without risk after an opponent's infraction, and if it turns out there is no infraction, then you keep your score, and tough luck.] The answer in my view is that there is *no* law that says so. What there is is an interpretation of a Law that implies it. L16A2 includes the words "... standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage". It seems to me that it is merely the interpretation of this Law that is in question. I believe that the various Laws authorities should reconsider their approach to this interpretation. In the case we considered, there were two causes of a score of -50, as we discovered earlier: the UI and the misplay. Let us change the interpretation so that the TD adjusts if an infraction of law is *one* of the causes of the damage. Let us allow the double-shot at the double-shotter's risk. I believe this would be fairer, would be more in line with natural justice and follow the precedents set by other sports. If you infract, you suffer. Note: I started off by decrying the NAmerican approach to causality, but I actually think the European one is unfair as well. In NAmerica you lose benefit if you make a serious mistake: in Europe it has to be more than that. However, I think that NOs should never lose benefit. Of course, this does need a change in interpretation [though not Law] which is why I am not stating the answer is +450 in the case we were given. Under current interpretations I can see a case for -50: a case for +420 and -50 [split]: a case for +420: a case for +450. >On the other hand, the ruling of +420 seems to be based on a fairly ad hoc >notion of equity, lacking any clear foundation in the laws. In redressing >damages with an adjusted score, we are directed to award the NO's "the most >favorable likely result." Nobody knows, of course, what would have happened >in the subjunctive universe corresponding to no infraction. Perhaps >declarer would have revoked anyway (he certainly did in this universe). >Perhaps he was flustered or distracted by the infraction and attendant >brouhaha, and would have not been so in the 10-trick contract. The debate >over whether 10 or 11 tricks is the more likely outcome in the subjunctive >case is just silly. Plainly both outcomes are at least somewhat likely, and >+450 is clearly the more favorable, and so the correct amount of redress. > >That is, IF you reject Mr. Kaplan's reasoning... :) Yes, this accords with my view of why +450 is *right* in 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 Sun Nov 9 02:24:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:24:31 +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 CAA12053 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:24:21 +1100 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08390 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:24:11 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:24:11 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <346783bf.2396205@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:10:41 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > The answer in my view is that there is *no* law that says so. [that you have to play sensible bridge after opponents' irregularity] My position on this point is the one David argues here: there is no such law, and not adjusting for the NOs because of an "egregious error" (or "wild and gambling action") is IMO against the letter of the law. Either the irregularity caused damage, in which case the law tells us to adjust for both sides, or it did not, in which case we have no reason to adjust for either side. Of course, the "egregious error"/"wild and gambling action" concept is so wide-spread that we all follow it, but I would certainly like to see a change in practice on that point. >Let us change the interpretation so that the TD adjusts if an=20 >infraction of law is *one* of the causes of the damage. Let us allow >the double-shot at the double-shotter's risk. I believe this would be=20 >fairer, would be more in line with natural justice and follow the=20 >precedents set by other sports. If you infract, you suffer. Exactly. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 04:27:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:27:59 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12431 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:27:49 +1100 Received: from mike (ip195.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.163.195]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA14293 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:27:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971108122804.0068cddc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 12:28:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > The thing that seems wrong to me about the Kaplan doctrine, and the >whole NAmerican approach to causality, is the apparent notion that B is >caused by A. There seems a feeling that in some cases damage is caused >by an infraction, and in some cases it is caused by something else and >not the infraction. In the latter case, of course, there would be no >redress because redress requires the damage to be the result of the >infraction. > > In fact, of course, it is not true. Suppose an opponent commits an >infraction: as a result you are in a situation that you would not be in >without the infraction. You now do something really stupid [an >egregious error!!]. People say that your result now is a result of the >error and *not* the infraction, but ***they are wrong***. > > How do you test whether something is a result of something else? You >take the original thing away, and see whether the result is still there. >Are men the cause of babies? Remove the men, and see whether you get >any babies! Someone else has already invoked the analogy of car accidents, but let me build on that to try and justify the Kaplan doctrine. There's an accident on the road ahead of you. In one case, the accident results in a large oil slick on the road. Despite reasonable (if inexpert) precautions on your part, the oil slick causes you to lose control of your car, slide off the road and run smack into a tree. It seems fair here to say that your damages were caused by the accident, and to ascribe liability for your damages to whomever is the original guilty party. In the second instance, there is no oil slick, but excessive rubber-necking (i.e., "gawking, staring" for non-native speakers) on your part causes you to run off the road smack into a tree. IMO, your damages in this instance are not caused by the original accident, but by your own malfeasance, and you are entitled to no redress. ***CAUTION*** I know, if possible, even less about actual tort law than I do about bridge law, so the above discussion should not be taken as authoritative. It merely reflects my "ad hoc" sense of equity. But doesn't this seem reasonble? In both instances, it is clear that your damages would not have occurred but for the accident, but in one case the accident "caused" the damages, while in the other the accident was merely a necessary pre-condition to damages which were actually "caused" by your own flagrant error. > In bridge, I really do not see what is wrong with someone trying for >the double shot *at all*. An infraction has occurred, and I fail >to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later >egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very >strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. It >certainly seems contrary to natural justice. In my view the only ruling >on the board in question that accords to natural justice is +450, >applied to both sides. > I think the Kaplan doctrine implicitly recognizes a distinction between two types of infractions. The majority of infractions (at least those resulting in director calls) such as insufficient bids, leads out of turn, etc., are analogous to what you described in football and rugby. They are objective and generally verifiable violations of the rules, with penalties assessed whenever the director is called to the table. The penalties are somewhat arbitrary, with little clear relationship to damages suffered by the NO's. Occasionally these penalties have little or no impact on the the final result, but often they result in a large windfall for the NO's, out of all proportion to any damages. Them's the rules, and their application can reasonably be compared to the penalties in other competitive venues. The infractions which occupy a somewhat larger share of BLML attention, especialy those related to UI, are different in a number of respects. Typically when the TD is summoned, he directs that play be continued, and a ruling will be delivered at the conclusion of the hand, if necessary. Even the recipient of UI may well be incapable of determining his legal status at this point-- the others are completely in the dark. Finally, the type of violence to the underlying principles of the game from this type of infraction (namely, that communication between partners only be effected by the calls and plays actually made) is at once both more important and more obscure to determine than in the first type of infraction. Really, we should want to know what passed through a player's mind to determine whether a true infraction occurred, but we can't, so we settle for a different approach. The approach is to try and indemnify the NO's against the possiblity that they were damaged by an infraction whose true nature we can only guess at. Score adjustments and the like are NOT penalties. The NO's do not automatically benefit from the infraction (as they do from the first type of infraction), and in any case are not entitled to any advantage beyond that which might have been lost due to the infraction. In this sense, the appropriate model is not infraction/penalty derived from other competitions and other aspects of bridge law, but is instead the civil procedures of tort/redress. Consistent with this model, it seems reasonable to require that damages be "caused by" the infraction to merit redress, and not merely subsequent to it, and that principle is, it seems to me, at the heart of Kaplan's doctrine. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 07:44:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 07:44:44 +1100 Received: from mrin46.mail.aol.com (mrin46.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.156]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13013 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 07:44:37 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin46.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id PAA18795 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:44:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:44:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971108154351_-1911555410@mrin46.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-11-08 08:46:43 EST, you write: > The following situation arose at the local club: > Hearts trumps, West on lead, expert declarer (North). > > Kxx > 9 > - > - > QJ4 xxx > - - > - - > 9 5 > AT9 > 8 > - > - > After some considerable thought West chose to lead a club. But what if he > had chosen SJ? Under what circumstances, if any, would South I assume you mean N? > be justified > in requesting a ruling under 73D1, and when, if ever should an adjusted > score be given? I would think a request for an adjustment would never be unjustified. As to awarding an adjusted score, part of my decision would be based on the perceived skill level of the W player. Had it been a three card ending or W only held spades at that point, I would probably be comfortable adjusting for nearly any level player and feel that it was easy to explain the basis for the adjustment. The mere fact that W chose the club exit here should make it clear to us that this player really wasn't aware of what was going on which would seem to illustrate that being too liberal on awarding redress in such a situation must be inappropriate. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 09:09:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:09:25 +1100 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 JAA13369 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:09:19 +1100 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm4-04.pinehurst.net [207.211.71.225]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA08803; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:09:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3464E342.98DC6DEA@pinehurst.net> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 17:10:11 -0500 From: "Nancy T.Dressing" Reply-To: nancy@pinehurst.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: trick arrangement and dummy References: <2qG+unA172Y0Ewsp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > >Nancy T.Dressing wrote: > > > >> But as soon as either defender says "you are in your hand/on the > >>board" > >>aren't they saying "without confering with their partner" that they do > >>not > >>accept the lead from the wrong hand? Do we need the director to say > >>"lead > >>from the correct hand"? > > > > No, they are drawing attention to an irregularity. They still have a > >perfect right to accept the lead out of term. You need the TD to make > >this clear! > > > Lead out of term? Drunk again! > > -- > 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 ~ Yep. Pinehurst Bridge will do that to anyone!!!! ;-) Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 11:26:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:26:15 +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 LAA13696 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:26:07 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1006981; 9 Nov 97 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:18:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <199711080717.SAA16508@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> >> At 11:41 PM 7/11/97 -0500, Michael Dennis wrote: >> > >> I guess I'm almost on my own here as well. I have never been called to >> the >> table for UI where the call had not considerably increased the table >> temperature. Tempers are frequently at breaking point. > >If this is really the case then maybe Australia needs to look towards some >sort of ZT policy. Agreed. This is another example of why the Laws should be enforced *at all* levels of the game. If beginners learn that there is something called UI [even if they don't really understand it] as well as revokes and other scary things, and they learn that a friendly and genial person [like an old-fashioned cricket umpire] comes along and sorts it out when it goes wrong, then a lot of these problems would disappear. Furthermore, part of the TD's skills lie in defusing situations. I am also surprised that Michael says "I have never been called to the table for UI where the call had not considerably increased the table temperature": very worrying. Of course, sometimes there is a temperature rise, but I expect about two out of three UI rulings to pass peaceably, more if top players are involved. The simplest cause for Michael's assertion is that the TD is not being called often enough. [s] >I could be persuaded to rule +420/-450 or even +450/-450 in exceptional >circumstances (I'd probably issue a DP to East as well) but I'd expect a >ruling of +420/-420 to be not only legally justifiable but seen to be fair >by all concerned. PP, not DP! Maybe I should never have pointed out the difference! I understand from hearsay [my copy has not arrived] that in discussing ZT the ACBL Bulletin for November confuses the two as 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 Sun Nov 9 12:18:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:18:49 +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 MAA13766 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:18:44 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021634; 9 Nov 97 1:09 GMT Message-ID: <$cTczWBkuQZ0EwmV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:02:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >The following situation arose at the local club: >Hearts trumps, West on lead, expert declarer (North). > > Kxx > 9 > - > - >QJ4 xxx >- - >- - >9 5 > AT9 > 8 > - > - >After some considerable thought West chose to lead a club. But what if he >had chosen SJ? Under what circumstances, if any, would South be justified >in requesting a ruling under 73D1, and when, if ever should an adjusted >score be given? The player is always justified in asking for a ruling. It is not up to him to make judgement decisions over laws he probably does not understand. But I doubt that I would give him redress here. West seems to have a bridge judgement to make. Certainly any of his 3 spades might be the right card to lead. Put it a different way. Suppose he had led the SQ after this hesitation. In what way could declarer have been misled? -- 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 Nov 9 13:37:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:37:33 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA13882 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:37:27 +1100 Received: from mike (ip220.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.220]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA08727; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:37:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971108213740.00693dc4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 21:37:40 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:41 PM 11/8/97 GMT0, you wrote: >The following situation arose at the local club: >Hearts trumps, West on lead, expert declarer (North). > > Kxx > 9 > - > - >QJ4 xxx >- - >- - >9 5 > AT9 > 8 > - > - >After some considerable thought West chose to lead a club. But what if he >had chosen SJ? Under what circumstances, if any, would South be justified >in requesting a ruling under 73D1, and when, if ever should an adjusted >score be given? > >Thanks > >Tim > I don't see any merit to the claim that S is disadvantaged by the hesitation, regardless of the lead, and so do not accept that W could have known that the hesitation would be advantageous. Assuming W leads a spade honor, S will be on a guess as to how to pick up the suit. If S allows the hesitation to influence the guess, that is certainly his right, but there is no logical reason to do so, and hence no disadvantage to him as a result. Of course S may legitimately request a ruling whenever he feels it might be to his advantage to do so. If he thinks he's entitled to redress in this instance, however, he's simply mistaken. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 19:23:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:23:45 +1100 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 TAA14537 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:23:34 +1100 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xUSla-0006hT-00; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:30:46 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.47.118] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xUSeD-0004Sa-00; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:23:10 +0000 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:20:57 -0000 Message-ID: <01bcece8$67b34160$762f63c3@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 >Tim West-meads wrote: >>The following situation arose at the local club: >>Hearts trumps, West on lead, expert declarer (North). >> >> Kxx >> 9 >> - >> - >>QJ4 xxx >>- - >>- - >>9 5 >> AT9 >> 8 >> - >> - >>After some considerable thought West chose to lead a club. But what if he >>had chosen SJ? Under what circumstances, if any, would South be justified >>in requesting a ruling under 73D1, and when, if ever should an adjusted >>score be given? > > The player is always justified in asking for a ruling. It is not up >to him to make judgement decisions over laws he probably does not >understand. > > But I doubt that I would give him redress here. West seems to have a >bridge judgement to make. Certainly any of his 3 spades might be the >right card to lead. > > Put it a different way. Suppose he had led the SQ after this >hesitation. In what way could declarer have been misled? > Oh, very easily. If North is an expert and knows that West is not, North will reasonably infer that it might take West some time to work out, or perhaps to remember from having read it somewhere, that he is supposed to lead an honour from Hxx. Thus a "slow" honour from a non-expert player is very much more likely to be from Hxx than from QJx (even ignoring the fact that the probability of the former is twice that of the latter). Now, whether you would actually give redress in this position is another matter altogether. But it is wholly incorrect to say that a slow spade honour cannot mislead declarer. Any tempo variation from a player who has, in truth, no alternative to his eventual play can mislead (remember, West can see the S109 in the dummy). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 21:08:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA14728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:08:45 +1100 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 VAA14721 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:08:34 +1100 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn40.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:08:04 +0100 Message-ID: <34658BDD.7425@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 11:09:33 +0100 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: Nexus broken? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Richard Bley wrote: > >Hermann wrote: > > > >> I agree with you that directors often over-splitscore > >> > >> I do not agree with you when as "calculator" you complain about that. > >> Get a good program that handle split-scores! > >> You are there to do your job. Do it. > > > >:-))))))) > >In fact christian has a program to handle split scores. But he dont like > >to have more work than absolutely necessary.... > > What a shame! Hey, that was just a joke! Cheers -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 9 22:57:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:57:28 +1100 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 WAA14922 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:57:09 +1100 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xUW7f-0005CT-00; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:05:47 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.52.148] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xUW0I-0005Ap-00; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:58:11 +0000 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:55:30 -0000 Message-ID: <01bced06$60e5f080$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 DWS wrote quite a lot, most of which I have excised: >The thing that seems wrong to me about the Kaplan doctrine, and the >whole NAmerican approach to causality, is the apparent notion that B is >caused by A. There seems a feeling that in some cases damage is caused >by an infraction, and in some cases it is caused by something else and >not the infraction. In the latter case, of course, there would be no >redress because redress requires the damage to be the result of the >infraction. > >In fact, of course, it is not true. Suppose an opponent commits an >infraction: as a result you are in a situation that you would not be in >without the infraction. You now do something really stupid [an >egregious error!!]. People say that your result now is a result of the >error and *not* the infraction, but ***they are wrong***. > No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus 420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. >Let us consider our original case. Without the UI, the contract would >have been 4S. With the UI, the contract was 5S. 11 tricks were easy, >10 were stupid, 10 were made. Was the result of -50 the result of the >UI? If there had been no UI the result would have been +420 or +450 [as >someone else has pointed out, feelings sometimes run high, and that >might be a cause of the silly play]. Let's say that it would have been >+420. What caused the -50? Most people will say that it was caused by >the stupidity of the play - and they will be right! However, if there >had been no infraction, the score would not have been -50, just as if >there had been no egregious error it would not have been -50, so the -50 >was *also* a result of the infraction. > See above. But there comes a point, as Kaplan asserted, where for the purposes of providing redress, there must be a sufficiently close connection between the infraction and the damage. In his opinion (and in mine), that connection ceases to exist for the present purpose once it becomes apparent that declarer has eleven top tricks in five spades. To put this another way: at the point where East bids 5S, there is the possibility that his having been forced to the five level will damage his side. Once the dummy is spread, however, that possibility no longer exists. That it should mysteriously be reborn because declarer revokes does not appear logical. >When this type of thing has been discussed before people have said >that after one side has committed an infraction, the other side is >required to play bridge. Why? Which law says so? Is this natural >justice? Yes, of course it is, and to ask which Law requires bridge players to continue to play the game to the best of their ability is almost wholly specious. There is no such Law, nor does there need to be. [Examples of the "advantage rule" snipped] >In bridge, I really do not see what is wrong with someone trying for >the double shot *at all*. I wonder how many share this view. It appears to me wholly repugnant for players to be in a position where they can more or less do what they like, however absurd; if it succeeds, they keep their good result, if it fails, they summon the Director. >An infraction has occurred, and I fail >to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later >egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very >strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. Indeed it is. I am not sure, however, why DWS believes that breaches of Law 44C should be treated as special cases... >It certainly seems contrary to natural justice. In my view the only ruling >on the board in question that accords to natural justice is +450, >applied to both sides. ...so that NS are penalised for breaking Laws 16 and 73, while EW are not penalised at all for breaking Law 44. While the rest of DWS's argument is powerfully expressed and carries much conviction, this is simply nonsense. Why should I not pay the revoke penalty just because my opponents may have employed UI? >All well and good, but as I can hear the hounds baying at me from the >next field back, I freely admit that our job is to interpret and apply >the rules that exist and ignore natural justice! [By rules I mean laws >plus regulations.] So let's consider the laws. Which one says that you >are required to play bridge after an irregularity? > None. Which Law says that you are required to play bridge before an irregularity? It is axiomatic in all forms of serious competition that players strive to give their best at all times, in accordance with the laws of the game. >I believe that the various Laws authorities should reconsider their >approach to this interpretation. In the case we considered, there were >two causes of a score of -50, as we discovered earlier: the UI and the >misplay. Let us change the interpretation so that the TD adjusts if an >infraction of law is *one* of the causes of the damage. Let us allow >the double-shot at the double-shotter's risk. Let's not. The double shot is one of the most invidious forms of bridge lawyering, and I had formed the impression that thanks to Kaplan's ideas, much good work had been done in removing it from the game. The awful regression implied in DWS's message would, to my way of thinking, be simply intolerable. >I believe this would be >fairer, would be more in line with natural justice and follow the >precedents set by other sports. If you infract, you suffer. But not, apparently, if you revoke. "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but as redress for damage." (Scope and Interpretation of the Laws). There is no mention of "suffering". >Note: I started off by decrying the NAmerican approach to causality, >but I actually think the European one is unfair as well. In NAmerica >you lose benefit if you make a serious mistake: in Europe it has to be >more than that. However, I think that NOs should never lose benefit. > No more they should. But, since they reached a laydown contract despite the infraction, they have not been deprived of "benefit" by consequence of it. The extent to which DWS and others appear prepared to believe that because EW are non-offenders in the question of UI, East should be allowed to avoid altogether the penalty for a revoke, is frankly bewildering. >Of course, this does need a change in interpretation [though not Law] >which is why I am not stating the answer is +450 in the case we were >given. Under current interpretations I can see a case for -50: a case >for +420 and -50 [split]: a case for +420: a case for +450. I can see a case for NS -420, EW -50, and that is the score I am pretty sure I would award. There is *no case whatever* for plus and minus 450. In the name of all that is wonderful, *why* should the revoke penalty be annulled? As to causality, I have no wish to become embroiled in deep philosophical argument. Read David Hume for details, if you like. But it seems to me obvious that there must come a point at which redress for damage is given only if the damage was the direct cause of the infraction, not linked to it by a gossamer thread that appears and disappears. Suppose I open 1NT, get doubled, and go for 1100. Now I call the TD and claim that my opponent was in breach of Law 6B because he dealt the cards two at a time. If he'd dealt them singly, we would all have had completely different hands, and my bad result would never have occurred. It is unarguable that my being dealt a 1NT opening that incurred a massive penalty was "caused" by my opponent's infraction (as well as by my bidding methods). Do you think my result should stand? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 10 00:48:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:48:39 +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 AAA17564 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:48:32 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id NAA24166 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:48:08 GMT Date: Sun, 9 Nov 97 13:47 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <$cTczWBkuQZ0EwmV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Al Le Bendig wrote: >> had chosen SJ? Under what circumstances, if any, would South >I assume you mean N? As it happens I meant South (at the end of the hand under L42B3), although this was probably an unnecessary complication to the original problem. North was a player of considerable expertise but, as a rubber bridge player, relatively unfamiliar with the laws of duplicate. I would always feel that North would be justified in requesting a ruling. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 10 00:48:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:48:37 +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 AAA17563 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:48:30 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id NAA24157 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:48:05 GMT Date: Sun, 9 Nov 97 13:47 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > [s] > > >I could be persuaded to rule +420/-450 or even +450/-450 in > exceptional >circumstances (I'd probably issue a DP to East as well) > but I'd expect a >ruling of +420/-420 to be not only legally > justifiable but seen to be fair >by all concerned. > > PP, not DP! Maybe I should never have pointed out the difference! > Lack of clarity on my part? What I meant was I'd only consider 450 if I believed that bad behaviour/rudeness/shouting on behalf of EW had contributed to the revoke. I *think* this is a separate DP rather than a PP (if not you *will* have to point out the difference). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 10 01:07:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:07:18 +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 BAA17640 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:07:10 +1100 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA05345 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:06:58 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:06:59 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3465befd.1053775@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <01bced06$60e5f080$LocalHost@default> In-Reply-To: <01bced06$60e5f080$LocalHost@default> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:55:30 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >DWS wrote quite a lot, most of which I have excised: >>In bridge, I really do not see what is wrong with someone trying for >>the double shot *at all*. > >I wonder how many share this view. It appears to me wholly repugnant >for players to be in a position where they can more or less do what >they like, however absurd; if it succeeds, they keep their good >result, if it fails, they summon the Director. They get an adjusted score only if it fails _and their opponent has actually violated L16_. They must still run the risk that there was no irregularity at all - the double shot will usually backfire seriously if the opponent had no logical alternative, which is (or should be) the normal case. >None. Which Law says that you are required to play bridge before an >irregularity? It is axiomatic in all forms of serious competition that >players strive to give their best at all times, in accordance with the >laws of the game. Correct. But does any law say that the "double shot" at your own risk is not bridge and could not be part of "striving to give their best"? You are allowed to base your play on a guess that an opponent has committed an error by leading from an honour so you can get an extra trick. Is there any difference in principle in allowing players to base their play on a guess that an opponent has committed the error of violating L16? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 10 02:22:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:22:47 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17952 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:22:40 +1100 Received: from mike (ip43.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.43]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA24848 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:22:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971109102209.006940ec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 10:22:09 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? In-Reply-To: <01bcece8$67b34160$762f63c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> The player is always justified in asking for a ruling. It is not >up >>to him to make judgement decisions over laws he probably does not >>understand. >> >> But I doubt that I would give him redress here. West seems to have >a >>bridge judgement to make. Certainly any of his 3 spades might be the >>right card to lead. >> >> Put it a different way. Suppose he had led the SQ after this >>hesitation. In what way could declarer have been misled? >> >Oh, very easily. If North is an expert and knows that West is not, >North will reasonably infer that it might take West some time to work >out, or perhaps to remember from having read it somewhere, that he is >supposed to lead an honour from Hxx. Thus a "slow" honour from a >non-expert player is very much more likely to be from Hxx than from >QJx (even ignoring the fact that the probability of the former is >twice that of the latter). > >Now, whether you would actually give redress in this position is >another matter altogether. But it is wholly incorrect to say that a >slow spade honour cannot mislead declarer. Any tempo variation from a >player who has, in truth, no alternative to his eventual play can >mislead (remember, West can see the S109 in the dummy). > A problem is only presented if West leads a spade honor and North covers with the King, later losing the finesse. Now if there is no hesitation, it seems to me that based on restricted choice, this is the correct line technically for North to follow, at least if West is a competent defender (and if he's not, then of course no redress under the relevant Law-- presumably he "could not have known..."). So if North adopts this technically correct, but unsuccessful line, how can he claim to be damaged? Is the claim that the hesitation deceived him into the correct play? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 10 02:23:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:23:56 +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 CAA17972 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:23:50 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1023002; 9 Nov 97 15:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:57:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? In-Reply-To: <01bcece8$67b34160$762f63c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >>Tim West-meads wrote: >>>The following situation arose at the local club: >>>Hearts trumps, West on lead, expert declarer (North). [s] >> Put it a different way. Suppose he had led the SQ after this >>hesitation. In what way could declarer have been misled? >> >Oh, very easily. If North is an expert and knows that West is not, >North will reasonably infer that it might take West some time to work >out, or perhaps to remember from having read it somewhere, that he is >supposed to lead an honour from Hxx. Thus a "slow" honour from a >non-expert player is very much more likely to be from Hxx than from >QJx (even ignoring the fact that the probability of the former is >twice that of the latter). > >Now, whether you would actually give redress in this position is >another matter altogether. But it is wholly incorrect to say that a >slow spade honour cannot mislead declarer. Any tempo variation from a >player who has, in truth, no alternative to his eventual play can >mislead (remember, West can see the S109 in the dummy). Well, that sorts out who has committed the infraction: Tim! How was I meant to realise that dummy was South, just because he said so! My comments assumed that dummy was North [Tim, dummy is *always* North] and I believed West to have a possible option of playing a small card. I agree with David's last sentence. -- 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 Nov 10 02:56:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:56:05 +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 CAA18029 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:55:58 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2000771; 9 Nov 97 15:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:18:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <01bced06$60e5f080$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote [some snipped]: >No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing >else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus >420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. I just cannot see this. When a thing would not have happened if something else had not occurred then it is a result of that first occurrence. >See above. But there comes a point, as Kaplan asserted, where for the >purposes of providing redress, there must be a sufficiently close >connection between the infraction and the damage. In his opinion (and >in mine), that connection ceases to exist for the present purpose once >it becomes apparent that declarer has eleven top tricks in five >spades. To put this another way: at the point where East bids 5S, >there is the possibility that his having been forced to the five level >will damage his side. Once the dummy is spread, however, that >possibility no longer exists. That it should mysteriously be reborn >because declarer revokes does not appear logical. Damage is considered at the end of the hand. There is no mysterious process of it appearing and disappearing. >I wonder how many share this view. It appears to me wholly repugnant >for players to be in a position where they can more or less do what >they like, however absurd; if it succeeds, they keep their good >result, if it fails, they summon the Director. As I have said, it is normal in other sports: they do not find it repugnant. I dislike the general idea of confronting someone with a situation that he will only be confronted with when someone has broken the laws and telling him to get it right: that is repugnant to me. >>An infraction has occurred, and I fail >>to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later >>egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very >>strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. > >Indeed it is. I am not sure, however, why DWS believes that breaches >of Law 44C should be treated as special cases... Very clever, David, and not your normal style of arguing at all. You know I neither said nor meant this. >>It certainly seems contrary to natural justice. In my view the only >ruling >>on the board in question that accords to natural justice is +450, >>applied to both sides. > >...so that NS are penalised for breaking Laws 16 and 73, while EW are >not penalised at all for breaking Law 44. While the rest of DWS's >argument is powerfully expressed and carries much conviction, this is >simply nonsense. Why should I not pay the revoke penalty just because >my opponents may have employed UI? Because we take the bidding/play back to the original infraction and make a judgement from that time. >>All well and good, but as I can hear the hounds baying at me from the >>next field back, I freely admit that our job is to interpret and >apply >>the rules that exist and ignore natural justice! [By rules I mean >laws >>plus regulations.] So let's consider the laws. Which one says that >you >>are required to play bridge after an irregularity? >None. Which Law says that you are required to play bridge before an >irregularity? It is axiomatic in all forms of serious competition that >players strive to give their best at all times, in accordance with the >laws of the game. Axiomatic, certainly: irrelevant, maybe. Few forms of serious competition require you not to make mistakes when your opponent has committed an infraction that requires redress. >>I believe that the various Laws authorities should reconsider their >>approach to this interpretation. In the case we considered, there >were >>two causes of a score of -50, as we discovered earlier: the UI and >the >>misplay. Let us change the interpretation so that the TD adjusts if >an >>infraction of law is *one* of the causes of the damage. Let us allow >>the double-shot at the double-shotter's risk. > >Let's not. The double shot is one of the most invidious forms of >bridge lawyering, and I had formed the impression that thanks to >Kaplan's ideas, much good work had been done in removing it from the >game. The awful regression implied in DWS's message would, to my way >of thinking, be simply intolerable. Possibly. But if it was quite clearly legal, and people told so, it would not be Bridge Lawyering so much as the way the game is played. >>I believe this would be >>fairer, would be more in line with natural justice and follow the >>precedents set by other sports. If you infract, you suffer. > > >But not, apparently, if you revoke. "The Laws are primarily designed >not as punishment for irregularities, but as redress for damage." >(Scope and Interpretation of the Laws). There is no mention of >"suffering". You know that I did not say this about revoking. I grant you that the Scope does argue against my approach, however. >As to causality, I have no wish to become embroiled in deep >philosophical argument. Read David Hume for details, if you like. But >it seems to me obvious that there must come a point at which redress >for damage is given only if the damage was the direct cause of the >infraction, not linked to it by a gossamer thread that appears and >disappears. Suppose I open 1NT, get doubled, and go for 1100. Now I >call the TD and claim that my opponent was in breach of Law 6B because >he dealt the cards two at a time. If he'd dealt them singly, we would >all have had completely different hands, and my bad result would never >have occurred. It is unarguable that my being dealt a 1NT opening that >incurred a massive penalty was "caused" by my opponent's infraction >(as well as by my bidding methods). Do you think my result should >stand? You have produced a dissimilar case. Let me "level the playing field". Assume that TDs cancel a board when hands are dealt this way as a matter of routine. Then, the only reason not to cancel your score would be L11A. In fact you could make your example totally similar to the quoted one by you calling the TD after the deal. He tells you to play the board out while he consults [he's new!]. The board will be scratched. -- 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 Nov 10 20:29:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:29:12 +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 UAA21591 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:28:58 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA10986; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:31:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma010849; Mon, 10 Nov 97 01:31:48 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA16894 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:32:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711100932.BAA16894@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 09:17:48 GMT Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dburn @ btinternet.com @ Internet wrote: >>Tim West-meads wrote: >>>The following situation arose at the local club: >>>Hearts trumps, West on lead, expert declarer (North). >>> >>> Kxx >>> 9 >>> - >>> - >>>QJ4 xxx >>>- - >>>- - >>>9 5 >>> AT9 >>> 8 >>> - >>> - >>>After some considerable thought West chose to lead a club. But what >>>if he >>>had chosen SJ? Under what circumstances, if any, would South be >>>justified >>>in requesting a ruling under 73D1, and when, if ever should an >>>adjusted >>>score be given? >> >> The player is always justified in asking for a ruling. It is not >>up >>to him to make judgement decisions over laws he probably does not >>understand. >> >> But I doubt that I would give him redress here. West seems to have >>a >>bridge judgement to make. Certainly any of his 3 spades might be the >>right card to lead. >> >> Put it a different way. Suppose he had led the SQ after this >>hesitation. In what way could declarer have been misled? >> >Oh, very easily. If North is an expert and knows that West is not, >North will reasonably infer that it might take West some time to work >out, or perhaps to remember from having read it somewhere, that he is >supposed to lead an honour from Hxx. Thus a "slow" honour from a >non-expert player is very much more likely to be from Hxx than from >QJx (even ignoring the fact that the probability of the former is >twice that of the latter). > >Now, whether you would actually give redress in this position is >another matter altogether. But it is wholly incorrect to say that a >slow spade honour cannot mislead declarer. Any tempo variation from a >player who has, in truth, no alternative to his eventual play can >mislead (remember, West can see the S109 in the dummy). My experience, which is certainly less extensive and a lower level than David Burn's, is that players who think (rightly or wrongly) they are end-played usually play slowly to the next trick. Thus I would be wary of drawing any inference from a few seconds of hesitation by a defender in the this circumstance. I would also expect an expert declarer to take the same view, and a TD too, if, after a "normal hesitation" the defender leads an honour. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 10 20:38:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:38:10 +1100 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 UAA21629 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:38:03 +1100 Received: from bley.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually isdn92.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:36:45 +0100 Message-ID: <3466D607.2FB7@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:38:15 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t=20D=FCsseldorf?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? References: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David Stevenson wrote: > = > David Burn wrote [some snipped]: > = > >No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing > >else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus > >420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. > = > I just cannot see this. When a thing would not have happened if > something else had not occurred then it is a result of that first > occurrence. Hey. That=B4s not so easy. The parents of the murderer are not responsibl= e for his killing arent they? But if they wouldnt have get a baby, there would be no murderer. This things are not just a case of technical causes, it=B4s a matter of judging. = Cheers -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 10 23:07:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:07:40 +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 XAA22282 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:07:33 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-97.innet.be [194.7.10.97]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA12876 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:07:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3465E174.A26047FD@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 17:14:44 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bced06$60e5f080$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote:(lots of snippage) > > > See above. But there comes a point, as Kaplan asserted, where for the > purposes of providing redress, there must be a sufficiently close > connection between the infraction and the damage. In his opinion (and > in mine), that connection ceases to exist for the present purpose once > it becomes apparent that declarer has eleven top tricks in five > spades. To put this another way: at the point where East bids 5S, > there is the possibility that his having been forced to the five level > will damage his side. Once the dummy is spread, however, that > possibility no longer exists. That it should mysteriously be reborn > because declarer revokes does not appear logical. > Now David, you are putting forth a principle which only applies in this special case. Once declarer is in 5S in stead of 4S, he is damaged. He has to play more carefully, he must take more of a concentrated view of the hands etc. He even loses the possibility to revoke without much damage. Suppose there is a difficult play for 11 tricks. You would find it, I would not. Would you not allow me a score correction of +420 ? Suppose it takes Geir Helgemo to make eleven tricks (such as by finessing a nine on the second trick). Would you now not allow every other player in the world a correction to +420 ? My failing to make 11 tricks might look as egregious error to you. Your failing to make 11 seems silly to Helgemo. This declarer revoking is an egregious error to just about anyone (except Tony Musgrove). There is simply no way you can draw a line between the two. I believe the subsequent error should count towards the determination of the height of the Adjusted Score, but it should not change the fact that an AS has to be given. Or otherwise : There are 10 tricks - you adjust (-50 to +420) There are 9 tricks - you adjust (-100 to -50) There are 9 tricks but declarer only makes 7 : you still adjust (-200 to -150) There are 11 tricks - you adjust (+450 to +450) There are 11 tricks but declarer makes only 10 - you adjust (-50 to +420) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 11 00:30:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:30:51 +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 AAA25005 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:30:45 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic149.cais.com [207.226.56.149]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA23492 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:30:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971110083213.006d23d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:32:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971107234136.0068f984@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19971105164409.00691768@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> <3RaOg8A689X0EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:41 PM 11/7/97 -0500, Michael wrote: >On the other hand, the ruling of +420 seems to be based on a fairly ad hoc >notion of equity, lacking any clear foundation in the laws. In redressing >damages with an adjusted score, we are directed to award the NO's "the most >favorable likely result." Nobody knows, of course, what would have happened >in the subjunctive universe corresponding to no infraction. Perhaps >declarer would have revoked anyway (he certainly did in this universe). >Perhaps he was flustered or distracted by the infraction and attendant >brouhaha, and would have not been so in the 10-trick contract. The debate >over whether 10 or 11 tricks is the more likely outcome in the subjunctive >case is just silly. Plainly both outcomes are at least somewhat likely, and >+450 is clearly the more favorable, and so the correct amount of redress. > >That is, IF you reject Mr. Kaplan's reasoning... :) I reject the "alternate universe" argument; I simply don't consider it "likely", under normal circumstances, that a player who revoked would not have done so in the alternate contract being considered. Of course, the player who revoked would be given the opportunity to convince me otherwise, but I'd have a hard time inventing a scenario in which he would be successful. I would reject the argument that the revoke was caused by his being "flustered or distracted" by the infraction; he would have to convince me that the opportunity to revoke would not have occurred in 4S. 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 Nov 11 00:47:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:47:08 +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 AAA25095 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:46:55 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic149.cais.com [207.226.56.149]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA24536 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:46:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971110084822.006d7bd0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:48:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:41 PM 11/8/97 GMT0, twm wrote: >The following situation arose at the local club: >Hearts trumps, West on lead, expert declarer (North). > > Kxx > 9 > - > - >QJ4 xxx >- - >- - >9 5 > AT9 > 8 > - > - >After some considerable thought West chose to lead a club. But what if he >had chosen SJ? Under what circumstances, if any, would South be justified >in requesting a ruling under 73D1, and when, if ever should an adjusted >score be given? I find it hard to imagine making an adjustment here. West is on lead in a tricky end position, and should certainly be "expected" to need time to think. I just don't see how taking considerable thought before coming out with the SJ would suggest any particular spade holding over any other. Any rationale for calling this "[a variation that] may work to the benefit of their side" would be so broad as to encompass virtually any variation whatsoever. I think this is clearly a case where South takes any inferences "at his own risk". 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 Nov 11 01:16:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:16:30 +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 BAA25208 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:16:22 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic149.cais.com [207.226.56.149]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA26749 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:16:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971110091751.006908ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:17:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Should one request a ruling? In-Reply-To: <01bcece8$67b34160$762f63c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:20 AM 11/9/97 -0000, David wrote: >Now, whether you would actually give redress in this position is >another matter altogether. But it is wholly incorrect to say that a >slow spade honour cannot mislead declarer. Any tempo variation from a >player who has, in truth, no alternative to his eventual play can >mislead (remember, West can see the S109 in the dummy). And what does "has, in truth, no alternative" mean? In practice, it means that someone is saying "a play that *I* (the adjudicator) can see has no justifiable alternative". Lest we forget, the actual West at the table didn't lead a spade honor; obviously, he didn't recognize that he had "in truth, no alternative". Haven't we all spent 45 minutes going over a hand after the session only to conclude finally that some obscure play that was not even considered at the table was "the only correct" one? Keep in mind that an adjustment under L73F2 requires more than merely that the "action could work to his benefit"; it requires that he "could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit". 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 Nov 11 01:42:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:42:07 +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 BAA25326 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:41:58 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic149.cais.com [207.226.56.149]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA28748 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:41:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971110094328.006908ec@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:43:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <01bced06$60e5f080$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:55 AM 11/9/97 -0000, David wrote: >No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing >else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus >420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. Well, this is the heart of the debate. IMO, I don't see how you can say that "the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus 420", and then go on to argue that the fact that you were minus 50 insteads of plus 420 was not the result of the infraction. >See above. But there comes a point, as Kaplan asserted, where for the >purposes of providing redress, there must be a sufficiently close >connection between the infraction and the damage. In his opinion (and >in mine), that connection ceases to exist for the present purpose once >it becomes apparent that declarer has eleven top tricks in five >spades. To put this another way: at the point where East bids 5S, >there is the possibility that his having been forced to the five level >will damage his side. Once the dummy is spread, however, that >possibility no longer exists. That it should mysteriously be reborn >because declarer revokes does not appear logical. I can understand the desire to avoid giving redress in equity to a player who has 11 tricks for the taking and manages only 10, but to do so seems unrealistic and impractical. David says "connection ceases to exist... once it becomes apparent that declarer has eleven top tricks". But unless the operative word here is "top" (i.e. the connection between infraction and damage is broken only when the player can cash those tricks in any order), for which I find absolutely no justification in the laws, David's interpretation is unrealistic and unworkable. What if taking the 11 tricks that were there for the taking required a finesse? A simple combination play? An easy squeeze? A difficult squeeze? An Ottlik special double unblocking compound trump squeeze? Where can we possibly draw the line between "an obligation to play bridge" and "an obligation to play to best advantage"? Either equity is restored when the NOs are put in a position to achieve the normal result or it isn't. I categorically reject the argument that equity is achieved when the NOs are put in a position in which the adjudicator believes that HE would have been capable of achieving the normal result. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 11 01:55:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:55:23 +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 BAA25394 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:55:15 +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 JAA04897; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:55:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:55:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711101455.JAA00566@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: elandau@cais.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19971110083213.006d23d8@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:32:13 -0500) Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: [declarer in 5S when he would be in 4S without an infraction] > I reject the "alternate universe" argument; I simply don't consider it > "likely", under normal circumstances, that a player who revoked would not > have done so in the alternate contract being considered. Suppose that a similar issue comes up when the change is not the result of an egregious error. For example, say that the eleventh trick depended on guessing the queen of trumps, and declarer guessed it wrong in 5S for -50. You obviously adjust, but do you adjust to +420, or to +450 because half of all declarers in 4S would guess right? > Of course, the > player who revoked would be given the opportunity to convince me otherwise, > but I'd have a hard time inventing a scenario in which he would be > successful. And in my scenario, I would rule +420 with a similar consideration. For example, it might be possible for declarer in 4S to play the trumps differently as a safety play, which would result in +450 on the actual layout. But otherwise, I would rely on what declarer actually did. -- 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 Nov 11 09:53:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:53:53 +1100 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27659 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:53:39 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01937 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:53:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199711102253.QAA01937@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Nexus broken? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:53:03 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Nov 8, 97 01:10:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hesitated to make my first-ever posting to this list be a disagreement with David S., but since I didn't want to hesitate and then pass.... > The thing that seems wrong to me about the Kaplan doctrine, and the > whole NAmerican approach to causality, is the apparent notion that B is > caused by A. There seems a feeling that in some cases damage is caused > by an infraction, and in some cases it is caused by something else and > not the infraction. In the latter case, of course, there would be no > redress because redress requires the damage to be the result of the > infraction. > > In fact, of course, it is not true. Suppose an opponent commits an > infraction: as a result you are in a situation that you would not be in > without the infraction. You now do something really stupid [an > egregious error!!]. People say that your result now is a result of the > error and *not* the infraction, but ***they are wrong***. So here we have the first point of contention: DS is saying that the doctrine of causality is wrong. > How do you test whether something is a result of something else? You > take the original thing away, and see whether the result is still there. > Are men the cause of babies? Remove the men, and see whether you get > any babies! Except that, unless you're a very strange sort of Aristotelean, you surely accept that it takes things _other than_ men to make babies, and so in some contexts it is not the man which is the relevant cause at all. This is what the Kaplan doctrine claims--there are cases in which an infraction is not _relevant_ to the result, even if in some sense or other of the word it is a "cause". [Just as one does not usually list "the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere" as the cause of a fire.] > Let us consider our original case. Without the UI, the contract would > have been 4S. With the UI, the contract was 5S. 11 tricks were easy, > 10 were stupid, 10 were made. Was the result of -50 the result of the > UI? If there had been no UI the result would have been +420 or +450 [as > someone else has pointed out, feelings sometimes run high, and that > might be a cause of the silly play]. Let's say that it would have been > +420. What caused the -50? Most people will say that it was caused by > the stupidity of the play - and they will be right! However, if there > had been no infraction, the score would not have been -50, just as if > there had been no egregious error it would not have been -50, so the -50 > was *also* a result of the infraction. Here I agree. It seems to me that the Kaplan doctrine should be applied to this case, but only to argue for 420 rather than 450. I can see a clear case for saying that the infraction didn't cause the revoke, but if not for the infraction the revoke would have only caused a 30-point change.... > Last weekend my American Football team, the San Francisco 49ers, > played their arch-rivals, the Dallas Cowboys [and won after Dallas had > led for most of the match - wahey!]. At one point the 49ers' I think natural justice requires ruling against Dallas, regardless. > Dallas. This gave him a "free play": he could try a dangerous play: if > it worked the penalty would be declined: if it failed, the penalty would > be accepted. A classic double shot. He actually threw it to one of his > players who was well guarded. The player didn't catch it, the Cowboy > did intercept, the play cost nothing, the penalty was gratefully > accepted and the 49ers still had the ball. Fine, let us accept your analogy. But even this sport requires one to continue to play, in a fashion. What football does _not_ do is say "There's a penalty--stop play immediately. We will now call a committee to judge what is the most favorable result at all likely for the Niners. Given the skill of their quarterback, that result is touchdown--ergo, this is a touchdown. Now _in fact_ the pass was not caught for a touchdown, but that was _subsequent to the infraction_ and so resulted from the infraction, and so is irrelevant." Further, if the Niners had _themselves committed an infraction_ during the course of the play [if, say, they had revoked] that infraction would have _cancelled out_ the Dallas infraction and the play would have been run over. So football allows a double-shot, but still requires that one execute the double-shot well in order to truly profit by it. > In bridge, I really do not see what is wrong with someone trying for > the double shot *at all*. An infraction has occurred, and I fail > to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later > egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very > strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. It > certainly seems contrary to natural justice. In my view the only ruling > on the board in question that accords to natural justice is +450, > applied to both sides. I disagree. For us to establish justice, we need to have some idea of what the result "would have been" if the infraction had not been committed. In this case, there is very good reason to think that the result would have been +420. So if we rule that, we will have restored justice. +450 requires us to think that the infraction prevented a real +450 result--and frankly declarer that revokes to kill a cold +450 might have botched 4 spades, or bid 6 diamonds on a 3-1 fit for all we know. If it's natural justice we're talking about, that's relevant. > All well and good, but as I can hear the hounds baying at me from the > next field back, I freely admit that our job is to interpret and apply > the rules that exist and ignore natural justice! [By rules I mean laws > plus regulations.] So let's consider the laws. Which one says that you > are required to play bridge after an irregularity? This is a separate question. [An important one, but clearly _different_ from the causality question above.] > The answer in my view is that there is *no* law that says so. What > there is is an interpretation of a Law that implies it. L16A2 includes > the words "... standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he > considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage". It seems > to me that it is merely the interpretation of this Law that is in > question. It seems an obvious interpretation of the law, though. We must show that _the infraction_ resulted in damage. I think it is obvious that we can make a distinction in principle between infractions that result in damage and those that don't. While many seem to worry about the "double shot", that isn't what I think is the danger of a different interpretation of the rules. What I worry about is _ex post facto_ rules lawyering. Someone hesitates on the first round of the auction, and his partner makes a questionable call. I am playing against them, and reach a perfectly normal contract that I almost certainly would have reached anyway. I misplay it--or worse, I play it correctly but this is a hand where superior percentage play doesn't work. Now I call for adjudication {or maybe I called earlier in preparation for this} on the grounds that I have been damaged by the infraction, even though I am in the right contract and made the right play. After all, I argue, _everything subsequent to an infraction was caused by it_, even though I cannot identify any way that the final contract or my play of it was affected at all. I do not think we should interpret law in such a way that it encourages people to _look for_ all possible offenses, even minor ones having no effect on the outcome, so that all bad results should be "called back". In a time when we are worried about people being driven away from bridge, _this_ sort of rules lawyering {legal or otherwise} strikes me as damaging to the image of bridge. Granted, if we never hesitate, or never make a call that could possibly be construed as using UI, or never misexplain a call, etc., we don't have to worry about this. But this doesn't strike me as sufficient defense for this proposal for interpretation. > 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 ~ > Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 11 12:14:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA28029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:14:56 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA28024 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:14:49 +1100 Received: from mike (ip151.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.151]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA21244 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:14:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971110201455.0069fa98@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:14:55 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971110083213.006d23d8@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19971107234136.0068f984@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19971105164409.00691768@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19971105120057.00690f2c@pop.mindspring.com> <3RaOg8A689X0EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:32 AM 11/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >At 11:41 PM 11/7/97 -0500, Michael wrote: > >>On the other hand, the ruling of +420 seems to be based on a fairly ad hoc >>notion of equity, lacking any clear foundation in the laws. In redressing >>damages with an adjusted score, we are directed to award the NO's "the most >>favorable likely result." Nobody knows, of course, what would have happened >>in the subjunctive universe corresponding to no infraction. Perhaps >>declarer would have revoked anyway (he certainly did in this universe). >>Perhaps he was flustered or distracted by the infraction and attendant >>brouhaha, and would have not been so in the 10-trick contract. The debate >>over whether 10 or 11 tricks is the more likely outcome in the subjunctive >>case is just silly. Plainly both outcomes are at least somewhat likely, and >>+450 is clearly the more favorable, and so the correct amount of redress. >> >>That is, IF you reject Mr. Kaplan's reasoning... :) > >I reject the "alternate universe" argument; I simply don't consider it >"likely", under normal circumstances, that a player who revoked would not >have done so in the alternate contract being considered. Of course, the >player who revoked would be given the opportunity to convince me otherwise, >but I'd have a hard time inventing a scenario in which he would be >successful. I would reject the argument that the revoke was caused by his >being "flustered or distracted" by the infraction; he would have to >convince me that the opportunity to revoke would not have occurred in 4S. > Very odd--every other declarer scored 11 tricks in this contract. By agreement, 11 tricks are cold in spades, and yet you find it not at all likely that this declarer, playing in a different set of circumstances than those that prevailed in reality, might also have done so. On the whole, it seems a far greater leap of faith to assume that a particular declarer will revoke on a particular hand than to assume that he won't, even given a "history" (i.e., a single instance) of revoking under very similar circumstances. But there I go-- I said this was a silly debate, and you've managed to goad me into it anyway. ;) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 11 12:28:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA28073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:28:30 +1100 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 MAA28068 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:28:21 +1100 Received: from robin (dd67-104.compuserve.com [199.174.208.104]) by m9.sprynet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA01316; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:28:06 -0800 Message-ID: <3467B426.2CC8AF3B@sprynet.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:25:58 -0500 From: Robin Wigdor Reply-To: rwigdor@sprynet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Grant C. Sterling" CC: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199711102253.QAA01937@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > I hesitated to make my first-ever posting to this list be a > disagreement with David S., but since I didn't want to hesitate and > then pass.... > > In bridge, I really do not see what is wrong with someone trying > >for the double shot *at all*. An infraction has occurred, and I fail > > to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later > > egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very > > strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. It > > certainly seems contrary to natural justice. > I disagree. For us to establish justice, we need to have some > idea of what the result "would have been" if the infraction had not > been committed. It's always been my understanding that the bridge Laws were based upon tort law, the purpose of which is to remedy damage suffered by a party as a consequence of negligent or other inappropriate conduct. If damage has not been suffered, then the concept of redress does not arise. Imposition of penalties upon persons who transgress is a criminal law concept. The consequence of remedying damage may be to "penalize" the offender, but that is not the purpose of a tort law award. If the bridge Laws are now being interpreted as penal laws, with the objective, in part, of imposing a punishment, it seems to me that there are consequential issues. For example, in common law jurisdictions, the burden of proof in a civil tort proceeding is met if the claim is proven on the balance of probabilities, while in a criminal proceeding the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Another example: in a criminal proceeding, the accused is not obliged to testify and no inference may be drawn from the decision not to testify. In a civil tort proceeding, this is not the case and an inference may be drawn. Is a bridge player entitled to stand mute in the face of a Director's questions? And, if so, how should the Director assess the silence? The nexus discussion has largely been a discussion of the legal concepts of causality and remoteness (of damage), in a bridge context. Part of the difficulty arises because at law, and hence in society, there are distinctions drawn, depending upon the nature of the proceeding, civil or criminal. Attempts to import to a bridge setting, the common law in these areas, must be premised upon the appropriate legal model. On a collateral issue, the legal concept of "natural justice" typically arises in judicial review of the proceedings and decisions of administrative tribunals. Rules of natural justice include such matters as the right to confront allegations; to question witnesses who give adverse testimony; to make submissions. The circumstance, of an individual who infracts a law and his consequential exposure to or immunity from a penalty, is not a circumstance embraced by generally accepted principles of "natural justice". > > > 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 ~ > > > > Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 03:05:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:05:24 +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 DAA03173 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:05:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025861; 11 Nov 97 15:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:38:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <199711102253.QAA01937@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > I hesitated to make my first-ever posting to this list be a >disagreement with David S., but since I didn't want to hesitate and then >pass.... Hi! Feel free to disagree with me ... > I think natural justice requires ruling against Dallas, >regardless. Good man. [s] >don't have to worry about this. But this doesn't strike me as sufficient >defense for this proposal for interpretation. ... but did you have to write such a convincing post? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 06:53:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:53:24 +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 GAA04414 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:53:17 +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 OAA29249 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09167; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:53:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:53:19 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711111953.OAA09167@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Very odd--every other declarer scored 11 tricks in this contract. By > agreement, 11 tricks are cold in spades, and yet you find it not at all > likely that this declarer, playing in a different set of circumstances than > those that prevailed in reality, might also have done so. The following is not so much a comment on the above as on the whole thread. First, let's have another look at L12C2: the NO's get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Had there not been an illegal 5H bid, the contract would have been 4S. At least we all seem to agree on that! Now declarer, playing 5S, has revoked. Is it likely that the same would have occurred in 4S? Of course in the abstract, it isn't likely that any declarer will revoke on any particular hand, but this particular declarer, on this particular hand, did in fact revoke. Unless there are special circumstances created by the 5H bid (or some other infraction by the opponents), it seems to me quite likely that the same revoke would have occurred in a 4S contract. Thus I would assign +420 to the NO's (leaving aside for a moment Herman's suggestion). What of the offenders? L12C2 says they get "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." The words "had the irregularity not occurred" are significantly absent. I find this one a bit harder. Is it "at all probable" that declarer would have failed to revoke? As Michael says, no other declarer revoked. I would tend to assign -450 to the offenders, basing their score not on the result at this specific table but on the expected result at a "typical" table. I could be convinced this is wrong. What about general principles? David S. says we should be sympathetic to a declarer who never should have been in 5S. I agree with the sympathy, but on the other hand, I think we should allow hands to be played out whenever possible. If declarer had somehow managed to make 12 tricks (the defense revokes?), he would have expected to keep his score. Isn't it fair to make him keep the result if entirely through his own fault he ends up with only ten? Only if the infraction had an effect on the play would I wish to change the NO's score. Adam B. gave the example of a two-way finesse to make eleven tricks. If declarer got it wrong _because of the infraction_ -- perhaps playing the 5H bidder for short spades in order to have a legal 5H bid -- I would give declarer 11 tricks. Otherwise, I would find the "likely" result in 4S the same number of tricks as were actually made in 5S. As above, I might well give the O's a less favorable score if "at all probable." In particular, I would not give them the benefit of declarer's misguessing a two-way finesse, but I would not make them take the score from a line of play that only a rare expert would find. Perhaps a stronger case for sympathy could have been made if the NO's had doubled 5H (or failed to double 5H!) instead of bidding 5S. Suppose +800 is available, but NO's either forget to double or botch the defense. Now they really are in a position wholly different from what would have happened absent an infraction, and I think it's quite right to give them every benefit of doubt. Further, we have no close analogy on which to judge the likely result. On the other hand, the NO's are still in a position to gain if the O's make a mistake, and if we want to "play the hand out" in any sensible way, we should be willing to let them keep the result of an "egregious error" or "wild and gambling action." This is, of course, the Kaplan doctrine. I see how people can disagree with it, but it does seem to me to restore equity. If the opponents break the rules, I want to be back where I was before the infraction, not given an automatic top regardless of what I do. Finally, what of Herman's suggestion? I'm not sure I understand the implications, but I think he wants to assign the NO's MP(+450) - (MP lost by revoke) or alternatively MP(-50) + (MP lost by being in 5S and not 4S). In his example, both of these work out the same as MP(+420), but this is only because the trump suit and declarer are the same in both cases. In general (for example comparing 4S to the result of a misdefended 5H contract), the two formulas give different scores, so which one are we to pick? While I quite like this calculation in principle, I don't see how it would work in practice. Herman, please do let us know if you come to any further conclusion. Sorry to be so long-winded, but there is much food for thought in this "simple" problem. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 09:07:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:07:32 +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 JAA05162 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:07:25 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id WAA13242 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:07:02 GMT Date: Tue, 11 Nov 97 11:53 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: <199711101455.JAA00566@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu wrote: > Suppose that a similar issue comes up when the change is not the result > of an egregious error. For example, say that the eleventh trick > depended on guessing the queen of trumps, and declarer guessed it wrong > in 5S for -50. You obviously adjust, but do you adjust to +420, or to > +450 because half of all declarers in 4S would guess right? Personally I would never adjust to +450 on that basis. However, I would be sympathetic to an NO who claimed that he finessed instead of dropping because he assumed the 5H bid was based on short spades. I would see this as the difference between giving the benefit of the doubt and stretching my credulity beyond its limits. Basically I need a reason to believe that the play would be different. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 09:22:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:22:36 +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 JAA05263 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:22:29 +1100 Received: from mike (ip240.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.240]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17112; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:22:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971111172237.006a2948@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:22:37 -0500 To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <199711111953.OAA09167@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:53 PM 11/11/97 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >The following is not so much a comment on the above as on the whole >thread. > >First, let's have another look at L12C2: the NO's get "the most >favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." > >Had there not been an illegal 5H bid, the contract would have been 4S. >At least we all seem to agree on that! Now declarer, playing 5S, has >revoked. Is it likely that the same would have occurred in 4S? Of >course in the abstract, it isn't likely that any declarer will revoke >on any particular hand, but this particular declarer, on this >particular hand, did in fact revoke. When we engage in the required exercise of evaluating possible outcomes absent the infraction, we are entering the domain of the contrafactual and hypothetical. It doesn't get any more abstract than that. What factor or combination of factors caused the actual declarer to revoke? You don't know, and of course I don't know. Then how come you (and Eric too) can be so confident that in a different contract, after a different auction, possibly with a different lead, and the declarer in any case undistracted by the non-infraction, all of the necessary factors would still apply to cause the same revoke? It takes no stretch of the imagination to see that declarer may well have been distracted by the infraction, even absent any hostile exchanges, to the point that his concentration could have been impaired. It is equally conceivable that a weak declarer would feel more flustered and under greater pressure in the 11-trick contract than in the 10-trick contract. Thus there is a perfect plausible (might I even say, "likely") causal chain between the infraction and the revoke. But that's not really the point. The artificial requirement for such a link has no basis, either in the Law or in simple logic. In the necessarily abstract process of evaluating alternative outcomes, we should evaluate the hand itself, perhaps the outcome at other tables, certainly the abilities of the players involved, and the facts at this table, in order to come up with the possibilities. If we do that in the present case, it becomes impossible to ignore 11 tricks as at least one of the likely outcomes. Bear in mind that the relevant law does not rquire that we determine the most likely outcome, but the most favorable from among the likely outcomes. The wording seems to anticipate that in the general case we could expect to find more than one likely outcome, and indeed that's what we have in the present instance. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 09:52:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:52:35 +1100 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 JAA05436 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:52:16 +1100 Received: from default (client8770.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.112]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA26095; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:50:20 GMT Message-Id: <199711112250.WAA26095@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:51:14 -0000 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 : Having come late to the party I missed the original question. Something about broken necks? I surmise that in a competitive auction a NO side has bid to 4Spades, an opponent has used UI to bid 5 Hearts and NO has freely judged to bid Five Spades - no-one forced him to do so. This turns out to be well judged, a simple contract, but declarer revoked and the penalty held him to ten tricks. Right? This has led to a lot of discussion about adjusted scores. *What* adjusted scores? According to my law book, Section 16A2, the Director is authorized to award an adjusted score "if he considers that an infraction of law" - here use of UI - "has resulted in damage". The pre-requisite of damage is restated in Law 73F2. The NO side was quite happily in a perfectly good contract despite the opponent's infraction; no damage whatsoever had resulted until declarer revoked. The only damage he has suffered is from his own revoke. I can find no basis in the laws by which either side would be given *an adjusted score*. What, then, of the infraction - use of UI to bid 5 Hearts? Well, the player is in breach of Laws 73C and 72A1. The Director may apply a procedural penalty for the offence; surprisingly this may perhaps reduce offender's score by at least as much as he gained on the board against the field. ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Nexus broken? > Date: 10 November 1997 14:43 > > At 11:55 AM 11/9/97 -0000, David wrote: > > >No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing > >else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus > >420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. > > Well, this is the heart of the debate. IMO, I don't see how you can say > that "the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus 420", and > then go on to argue that the fact that you were minus 50 insteads of plus > 420 was not the result of the infraction. > > \\\much snipped/// From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 11:16:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:16:24 +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 LAA05740 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:16:12 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025774; 12 Nov 97 0:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:50:50 +0000 To: "Grant C. Sterling" Cc: Bridgelaws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <199711102253.QAA01937@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199711102253.QAA01937@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, "Grant C. Sterling" writes ..........................(much cut at the end).............. > I hesitated to make my first-ever posting to this list be a >disagreement with David S., but since I didn't want to hesitate and then >pass.... > >> The thing that seems wrong to me about the Kaplan doctrine, and the >> whole NAmerican approach to causality, is the apparent notion that B is >> caused by A. >> In fact, of course, it is not true. Suppose an opponent commits an >> infraction: as a result you are in a situation that you would not be in >> without the infraction. You now do something really stupid [an >> egregious error!!]. People say that your result now is a result of the >> error and *not* the infraction, but ***they are wrong***. > > So here we have the first point of contention: DS is saying that >the doctrine of causality is wrong. > >> How do you test whether something is a result of something else? You >> take the original thing away, and see whether the result is still there. >> Are men the cause of babies? Remove the men, and see whether you get >> any babies! Labeo: For example, take the revoke away. ------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 Wed Nov 12 11:18:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:18:07 +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 LAA05762 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:18:02 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1019608; 11 Nov 97 23:21 GMT Message-ID: <9tV6sJA5oAa0Ew9p@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:33:13 +0000 To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3466D607.2FB7@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3466D607.2FB7@uni-duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes >Hi >David Stevenson wrote: >>=20 >> David Burn wrote [some snipped]: >>=20 >> >No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing >> >else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus >> >420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. (cut) >> Richard Bley wrote: >Hey. That=B4s not so easy. The parents of the murderer are not responsible >for his killing arent they? But if they wouldnt have get a baby, there >would be no murderer. This things are not just a case of technical >causes, it=B4s a matter of judging.=20 > Labeo: There is a question as to how much the parents knew about the fact that they were getting the world another murderer. Possibly the 'parent' in the Nexus problem knew rather more about what his action would lead to? ------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) =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 12:37:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:37:26 +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 MAA06042 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:37:19 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017254; 12 Nov 97 1:33 GMT Message-ID: <7jbt8ECKePa0EwNC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:25:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <199711112250.WAA26095@sand.global.net.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >I surmise that in a competitive auction a NO side has bid to 4Spades, an >opponent has used UI to bid 5 Hearts and NO has freely judged to bid Five >Spades - no-one forced him to do so. This turns out to be well judged, a >simple contract, but declarer revoked and the penalty held him to ten tricks. >Right? > This has led to a lot of discussion about adjusted scores. *What* adjusted >scores? According to my law book, Section 16A2, the Director is authorized >to award an adjusted score "if he considers that an infraction of law" - here >use >of UI - "has resulted in damage". The pre-requisite of damage is restated in Law >73F2. >The NO side was quite happily in a perfectly good contract despite the >opponent's >infraction; no damage whatsoever had resulted until declarer revoked. The only >damage he has suffered is from his own revoke. I can find no basis in the laws >by >which either side would be given *an adjusted score*. I do not believe it to be as simple as a matter of *Law*. Of course damage is required to adjust. But the question that needs addressing is: What is damage? Without the infraction let us assume that the player would have made +420 [ignoring the by-path being discussed over *whether* we assume he would have revoked in a different contract] and with the infraction he scored -50. Please explain why the infraction has not resulted in damage. -- 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 Nov 12 12:39:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:39:04 +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 MAA06061 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:38:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017253; 12 Nov 97 1:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 01:10:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3466D607.2FB7@uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk **** Forwarded from David Burn **** David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn wrote [some snipped]: > >>No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing >>else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus >>420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. > >I just cannot see this. When a thing would not have happened if >something else had not occurred then it is a result of that first >occurrence. > Not for practical purposes it isn't. Tony Blair would not be Prime Minister if Germany had won the Second World War. But, as far as I know, nobody is blaming Adolf Hitler for fixing tobacco sponorship in Grand Prix racing. "If X, then Y" is equivalent to "if not Y, then not X" only in the minds of logicians. The rest of us are concerned with the directeness of the connection between X and Y. >>See above. But there comes a point, as Kaplan asserted, where for the >>purposes of providing redress, there must be a sufficiently close >>connection between the infraction and the damage. In his opinion (and >>in mine), that connection ceases to exist for the present purpose once >>it becomes apparent that declarer has eleven top tricks in five >>spades. To put this another way: at the point where East bids 5S, >>there is the possibility that his having been forced to the five level >>will damage his side. Once the dummy is spread, however, that >>possibility no longer exists. That it should mysteriously be reborn >>because declarer revokes does not appear logical. > >Damage is considered at the end of the hand. Why? Which Law (to use a wholly specious argument, but you will recognise the rhetorical device involved) says so? At the point where EW reach a laydown 5S, they have in no way been damaged by the (putative) infraction. At the point where they go down in 5S because of East's revoke, there is no suggestion that the revoke was linked in some way to, or caused by, the infraction of taking advantage of UI. (Arguments about East becoming temporarily deranged because of his concern about the possible infraction are hogwash, and can safely be dismissed as such.) Suppose that 420 was a match-point bottom anyway (everyone else was plus 450 in 4S). There is, as far as I can see, no vestige of a case for awarding EW anything but a bottom - but as far as I understand your arguments, you would give them an average. >>I wonder how many share this view. It appears to me wholly repugnant >>for players to be in a position where they can more or less do what >>they like, however absurd; if it succeeds, they keep their good >>result, if it fails, they summon the Director. > > As I have said, it is normal in other sports: they do not find it >repugnant. I dislike the general idea of confronting someone with a >situation that he will only be confronted with when someone has broken >the laws and telling him to get it right: that is repugnant to me. > Nobody is telling anyone to do anything. As it happened, EW were cold for 5S. As it happened, they did not make it. We'd have forgiven them for failing to spot a backwash squeeze, and we'd have given them 420. Or at any rate, some of us would. But to let them off a revoke... >>>An infraction has occurred, and I fail >>>to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later >>>egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very >>>strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. >> >>Indeed it is. I am not sure, however, why DWS believes that breaches >>of Law 44C should be treated as special cases... > >Very clever, David, and not your normal style of arguing at all. You >know I neither said nor meant this. As to "said", I did not alter your original message in any shape, manner or form. Nor, as far as I could tell, did I quote out of context. To do so, as you point out, is not my style. As to "meant", I was as bewildered as I have ever been, but reading your message as closely as I could, I reached only the conclusion that you believed EW +450 an equitable result. This is lunatic, and no doubt the result of some temporary aberration, but is in any case not germane to the principal argument. > >>>It certainly seems contrary to natural justice. In my view the only >>ruling >>>on the board in question that accords to natural justice is +450, >>>applied to both sides. Well, at least I read what you had said. My credulity snapped at this point, and I apologise if my subsequent remarks seemed uncharitable. There is absolutely no way in which the revoking side is entitled to 450. >>...so that NS are penalised for breaking Laws 16 and 73, while EW are >>not penalised at all for breaking Law 44. While the rest of DWS's >>argument is powerfully expressed and carries much conviction, this is >>simply nonsense. Why should I not pay the revoke penalty just because >>my opponents may have employed UI? > Echo answers, why? > Because we take the bidding/play back to the original infraction and >make a judgement from that time. Not good enough. Not by a very long way. >>>All well and good, but as I can hear the hounds baying at me from the >>>next field back, I freely admit that our job is to interpret and >>apply >>>the rules that exist and ignore natural justice! [By rules I mean >>laws >>>plus regulations.] So let's consider the laws. Which one says that >>you >>>are required to play bridge after an irregularity? > >>None. Which Law says that you are required to play bridge before an >>irregularity? It is axiomatic in all forms of serious competition that >>players strive to give their best at all times, in accordance with the >>laws of the game. > > Axiomatic, certainly: irrelevant, maybe. Few forms of serious >competition require you not to make mistakes when your opponent has >committed an infraction that requires redress. The "advantage rule" argument again. It's persuasive, but flawed - you can be run out off a no ball, and stumped off a wide. The real point is that bridge not only fails to have the advantage rule, but explicitly states that it fails to do so. Nothing that is axiomatic can be irrelevant (ex def). >>>I believe that the various Laws authorities should reconsider their >>>approach to this interpretation. In the case we considered, there >>were >>>two causes of a score of -50, as we discovered earlier: the UI and >>the >>>misplay. Let us change the interpretation so that the TD adjusts if >>an >>>infraction of law is *one* of the causes of the damage. Let us allow >>>the double-shot at the double-shotter's risk. >> >>Let's not. The double shot is one of the most invidious forms of >>bridge lawyering, and I had formed the impression that thanks to >>Kaplan's ideas, much good work had been done in removing it from the >>game. The awful regression implied in DWS's message would, to my way >>of thinking, be simply intolerable. > > Possibly. But if it was quite clearly legal, and people told so, it >would not be Bridge Lawyering so much as the way the game is played. > Now, there I whole-heartedly agree with you. If everyone knew the rules, then your job and mine would be a damned sight easier. As I have often said to Max, the penalty for a revoke should be death. After a while, the game would be played only by people who could follow suit, and we would have no need of a great chunk of the Laws, >>>I believe this would be >>>fairer, would be more in line with natural justice and follow the >>>precedents set by other sports. If you infract, you suffer. >> >> >>But not, apparently, if you revoke. "The Laws are primarily designed >>not as punishment for irregularities, but as redress for damage." >>(Scope and Interpretation of the Laws). There is no mention of >>"suffering". > > You know that I did not say this about revoking. No, I don't. I noted only that you were prepared to give the revoker 450 anyway. This was so absurd that...well, words rather fail me. >I grant you that the >Scope does argue against my approach, however. > Maybe. As I have said, my reaction is subjective, and the weight of opinion appears to be on your side. I don't often contribute directly to BLML; I listen, and I try to learn. >>As to causality, I have no wish to become embroiled in deep >>philosophical argument. Read David Hume for details, if you like. But >>it seems to me obvious that there must come a point at which redress >>for damage is given only if the damage was the direct cause of the >>infraction, not linked to it by a gossamer thread that appears and >>disappears. Suppose I open 1NT, get doubled, and go for 1100. Now I >>call the TD and claim that my opponent was in breach of Law 6B because >>he dealt the cards two at a time. If he'd dealt them singly, we would >>all have had completely different hands, and my bad result would never >>have occurred. It is unarguable that my being dealt a 1NT opening that >>incurred a massive penalty was "caused" by my opponent's infraction >>(as well as by my bidding methods). Do you think my result should >>stand? > > You have produced a dissimilar case. Let me "level the playing >field". Assume that TDs cancel a board when hands are dealt this way as >a matter of routine. Then, the only reason not to cancel your score >would be L11A. In fact you could make your example totally similar to >the quoted one by you calling the TD after the deal. He tells you to >play the board out while he consults [he's new!]. > > The board will be scratched. I don't think you have understood the analogy. The board won't be scratched, nor should it be, nor would I wish it to be. The point is this: you can't appeal a bad result because the Big Bang "caused" it to happen. There has to be a more direct connection than that. With best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 14:08:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:08:02 +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 OAA06273 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:07:56 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1012604; 12 Nov 97 3:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:58:58 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <7jbt8ECKePa0EwNC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <7jbt8ECKePa0EwNC@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>I surmise that in a competitive auction a NO side has bid to 4Spades, an >>opponent has used UI to bid 5 Hearts and NO has freely judged to bid Five >>Spades - no-one forced him to do so. This turns out to be well judged, a >>simple contract, but declarer revoked and the penalty held him to ten tricks. >>Right? >> This has led to a lot of discussion about adjusted scores. *What* adjusted >>scores? According to my law book, Section 16A2, the Director is authorized >>to award an adjusted score "if he considers that an infraction of law" - here >>use >>of UI - "has resulted in damage". The pre-requisite of damage is restated in >Law >>73F2. >>The NO side was quite happily in a perfectly good contract despite the >>opponent's >>infraction; no damage whatsoever had resulted until declarer revoked. The only >>damage he has suffered is from his own revoke. I can find no basis in the laws >>by >>which either side would be given *an adjusted score*. > > I do not believe it to be as simple as a matter of *Law*. Of course >damage is required to adjust. But the question that needs addressing >is: What is damage? > > Without the infraction let us assume that the player would have made >+420 [ignoring the by-path being discussed over *whether* we assume he >would have revoked in a different contract] and with the infraction he >scored -50. Please explain why the infraction has not resulted in >damage. > Still with you David. As I said 420, 420, 420, 420, 420 -- 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 Nov 12 14:10:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:10:06 +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 OAA06293 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:09:50 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2025091; 12 Nov 97 3:06 GMT Message-ID: <3M6M$SByzRa0EwPd@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:05:22 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > >**** Forwarded from David Burn **** > > >David Stevenson wrote: >>David Burn wrote [some snipped]: >> >I don't think you have understood the analogy. The board won't be >scratched, nor should it be, nor would I wish it to be. The point is >this: you can't appeal a bad result because the Big Bang "caused" it >to happen. There has to be a more direct connection than that. > >With best wishes > >David > > Still batting with David (he *must* owe me one by now). If the p*****ks hadn't bid 5H (which they're not allowed to) NS would have scored 420. I do not even begin to comprehend the metaphysical crap I have seen for the last 7 days. NS *would* *have* *made* *at* *least* *420* *except* *that* *the *p*****ks* *bid* *5H*. What is the problem? -- 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 Nov 12 14:11:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:11:20 +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 OAA06335 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:11:05 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025093; 12 Nov 97 3:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:55:26 +0000 To: Grattan Endicott Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List , Eric Landau From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <199711112250.WAA26095@sand.global.net.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199711112250.WAA26095@sand.global.net.uk>, Grattan Endicott writes >gester@globalnet.co.uk >Grattan Endicott >Liverpool L18 8DJ : > Having come late to the party I missed the original question. Something >about broken necks? >I surmise that in a competitive auction a NO side has bid to 4Spades, an >opponent has used UI to bid 5 Hearts and NO has freely judged to bid Five >Spades - no-one forced him to do so. This turns out to be well judged, a >simple contract, but declarer revoked and the penalty held him to ten tricks. >Right? > This has led to a lot of discussion about adjusted scores. *What* adjusted >scores? According to my law book, Section 16A2, the Director is authorized >to award an adjusted score "if he considers that an infraction of law" - here >use >of UI - "has resulted in damage". The pre-requisite of damage is restated in Law >73F2. >The NO side was quite happily in a perfectly good contract despite the >opponent's >infraction; no damage whatsoever had resulted until declarer revoked. The only >damage he has suffered is from his own revoke. I can find no basis in the laws >by >which either side would be given *an adjusted score*. > What, then, of the infraction - use of UI to bid 5 Hearts? Well, the player is >in >breach of Laws 73C and 72A1. The Director may apply a procedural penalty for >the >offence; surprisingly this may perhaps reduce offender's score by at least as >much >as he gained on the board against the field. Without the UI bid declarer would have made 4S for +420. Are you *seriously* trying to take that away?. Come on Grattan. What you do to the offenders is another matter > >---------- >> From: Eric Landau >> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >> Subject: Re: Nexus broken? >> Date: 10 November 1997 14:43 >> >> At 11:55 AM 11/9/97 -0000, David wrote: >> >> >No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing >> >else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus >> >420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. >> >> Well, this is the heart of the debate. IMO, I don't see how you can say >> that "the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus 420", and >> then go on to argue that the fact that you were minus 50 insteads of plus >> 420 was not the result of the infraction. >> >> \\\much snipped/// -- 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 Nov 12 14:13:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:13:58 +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 OAA06368 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:13:43 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012606; 12 Nov 97 3:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:57:15 +0000 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971111172237.006a2948@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19971111172237.006a2948@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 02:53 PM 11/11/97 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > >>The following is not so much a comment on the above as on the whole >>thread. >> >>First, let's have another look at L12C2: the NO's get "the most >>favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." >> >>Had there not been an illegal 5H bid, the contract would have been 4S. >>At least we all seem to agree on that! Now declarer, playing 5S, has >>revoked. Is it likely that the same would have occurred in 4S? Of >>course in the abstract, it isn't likely that any declarer will revoke >>on any particular hand, but this particular declarer, on this >>particular hand, did in fact revoke. > >When we engage in the required exercise of evaluating possible outcomes >absent the infraction, we are entering the domain of the contrafactual and >hypothetical. It doesn't get any more abstract than that. > >What factor or combination of factors caused the actual declarer to revoke? >You don't know, and of course I don't know. Then how come you (and Eric >too) can be so confident that in a different contract, after a different >auction, possibly with a different lead, and the declarer in any case >undistracted by the non-infraction, all of the necessary factors would >still apply to cause the same revoke? > >It takes no stretch of the imagination to see that declarer may well have >been distracted by the infraction, even absent any hostile exchanges, to >the point that his concentration could have been impaired. It is equally >conceivable that a weak declarer would feel more flustered and under >greater pressure in the 11-trick contract than in the 10-trick contract. >Thus there is a perfect plausible (might I even say, "likely") causal chain >between the infraction and the revoke. But that's not really the point. The >artificial requirement for such a link has no basis, either in the Law or >in simple logic. > >In the necessarily abstract process of evaluating alternative outcomes, we >should evaluate the hand itself, perhaps the outcome at other tables, >certainly the abilities of the players involved, and the facts at this >table, in order to come up with the possibilities. If we do that in the >present case, it becomes impossible to ignore 11 tricks as at least one of >the likely outcomes. > >Bear in mind that the relevant law does not rquire that we determine the >most likely outcome, but the most favorable from among the likely outcomes. >The wording seems to anticipate that in the general case we could expect to >find more than one likely outcome, and indeed that's what we have in the >present instance. > >Mike Dennis As I said, you could argue that declare is seriously p****d off with the 5H bid and revoked consequently. I don't buy it, but I hear the argument -- 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 Nov 12 14:16:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:16:50 +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 OAA06393 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:16:42 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025089; 12 Nov 97 3:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:51:58 +0000 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <199711101455.JAA00566@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> >David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu wrote: >> Suppose that a similar issue comes up when the change is not the result >> of an egregious error. For example, say that the eleventh trick >> depended on guessing the queen of trumps, and declarer guessed it wrong >> in 5S for -50. You obviously adjust, but do you adjust to +420, or to >> +450 because half of all declarers in 4S would guess right? >Personally I would never adjust to +450 on that basis. However, I would >be sympathetic to an NO who claimed that he finessed instead of dropping >because he assumed the 5H bid was based on short spades. I would see this >as the difference between giving the benefit of the doubt and stretching >my credulity beyond its limits. Basically I need a reason to believe that >the play would be different. > >Tim West-Meads > Concur -- 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 Nov 12 14:41:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:41:16 +1100 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 OAA06502 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:41:11 +1100 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 OAA26497; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:41:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.55.88.85]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA29589; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:40:51 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:40:51 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199711120340.OAA29589@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:53 PM 11/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> Very odd--every other declarer scored 11 tricks in this contract. By >> agreement, 11 tricks are cold in spades, and yet you find it not at all >> likely that this declarer, playing in a different set of circumstances than >> those that prevailed in reality, might also have done so. > Then Steve Willner replied (inter alia):> > >What of the offenders? L12C2 says they get "the most unfavorable >result that was at all probable." The words "had the irregularity >not occurred" are significantly absent. > >I find this one a bit harder. Is it "at all probable" that declarer >would have failed to revoke? As Michael says, no other declarer >revoked. I would tend to assign -450 to the offenders, basing their >score not on the result at this specific table but on the expected >result at a "typical" table. I could be convinced this is wrong. > This seems to me to be an excellent point, and a nice interpretation of L12C2. Stand firm Steve, I think we may have them on the run. Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 19:49:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:49:39 +1100 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 TAA07649 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:49:05 +1100 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:47:48 +0100 Message-ID: <34696D66.2F5F@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:48:38 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? References: <9tV6sJA5oAa0Ew9p@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: > >> >No, they are not. The result is caused by the error, and by nothing= > >> >else. That the infraction caused you to be minus 50 instead of plus= > >> >420 as a consequence of your error is true but irrelevant. > = > >> Richard Bley wrote: > >Hey. That=B4s not so easy. The parents of the murderer are not > responsible > >for his killing arent they? But if they wouldnt have get a baby, there= > >would be no murderer. This things are not just a case of technical > >causes, it=B4s a matter of judging. > > > Labeo: There is a question as to how much the parents knew about the= > fact that they were getting the world another murderer. Possibly the > 'parent' in the Nexus problem knew rather more about what his action > would lead to? > = This is not so easy. Even if they had the knowledge of getting the world another murderer this is only mind-stuff. It is social adequate (at least up to now...) to get babies and nobody can be penalized for this behaviour. Cheers -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 20:45:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:45:47 +1100 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 UAA07880 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:45:40 +1100 Received: from default (client85fe.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.254]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA12273 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:45:38 GMT Message-Id: <199711120945.JAA12273@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Correction Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:48:30 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : In my message of 11Nov1997 22:51:14 hours +0000 Correction: for '73F2' read '73F'. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 21:59:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:59:44 +1100 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 VAA08124 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:59:31 +1100 Received: from default (client879c.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.156]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA17862; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:59:30 GMT Message-Id: <199711121059.KAA17862@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:01:32 -0000 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 : Let us not assume any such irrelevant thing. NO is in 5Spades because he has elected of his own free will to bid it. Until he revokes he is not damaged by his judgement to bid it. The action of opponent has *not* obliged him to bid at this level, there were other actions available to him; he is there because he has judged to be there and for that he must accept the responsibility. He must also take the blame for his own revoke and its effects; stop the action immediately prior to the revoke and he is not damaged; if he had claimed at that point no-one could suggest damage. There is only damage because of the revoke and opponent's infraction has nothing to do with that parallel occurrence at all. What we have here is an outburst of sentiment and sympathy (and muddled thinking) on the part of the director who wants to adjust the score but those feelings are not written into the laws of the game. Read Law 12B. > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Nexus broken? > Date: 12 November 1997 00:25 > > Grattan Endicott wrote:> and DS then wrote: Without the infraction let us assume that the player would have made > +420 [ignoring the by-path being discussed over *whether* we assume he > would have revoked in a different contract] and with the infraction he > scored -50. Please explain why the infraction has not resulted in > damage. \\A LOT TAKEN AWAY// From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 12 22:43:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:43:04 +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 WAA08359 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:42:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2025104; 12 Nov 97 10:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:55:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >> Because we take the bidding/play back to the original infraction >and >>make a judgement from that time. > >Not good enough. Not by a very long way. This approach is analogous to playing on after a claim, which is deemed irrelevant. In both cases the TD/AC works out what he/she/they think will/may/might happen from the point of claim/infraction. What *did* happen is not really relevant, as the wording of L12C2 and L68D makes clear. -- 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 Nov 12 23:16:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:16:46 +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 XAA08523 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:16:40 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-47.innet.be [194.7.10.47]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29645 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:16:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3469870A.F9210399@innet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:38:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199711111953.OAA09167@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > which one are we to pick? While I quite like this calculation in > principle, I don't see how it would work in practice. Herman, please > do let us know if you come to any further conclusion. > Please be patient, I have written a long article, and I now want to go through all your comments to see if there's anything else I could add. (such as some of the things Steve wrote in this very fine article) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 13 00:17:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:17:29 +1100 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 AAA11069 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:17:20 +1100 Received: from default (client840a.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.10]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA29612; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:17:15 GMT Message-Id: <199711121317.NAA29612@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grant C. Sterling" Cc: Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:18:34 -0000 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 have read your distinguished thesis with much interest. It talks of 'justice' and 'natural justice', but these concepts in their external senses are foreign to the playing of the game. In duplicate bridge justice lies in the application of the rules of the game by which we all agree to play when we participate. By 'rules' I mean the laws of duplicate bridge and regulations authorized to be made under those laws. The rules state how the game is to be played and they place certain duties and limitations upon the players. They make provision to exclude effects of extraneous matters upon the game. They provide remedies and penalties for actions not within the prescriptions of the rules. The appropriate subjects for debate in this discussion group fall into two main configurations. One is the application of the laws to a variety of occurrences or experiences. In this area the question is not what is 'fair' in concept but what is fair in the appropriate application of the rules. If the rules are correctly applied no player has grounds for complaint since he has consented to play according to those rules. The other area appropriate for discussion is how the rules operate, whether they operate equitably, and what changes in the rules may be desirable. But until they are changed - and the processes are normally slow - the game continues to be played according to the rules as they are. Directors are instructed to seek to achieve equity but only by use of the powers granted them in the laws and only by remaining within the scope of the laws as they currently exist. Good directors find ways and means, but good directors do not seek to apply their sympathies as though they constituted law. In the game of duplicate bridge (and likely in any other game) this state of affairs *is* justice. ---------- > From: Grant C. Sterling > To: Bridgelaws > Subject: Re: Nexus broken? > Date: 10 November 1997 22:53 > > I hesitated to make my first-ever posting to this list be a > disagreement with David S., but since I didn't want to hesitate and then > pass.... > > > The thing that seems wrong to me about the Kaplan doctrine, and the > > whole NAmerican approach to causality, is the apparent notion that B is > > caused by A. There seems a feeling that in some cases damage is caused > > by an infraction, and in some cases it is caused by something else and > > not the infraction. In the latter case, of course, there would be no > > redress because redress requires the damage to be the result of the > > infraction. > > > > In fact, of course, it is not true. Suppose an opponent commits an > > infraction: as a result you are in a situation that you would not be in > > without the infraction. You now do something really stupid [an > > egregious error!!]. People say that your result now is a result of the > > error and *not* the infraction, but ***they are wrong***. > > So here we have the first point of contention: DS is saying that > the doctrine of causality is wrong. > > > How do you test whether something is a result of something else? You > > take the original thing away, and see whether the result is still there. > > Are men the cause of babies? Remove the men, and see whether you get > > any babies! > > Except that, unless you're a very strange sort of Aristotelean, you > surely accept that it takes things _other than_ men to make babies, and so > in some contexts it is not the man which is the relevant cause at all. > This is what the Kaplan doctrine claims--there are cases in which an > infraction is not _relevant_ to the result, even if in some sense or other > of the word it is a "cause". [Just as one does not usually list "the > presence of oxygen in the atmosphere" as the cause of a fire.] > > > Let us consider our original case. Without the UI, the contract would > > have been 4S. With the UI, the contract was 5S. 11 tricks were easy, > > 10 were stupid, 10 were made. Was the result of -50 the result of the > > UI? If there had been no UI the result would have been +420 or +450 [as > > someone else has pointed out, feelings sometimes run high, and that > > might be a cause of the silly play]. Let's say that it would have been > > +420. What caused the -50? Most people will say that it was caused by > > the stupidity of the play - and they will be right! However, if there > > had been no infraction, the score would not have been -50, just as if > > there had been no egregious error it would not have been -50, so the -50 > > was *also* a result of the infraction. > > Here I agree. It seems to me that the Kaplan doctrine should be > applied to this case, but only to argue for 420 rather than 450. I can > see a clear case for saying that the infraction didn't cause the revoke, > but if not for the infraction the revoke would have only caused a 30-point > change.... > > > Last weekend my American Football team, the San Francisco 49ers, > > played their arch-rivals, the Dallas Cowboys [and won after Dallas had > > led for most of the match - wahey!]. At one point the 49ers' > > I think natural justice requires ruling against Dallas, > regardless. > > > Dallas. This gave him a "free play": he could try a dangerous play: if > > it worked the penalty would be declined: if it failed, the penalty would > > be accepted. A classic double shot. He actually threw it to one of his > > players who was well guarded. The player didn't catch it, the Cowboy > > did intercept, the play cost nothing, the penalty was gratefully > > accepted and the 49ers still had the ball. > > Fine, let us accept your analogy. But even this sport requires > one to continue to play, in a fashion. What football does _not_ do is say > "There's a penalty--stop play immediately. We will now call a committee > to judge what is the most favorable result at all likely for the Niners. > Given the skill of their quarterback, that result is touchdown--ergo, this > is a touchdown. Now _in fact_ the pass was not caught for a touchdown, > but that was _subsequent to the infraction_ and so resulted from the > infraction, and so is irrelevant." Further, if the Niners had _themselves > committed an infraction_ during the course of the play [if, say, they had > revoked] that infraction would have _cancelled out_ the Dallas infraction > and the play would have been run over. So football allows a double-shot, > but still requires that one execute the double-shot well in order to truly > profit by it. > > > In bridge, I really do not see what is wrong with someone trying for > > the double shot *at all*. An infraction has occurred, and I fail > > to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later > > egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very > > strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. It > > certainly seems contrary to natural justice. In my view the only ruling > > on the board in question that accords to natural justice is +450, > > applied to both sides. > > I disagree. For us to establish justice, we need to have some > idea of what the result "would have been" if the infraction had not been > committed. In this case, there is very good reason to think that the > result would have been +420. So if we rule that, we will have restored > justice. +450 requires us to think that the infraction prevented a real > +450 result--and frankly declarer that revokes to kill a cold +450 might > have botched 4 spades, or bid 6 diamonds on a 3-1 fit for all we know. If > it's natural justice we're talking about, that's relevant. > > > All well and good, but as I can hear the hounds baying at me from the > > next field back, I freely admit that our job is to interpret and apply > > the rules that exist and ignore natural justice! [By rules I mean laws > > plus regulations.] So let's consider the laws. Which one says that you > > are required to play bridge after an irregularity? > > This is a separate question. [An important one, but clearly > _different_ from the causality question above.] > > > The answer in my view is that there is *no* law that says so. What > > there is is an interpretation of a Law that implies it. L16A2 includes > > the words "... standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he > > considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage". It seems > > to me that it is merely the interpretation of this Law that is in > > question. > > It seems an obvious interpretation of the law, though. We must > show that _the infraction_ resulted in damage. I think it is obvious that > we can make a distinction in principle between infractions that result in > damage and those that don't. > > While many seem to worry about the "double shot", that isn't what > I think is the danger of a different interpretation of the rules. What I > worry about is _ex post facto_ rules lawyering. Someone hesitates on the > first round of the auction, and his partner makes a questionable call. I > am playing against them, and reach a perfectly normal contract that I > almost certainly would have reached anyway. I misplay it--or worse, I > play it correctly but this is a hand where superior percentage play > doesn't work. Now I call for adjudication {or maybe I called earlier in > preparation for this} on the grounds that I have been damaged by the > infraction, even though I am in the right contract and made the right > play. After all, I argue, _everything subsequent to an infraction was > caused by it_, even though I cannot identify any way that the final > contract or my play of it was affected at all. I do not think we should > interpret law in such a way that it encourages people to _look for_ all > possible offenses, even minor ones having no effect on the outcome, so > that all bad results should be "called back". In a time when we are > worried about people being driven away from bridge, _this_ sort of rules > lawyering {legal or otherwise} strikes me as damaging to the image of > bridge. Granted, if we never hesitate, or never make a call that could > possibly be construed as using UI, or never misexplain a call, etc., we > don't have to worry about this. But this doesn't strike me as sufficient > defense for this proposal for interpretation. > > > 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 ~ > > > > Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 13 01:55:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:55:13 +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 BAA11498 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:55:02 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id OAA23455 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:54:42 GMT Date: Wed, 12 Nov 97 14:53 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: <199711121059.KAA17862@sand.global.net.uk> I am surprised at the variety of opinions expressed on this thread even after so much discussion, so to indulge my curiosity I thought I'd try a quick poll (EMail:twm@cix.co.uk). The setting (which may, or may not, bear any resemblance to the original): South bids 5S after East, who is known to be a highly ethical player, bids 5H after a hesitation by West. As TD you decide that the 5H bid was a difficult borderline decision but cannot quite be justified after the UI. 5H* would have been -300 on best defence. Imps nv-nv. South makes ten tricks in 5S because: a) He misses the "obvious" backwash squeeze b) He draws a premature round of trumps and fails to get a ruff in dummy c) He is in dummy with Sx,-,-,xxx opposite Sx,-,-,AQ9 and finesses the CQ d) He plays a side suit to be 3-2 instead of taking a double finesse e) He doesn't take a safety play with K9xx opposite AJxx f) He counts dummy's 6 timer as a 5 timer and takes an unnecessary finesse g) He mistimes the use of his entries h) He calls for a card from dummy (when in hand) and it is accepted i) He doesn't realise the C6 is high after two rounds j) He forgets to draw the last trump (due to a "black-on-black" discard) k) He revokes l) He concedes one down when cashing his trumps would have created an automatic squeeze I'd like to know how people would adjust (if at all) in each case. If enough people reply I promise to post the results. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 13 02:30:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:30:38 +1100 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 CAA11776 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:30:26 +1100 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA16700 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA24219; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:12:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:12:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711121512.KAA24219@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> > >>It takes no stretch of the imagination to see that declarer may well have >>been distracted by the infraction, even absent any hostile exchanges, to >>the point that his concentration could have been impaired. It is equally >>conceivable that a weak declarer would feel more flustered and under >>greater pressure in the 11-trick contract than in the 10-trick contract. >>Thus there is a perfect plausible (might I even say, "likely") causal chain >>between the infraction and the revoke. But that's not really the point. The >>artificial requirement for such a link has no basis, either in the Law or >>in simple logic. >> >>Mike Dennis >> >At the point at which declarer revoked, there had been *no infraction*. >It had yet to be determined whether or not UI had been used. Yes, the >declarer may have been upset/annoyed/miffed or whatever, but if >his lack of emotional control resulted in the revoke, then that is his >own tough luck. If it is later found that there had been an infraction >(use of UI), I can see no basis in logic for the NOs to state, >"See? I knew he infracted, which caused me to get upset and revoke/ >misplay; I therefore deserve redress!" > Tony (aka ac342) > >ps. as for the question at hand, +420/-420 seems quite reasonable. >pps. yes, I know "infracted" isn't a "real" word. :-) > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 13 03:02:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:02:52 +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 DAA11935 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:02:46 +1100 Received: from cph12.ppp.dknet.dk (cph12.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.12]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA08276 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:02:35 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:02:36 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3477cfd6.3664339@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:55:26 +0000, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >Without the UI bid declarer would have made 4S for +420. Are you >*seriously* trying to take that away?. Come on Grattan. What you do to >the offenders is another matter I don't think it should be another matter. The laws allow us to adjust for the offenders only if their irregularity has caused "damage to an innocent opponent" (L73F). So surely we cannot do that (legally) and then not adjust for the NOs with the excuse that we consider their bad result to be caused not by the irregularity, but by their own error following the irregularity. The current split-score practice seems to be based on the following strange (lack of) logic: The offenders damaged the NOs, so we adjust for the offenders. However, the NOs were not damaged, so we do not adjust for them. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 13 04:02:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:02:12 +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 EAA12426 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:02:04 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002418; 12 Nov 97 16:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:41:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <199711121059.KAA17862@sand.global.net.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > Let us not assume any such irrelevant thing. NO is in 5Spades > because he has elected of his own free will to bid it. Until he revokes >he is not damaged by his judgement to bid it. The action of opponent >has *not* obliged him to bid at this level, there were other actions >available to him; he is there because he has judged to be there and >for that he must accept the responsibility. He must also take the >blame for his own revoke and its effects; stop the action immediately >prior to the revoke and he is not damaged; if he had claimed at that >point no-one could suggest damage. There is only damage because >of the revoke and opponent's infraction has nothing to do with that >parallel occurrence at all. >What we have here is an outburst of sentiment and sympathy (and >muddled thinking) on the part of the director who wants to adjust the >score but those feelings are not written into the laws of the game. >Read Law 12B. While the actions of opponents have not obliged him to bid 5S they have obliged him not to play in 4S and get his 420. Thus there is damage from the opponents' actions. I have read L12B, and it is not convincing. You say sentiment and muddled thinking: nothing you say suggests in any way why damage has not occurred. With no sentiment at all, a pair attempted to play in 4S and would have presumably got +420: their opponents' illegal actions stopped this from happening and they then finished with -50. That is damage. The fact that there were other possible outcomes [not revoking, doubling the opponent in their contract] is not relevant. >> From: David Stevenson >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Nexus broken? >> Date: 12 November 1997 00:25 >> >> Grattan Endicott wrote:> and DS then wrote: > >Without the infraction let us assume that the player would have made >> +420 [ignoring the by-path being discussed over *whether* we assume he >> would have revoked in a different contract] and with the infraction he >> scored -50. Please explain why the infraction has not resulted in >> damage. > \\A LOT TAKEN AWAY// -- 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 Nov 13 08:59:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:59:19 +1100 Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14134 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:59:05 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA05010 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:58:28 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199711122158.PAA05010@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Law and Justice To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:58:28 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > gester@globalnet.co.uk > Grattan Endicott > Liverpool L18 8DJ : > > I have read your distinguished thesis with much interest. It talks of Do I graduate? :) > 'justice' and 'natural justice', but these concepts in their external > senses are foreign to the playing of the game. In duplicate bridge I should note that I was replying to David Stevenson--he was the one who brought up natural justice, although he took it [rightly I think] that others were already employing the concept. > justice lies in the application of the rules of the game by which we > all agree to play when we participate. By 'rules' I mean the laws of > duplicate bridge and regulations authorized to be made under > those laws. I disagree. I do not think that we should ever define Justice as "what the rules require", even if we have agreed to play by the rules. I think we must admit as a possibility that one or more rules may be unjust. The society I live in has many laws, some of which are unjust laws. It may be that I have implicitly agreed to follow them, but that doesn't mean that I am thereby barred from regarding them as unjust. {Note to David S.: If I lived in Iowa, there'd be one more unjust law I'd be living under :).} > The appropriate subjects for debate in this discussion group fall into > two main configurations. One is the application of the laws to a variety > of occurrences or experiences. In this area the question is not what > is 'fair' in concept but what is fair in the appropriate application of the > rules. If the rules are correctly applied no player has grounds for > complaint since he has consented to play according to those rules. > > The other area appropriate for discussion is how the rules operate, > whether they operate equitably, and what changes in the rules may be > desirable. But until they are changed - and the processes are normally > slow - the game continues to be played according to the rules as they are. > Directors are instructed to seek to achieve equity but only by use of the > powers granted them in the laws and only by remaining within the scope > of the laws as they currently exist. Good directors find ways and means, > but good directors do not seek to apply their sympathies as though they > constituted law. In the game of duplicate bridge (and likely in any other > game) this state of affairs *is* justice. > I think you have omitted a very important third category. The laws of bridge are not so precise that their application to all situations is crystal clear. [No set of laws that I know of is ever so precise.] In those cases where both the nature of the offense and the punishment for it are very clear, then I agree that complaints about fairness can only be directed towards the question of future _revision_ of the laws. So, for example, if I revoke there is a clear proceedure to determine when it is a revoke, and what the penalty is. If I don't like that penalty, I can hardly complain about its application in this case [if it is applied properly], but can only argue for it to be changed. But, as I said, not all cases are like this, and the one in question assuredly is not. What constitutes UI, whether a given case involves illicit _use_ of UI, what "damages" resulted and what redress [and/or punishment] should be applied are issues of _interpretation_ of law and _application_ of law to those cases. Not only can we ask about how such application should be carried out in specific cases, but we can try to formulate general rules for their application. Such rules may be extra-legal, since law itself is not explicit enough. This is precisely the case here. You say that "directors are instructed to seek to acheive equity but only by the use of the powers granted to them in the laws and only by remaining within the scope of the laws as they currently exist." Fine. I would argue that a director who ruled that in this case there was damage and +450 was a likely outcome without the infraction and therefore we should award +450 is working within the laws as they currently exist. But so is the director who rules that the _damage_ was only a reduction of +420 to -50, and so rules back to +420. So is the director who argues that the _infraction_ caused no damage at all, and so -50 stands. The laws do not seem to me to have a single clear and obvious answer to this problem, and so to answer the question "what should the director do" allows us scope to bring in notions like _justice_, or general principles like the Kaplan doctrine or the "free play" doctrine. Such arguments seem to me to be perfectly valid. They are either admissible as a sub-set of your first category [questions of application] or as a third category. I guess this post must qualify as a dissertation... Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 13 11:38:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:38:34 +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 LAA14770 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:38:02 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa14600; 12 Nov 97 16:37 PST To: Bridgelaws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Law and Justice In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:58:28 PST." <199711122158.PAA05010@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:36:48 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9711121637.aa14600@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After reading Grant Sterling's latest contribution, I got to wondering whether this thread still has anything to do with bridge. I mean, we're talking about natural justice, and unjust laws, and whether the laws of bridge can be unjust, and torts and damage claims, all of which is fine in "real life", where the whole purpose of laws (in civilized societies) is supposed to be protect people and promote their well-being, however that's defined by the specific society, and justice is a reflection of a code of ethics regarding how we're supposed to treat people. But bridge is a GAME. So is all this talk about "justice" justified? David's original passage that seems to have brought this up is: > In bridge, I really do not see what is wrong with someone trying for > the double shot *at all*. An infraction has occurred, and I fail > to understand why they only get redress if they fail to make a later > egregious error and fail to try for the double shot. It is a very > strange game where people can infract, and not pay the penalty. Side note: There are lots of cases in bridge where this can happen. If I open the bidding out of turn, and LHO bids, I don't pay any penalty. So bridge must already be a very strange game. Anyway, to continue . . . > It certainly seems contrary to natural justice. In my view the only > ruling on the board in question that accords to natural justice is > +450, applied to both sides. I guess there's nothing inherently "wrong" with double shots---except that people responsible for determining how the game should be played have decided that they don't want to promote double shots. Is this an unjust decision on their part? I don't see how it's either just or unjust, nor do I see how allowing double shots is either just or unjust. I think the same can be said about every rule in bridge. The rules are sort of arbitrary. They're not completely arbitrary, since decisions about the rules are made with the purposes of the game in mind. These purposes are some mix of having fun, rewarding certain types of intellectual skills, challenging people to develop those skills, and probably some other things that I haven't listed. But I don't think anyone can say, in any case, that rule X is "more just" or "morally better" than an alternative rule Y, or anything like that. (For example, we have a rule that says you can't have secret agreements with your partner, but if we changed the rule to say that you didn't have to explain your agreements and that you could lie about them to the opponents if you wished, that wouldn't make the game unjust---it would simply be a different game that would accomplish different purposes and reward different skills, and probably reward luck more than our current game. It's a game I'd probably enjoy less, or perhaps might enjoy more if I were drunk.) So should double shots be allowed? My belief is that this question can't be answered by an appeal to "justice". I can think of several reasons why those in charge of deciding how the game should be played would want to discourage double shots. One might be a principle that if a player wants to take a wild action to play for a top, they may do so, but they shouldn't be able to do so in a risk-free manner. In any case, if the "powers that be" feel that double shots are contrary to the purposes of the game---let's say, "the spirit of bridge", to introduce another nebulous term---I don't see why they can't be discouraged, even if it means people who commit infractions don't pay penalties in that case. I don't see how either way---discouraging double shots or allowing them---is more "just" than the other. (If, however, you're still uncomfortable with the idea of people not paying penalties for infractions, then we can all pretend that a "double shot" is itself an infraction whose penalty is the cancellation of the penalty for the opponent's infraction. There, justice restored!!) > All well and good, but as I can hear the hounds baying at me from the > next field back, I freely admit that our job is to interpret and apply > the rules that exist and ignore natural justice! [By rules I mean laws > plus regulations.] So let's consider the laws. Which one says that you > are required to play bridge after an irregularity? I won't challenge the argument that the Laws don't require this. If this is the case, though, then the only real injustice going on here is that those responsible for writing the Laws have written laws that are unclear on that point---and it's an important point---and they know it has to be unclear when great players like Kaplan disagree with other great players---and yet they haven't done anything to clear up the language. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 13 14:26:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:26:23 +1100 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 OAA15272 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:26:08 +1100 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xVq30-00042s-00; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:34:26 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.51.103] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xVokZ-0003od-00; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:11:19 +0000 From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:08:33 -0000 Message-ID: <01bcefd9$0b68f1e0$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 [lots snipped] >>ps. as for the question at hand, +420/-420 seems quite reasonable. >>pps. yes, I know "infracted" isn't a "real" word. :-) When DWS first introduced the verb "infract", I wasn't sure about it; I thought that "infraction" was the noun from "infringe". But my Chambers dictionary, in which I place my absolute faith, tells me that "infract" really is a verb, and "infracted" is therefore a valid past participle. Just keeping an eye on the language, which is the only job I can get around here. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 13 21:15:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:15:49 +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 VAA16690 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:15:42 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id KAA29494 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:15:22 GMT Date: Thu, 13 Nov 97 10:14 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: Off topic response, I tried to resist but I couldn't. David Burn wrote: > Not for practical purposes it isn't. Tony Blair would not be Prime > Minister if Germany had won the Second World War. Since Tony appears sufficiently slimy and lacking in conscience to have risen to the top of any power structure, and has no apparent objection to a German led European superstate I'd have to conclude that his being prime minister in such circumstances is "at all probable", if not "likely". However, since Grand Prix is even more tobacco dependent than I am any politician would have done the same thing so an adjusted score is not required in this case. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 02:05:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 02:05:49 +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 CAA20262 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 02:05:42 +1100 Received: from mike (ip141.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.244.141]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA16077; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:05:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971113100553.006b5960@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:05:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re:Flagrant Error Poll In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West Meads requested responses to the following: >The setting (which may, or may not, bear any resemblance to the original): > South bids 5S after East, who is known to be a highly ethical player, >bids 5H after a hesitation by West. As TD you decide that the 5H bid was >a difficult borderline decision but cannot quite be justified after the >UI. 5H* would have been -300 on best defence. Imps nv-nv. > >South makes ten tricks in 5S because: > >a) He misses the "obvious" backwash squeeze >b) He draws a premature round of trumps and fails to get a ruff in dummy >c) He is in dummy with Sx,-,-,xxx opposite Sx,-,-,AQ9 and finesses the CQ >d) He plays a side suit to be 3-2 instead of taking a double finesse >e) He doesn't take a safety play with K9xx opposite AJxx >f) He counts dummy's 6 timer as a 5 timer and takes an unnecessary finesse >g) He mistimes the use of his entries >h) He calls for a card from dummy (when in hand) and it is accepted >i) He doesn't realise the C6 is high after two rounds >j) He forgets to draw the last trump (due to a "black-on-black" discard) >k) He revokes >l) He concedes one down when cashing his trumps would have created an >automatic squeeze > >I'd like to know how people would adjust (if at all) in each case. >If enough people reply I promise to post the results. > >Tim West-Meads > Presumably you expect any negative replies only from the minority camp of Kaplanists, i.e., those of us who aaccept that a "flagrant error" by the NO's can legitimately break the connection between infraction and damage. In this context, then, your question can be restated as a search for the defining line between flagrant error and mere sub-optimal play. Intuitively, I think of the flagrant error criterion in terms of the palm-against-the-forehead test. To be flagrant, an error must be obvious enough to the player that ex post facto, he slaps his hand up against his forehead in self-disgust, or the equivalent. If, OTOH, when you point out the error, he doesn't understand why it was an error ("Backwash squeeze???"), or thinks for a moment and then agrees, it probably doesn't qualify as flagrant, even if it is clearly wrong. To be flagrant, it must be immediately and obviously a mistake to any player of corresponding skill. Thus even Kaplan's "flagrant error" (lead of the 9 from KQJ9xxx) might not be considered flagrant from an absolute beginner ("but you said fourth from my longest and strongest suit"), though it clearly would be for anyone else. Using this standard, only the revoke(k), the wrong-hand lead (h), and the mis-counted trump suit (j) would, IMO, automatically be certifiable as flagrant errors for players of all levels. Several others could qualify as flagrant for players of intermediate skill and above, depending on the context of the entire hand, of course. I would include in this (b), (f), (g), and (i). It is possible that the suit-combination blunders (c) (d) and (e) could be considered flagrant errors if committed by experts, though not by players of lesser caliber. The failure to execute the squeezes (a) and (l) would never qualify. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 04:24:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:24:26 +1100 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 EAA21098 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:24:17 +1100 Received: from default (client842b.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.43]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA23432; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:24:21 GMT Message-Id: <199711131724.RAA23432@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:04:08 -0000 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 fully understand the sympathy with which you view declarer's position but it is clouding your vision. The opponent's use of UI has created an environment in which declarer has extra chances to damage himself - and by his own offence he has indeed done so. The point is not that there is no damage but that the damage is *not* caused by the 5H bid, it is caused by *declarer's own infraction* which is subsequent to, but not connected to, opponent's infraction. After the 5H bid declarer is still on his way to +450 and it requires his own breach of the laws to turn it into -50.The laws are not as sympathetic to declarer (who is not an innocent party) .as you are. Rodney has let Erskine drive Rodney's wife's car and Erskine has knocked over his own front gate with it. > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Nexus broken? > Date: 12 November 1997 11:41 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Let us not assume any such irrelevant thing. NO is in 5Spades > > because he has elected of his own free will to bid it. Until he revokes > >he is not damaged by his judgement to bid it. and David S :-> > While the actions of opponents have not obliged him to bid 5S they > have obliged him not to play in 4S and get his 420. Thus there is > damage from the opponents' action> \\\much pruning/// From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 05:21:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:21:59 +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 FAA21422 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 05:21:52 +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 NAA19285 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10386; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:22:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:22:00 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711131822.NAA10386@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The opponent's use of UI has created an environment in > which declarer has extra chances to damage himself Exactly. This is the reason most of us are prepared to give declarer +420. (Hardly anyone wishes to give him back +450.) > Rodney has let Erskine drive Rodney's wife's car and > Erskine has knocked over his own front gate with it. Lending the car did not, in itself, create unwarranted danger. There was no infraction. But if Rodney forgot to mention that the steering didn't work.... Another example... Rodney leaves a knife lying on the porch. Erskine cuts himself with it. Rodney can expect some liability. Creating a dangerous condition gives liability for damage that results. (If no damage results after all, there is no problem.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 06:04:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:04:12 +1100 Received: from hqinbh4.ms.com (firewall-user@hqinbh4.ms.com [144.14.128.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21780 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:04:05 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by hqinbh4.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id OAA07460 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:03:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by hqinbh4.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma007416; Thu, 13 Nov 97 14:03:29 -0500 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 TAA22817 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:03:27 GMT Resent-From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id TAA05416 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:03:27 GMT Resent-Message-Id: <9711131903.ZM5414@ms.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:03:26 +0000 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) Resent-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Edward Sheldon" Message-Id: <9711131901.ZM5409@ms.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:01:57 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Grattan Endicott" "Re: Nexus broken?" (Nov 13, 6:44pm) References: <199711131724.RAA23432@sand.global.net.uk> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Nov 13, 6:44pm, Grattan Endicott wrote: [much snipped] > The opponent's use of UI has created an environment in > which declarer has extra chances to damage himself Is this aspect of the laws desirable? Is it fair? I vote no on both counts. - Ed From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 06:32:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:32:22 +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 GAA22036 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 06:32:16 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1027854; 13 Nov 97 18:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:53:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Flagrant Error Poll In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971113100553.006b5960@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: I agree with Michael! Except - >>l) He concedes one down when cashing his trumps would have created an >>automatic squeeze >The failure to execute the squeezes (a) >and (l) would never qualify. Very strange for an expert to concede rather than rattle off his tricks "just in case". -------------------- Did I mention to you that Quango's ninth birthday was on the 11th, and he was a bit miffed I didn't splash it all over the Internet? Of course, he doesn't read Usenet, though I do wonder why my computer keeps collecting articles from alt.miau.sexkittens and rec.cooking.chicken- and-tuna. Taking him to the vet yesterday has not improved his temper. :) Emails to quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk! -- 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 Nov 14 07:53:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:53:14 +1100 Received: from smtp4.nwnexus.com (smtp4.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA22348 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:53:08 +1100 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA08581; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:53:05 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:53:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A Brain-Twister of a Claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk East Dealer, East-West Vulnerable West North East South S- 42 -- -- 1S 2H H- QJ95 2S 3H 3S 4D D- J 4S 5H X all pass C- AT5432 S- KJT6 S- AQ9853 Opening lead: JS H- 3 H- A2 D- K862 D- Q5 East won the SA, South ruffed the C- Q986 C- KJ7 spade return, cashed the DA, S- 7 ruffed a D, cashed the CA, H- KT8764 discarding a D. D- AT9743 C- -- At this point, declarer made a claim, thinking that he had three non-trumps left in his hand and three high [except for the AH] trumps in dummy, stating that he had a high cross-ruff, except for the Heart Ace. West folded, but East thought a bit, then said he could overruff the next diamond and lead his other trump, what happens then? Well, either clubs or diamonds set up then, said declarer, but East said no, West still has Clubs and the KD. Director called. Director gets the facts and starts the replay - Spade, Spade ruffed, DA, all hands turning three cards down. Then recognizing the time problem and attempting to speed up the process, it went verbal from here on, South stating: D rf, CA, and repeated his claim statement, and East's response to it. He said that even with AH overruff and Heart return, he could then finesse the DT and set up the suit. All present were looking looking at West's hand which was visible and it still contained the King-Eight-Six of diamonds, having not turned one to the fourth trick yet, and East and the Director mistakenly said that King covers and the Eight would then hold up for a trick. Declarer, under time pressure, acceded to the matter and agreed to down one. It wasn't until later that it was discovered that declarer would have been able to take the proven ruffing finesse of the DT, and made the hand as the Eight later drops under the Nine. It went no further, as declarer's team won the match, but it does bring up some points! Having once declared a crossruff, would not declarer be forced to ruff the next round of diamonds willy-nilly with dummy's last trump, thus losing to the DK? Or would declarer have been permitted to take a finesse, although not a proven one at the time of the claim, only being proven by subsequent events? Or should Director or Committee not permit the finesse as it was not part of the statement? Or should a Committee decide that it would be illogical for him to ruff the DT when he led it, and thus he can make the hand? Or should the Director rule that a careless play might be to lead a low diamond next, in which case he would be down, or should than be deemed to be illogical, since declarer knows West has the K8 left? The splendor of the game is that there is always something new! In over a half-century of playing, I haven't ever seen one like this before. And even though it is academic since it didn't matter, sometimes these things can be even more interesting than when a real decision is in the offing! Comments??? Richard B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 08:21:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:21:08 +1100 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 IAA22435 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:21:04 +1100 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 IAA06445; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:20:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.55.88.98]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA28741; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:20:53 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:20:53 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199711132120.IAA28741@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Stevenson From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Nexus broken? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Suppose the South player, having called the director and been instructed to play on, elects to double the suspect 5H bid. a) He collects 300 by normal play. I presume I adjust to +450? b) East revokes, giving South 500. I presume South keeps the table result 500? c) South revokes, and collects only 100? Do I let them keep that result, and give East -450? Tony Musgrove > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 08:26:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:26:29 +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 IAA22466 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:26:22 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa03687; 13 Nov 97 13:25 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: A Brain-Twister of a Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:53:02 PST." Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:25:45 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9711131325.aa03687@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Richard Odlin:] > East Dealer, East-West Vulnerable West North East South > S- 42 -- -- 1S 2H > H- QJ95 2S 3H 3S 4D > D- J 4S 5H X all pass > C- AT5432 > S- KJT6 S- AQ9853 Opening lead: JS > H- 3 H- A2 > D- K862 D- Q5 East won the SA, South ruffed the > C- Q986 C- KJ7 spade return, cashed the DA, > S- 7 ruffed a D, cashed the CA, > H- KT8764 discarding a D. > D- AT9743 > C- -- > > At this point, declarer made a claim, thinking that he had three non-trumps > left in his hand and three high [except for the AH] trumps in dummy, stating > that he had a high cross-ruff, except for the Heart Ace. West folded, but > East thought a bit, then said he could overruff the next diamond and lead > his other trump, what happens then? Well, either clubs or diamonds set up > then, said declarer, but East said no, West still has Clubs and the KD. > Director called. > > Director gets the facts and starts the replay - Spade, Spade ruffed, DA, all > hands turning three cards down. Then recognizing the time problem and > attempting to speed up the process, it went verbal from here on, South > stating: D rf, CA, and repeated his claim statement, and East's response to > it. He said that even with AH overruff and Heart return, he could then > finesse the DT and set up the suit. > > All present were looking looking at West's hand which was visible and it > still contained the King-Eight-Six of diamonds, having not turned one to the > fourth trick yet, and East and the Director mistakenly said that King covers > and the Eight would then hold up for a trick. Declarer, under time > pressure, acceded to the matter and agreed to down one. It wasn't until > later that it was discovered that declarer would have been able to take the > proven ruffing finesse of the DT, and made the hand as the Eight later drops > under the Nine. > > It went no further, as declarer's team won the match, but it does bring up > some points! Having once declared a crossruff, would not declarer be forced > to ruff the next round of diamonds willy-nilly with dummy's last trump, thus > losing to the DK? Or would declarer have been permitted to take a finesse, > although not a proven one at the time of the claim, only being proven by > subsequent events? Or should Director or Committee not permit the finesse > as it was not part of the statement? Or should a Committee decide that it > would be illogical for him to ruff the DT when he led it, and thus he can > make the hand? Or should the Director rule that a careless play might be to > lead a low diamond next, in which case he would be down, or should than be > deemed to be illogical, since declarer knows West has the K8 left? > > The splendor of the game is that there is always something new! In over a > half-century of playing, I haven't ever seen one like this before. And even > though it is academic since it didn't matter, sometimes these things can be > even more interesting than when a real decision is in the offing! > > Comments??? > > Richard B. Odlin > I don't get it! At the time declarer claimed on a cross-ruff, the position is: (N on lead) S- --- H- QJ9 D- --- C- T5432 S- KT S- Q985 H- 3 H- A2 D- K8 D- --- C- Q98 C- KJ S- --- H- KT876 D- T97 C- -- Declarer claims on a cross-ruff. If declarer tries to continue the cross ruff, East will overruff the third diamond, as he said, and return a trump (say declarer wins in hand, but it's irrelevant), and now the position is: S- --- H- Q D- --- C- T543 S- KT S- Q985 H- --- H- --- D- K D- --- C- Q9 C- K S- --- H- T87 D- T9 C- -- Declarer is now in hand and another diamond ruff makes his hand good. So why are we talking about ruffing finesses? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 09:22:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:22:37 +1100 Received: from smtp4.nwnexus.com (smtp4.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA22782 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:22:32 +1100 Received: from chinook.halcyon.com (bbo@chinook.halcyon.com [198.137.231.20]) by smtp4.nwnexus.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA10477; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:21:50 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:21:46 -0800 (PST) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" Reply-To: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: Adam Beneschan cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Brain-Twister of a Claim In-Reply-To: <9711131325.aa03687@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Because the claim was made earlier, after the CA was led, and the players thought West still had K-8-6 of diamonds. But you are right! If declarer merely goes through with his stated line, the KD does topple. I was still thinking it didn't till you wrote. So the problem is a nullity now! Thanks, and noone else need reply, as South cannot lose a trick he cannot lose by any play! Unless we want to assume West started with five Diamonds and East didn't overruff the second Diamond lead. :) Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 09:32:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:32:34 +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 JAA22871 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:32:28 +1100 Received: from mike (ip26.baltimore4.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.115.26]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29097 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:32:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971113173238.006b594c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:32:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <199711132120.IAA28741@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:20 AM 11/14/97 +1100, Tony Musgrove wrote: >Suppose the South player, having called the director and been instructed to >play on, elects to double the suspect 5H bid. > >a) He collects 300 by normal play. I presume I adjust to +450? >b) East revokes, giving South 500. I presume South keeps the table result 500? >c) South revokes, and collects only 100? Do I let them keep that result, >and give East -450? > > >Tony Musgrove > a) Absolutely, unless by some remarkable happenstance, you judge either that the double was a flagrant error (very unlikely) or the defense was flagrantly defective (only slightly more probable). b) No harm, no foul. c) No, in this case the revoke was not the cause of the bad result. NS were headed for a poor score regardless of their defense (assuming down 2 is the normal result), and were prevented from the opportunity for a satisfactory result by the infraction. Now if their revoke in fact had turned their great +500 into only +100, then tough luck-- their score is the result of their own flagrant error. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 14 12:43:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:43:49 +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 MAA23587 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:43:42 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2028713; 14 Nov 97 1:32 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 01:14:02 +0000 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971113173238.006b594c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19971113173238.006b594c@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 08:20 AM 11/14/97 +1100, Tony Musgrove wrote: >>Suppose the South player, having called the director and been instructed to >>play on, elects to double the suspect 5H bid. >> >>a) He collects 300 by normal play. I presume I adjust to +450? >>b) East revokes, giving South 500. I presume South keeps the table >result 500? >>c) South revokes, and collects only 100? Do I let them keep that result, >>and give East -450? >> >> >>Tony Musgrove >> >a) Absolutely, unless by some remarkable happenstance, you judge either >that the double was a flagrant error (very unlikely) or the defense was >flagrantly defective (only slightly more probable). >b) No harm, no foul. >c) No, in this case the revoke was not the cause of the bad result. NS were >headed for a poor score regardless of their defense (assuming down 2 is the >normal result), and were prevented from the opportunity for a satisfactory >result by the infraction. Now if their revoke in fact had turned their >great +500 into only +100, then tough luck-- their score is the result of >their own flagrant error. This leads back to a point I made earlier in the thread. I find it difficult to think of a revoke as flagrant. IMO it's careless. Would anyone care to comment on this because IMO I will now apply a different ruling. Revoking doesn't cause me to slap my head, just shrug my shoulders and put my specs back on. -- 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 Nov 15 01:48:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:48:39 +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 BAA27695 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:48:31 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id OAA16490 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:48:09 GMT Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 14:47 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Nexus broken? 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: Poll Results Certain respondents cited provisos (such as TD deciding 5H was not justified, and a losing line being available in case l, the infraction not affecting the attractiveness of alternative lines of play) NoAdj -50/-420 +420/-420 +420/-450 +450/-450 Adj a) 6 3^ b) 1 5 1 2^ c) 1* 4 1 3^ d) 5 1 3^ e) 1* 4 1 3^ f) 3^ 1* 4 1 g) 1^ 5 1 2 h) 3^ 5 1 i) 2^ 5 1 1 j) 3^ 5 1 k) 3^ 1* 4 1 l) 5 1 3^ * = Depends on South's experience, otherwise would be 420/-420 ^ = 1 respondent in each case, based on a "decent flight B" player (variations in the logical direction for players of greater/lesser ability) The Adj columns is respondents who said they would adjust but didn't specify to what. The respondents were me, Dany, Thomas Dehn, Sergei, Steve Willner, Christian, David Metcalf, Hermann, Paul Harrington I have not included inferences from the (BLML posted) replies of Mike Dennis & David S since although they seemed to be in almost total agreement on what were flagrant errors I suspect that they have less in common on the rulings. Many thanks to everyone who responded, I found the answers very interesting - although my confusion as to the "best" approach has only been increased:-(. Although it does seem that lazy TDs should avoid espousing "Kaplanism". As a player appealing in such a situation with a Kaplanist TD I would face the intriguing dilemma that a favourable ruling is almost an insult to my ability - I think I'd try to persuade them not to adjust even in a)! Definitions repeated for convenience >a) He misses the "obvious" backwash squeeze >b) He draws a premature round of trumps and fails to get a ruff in dummy >c) He is in dummy with Sx,-,-,xxx opposite Sx,-,-,AQ9 and finesses the CQ >d) He plays a side suit to be 3-2 instead of taking a double finesse >e) He doesn't take a safety play with K9xx opposite AJxx >f) He counts dummy's 6 timer as a 5 timer and takes an unnecessary finesse >g) He mistimes the use of his entries >h) He calls for a card from dummy (when in hand) and it is accepted >i) He doesn't realise the C6 is high after two rounds >j) He forgets to draw the last trump (due to a "black-on-black" discard) >k) He revokes >l) He concedes one down when cashing his trumps would have created an >automatic squeeze Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 04:03:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:03:35 +1100 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 EAA28358 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:03:28 +1100 Received: from default (client87c1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.193]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA25940; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:03:32 GMT Message-Id: <199711141703.RAA25940@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "David Stevenson" , "Sandra Claridge" Subject: W.B.F. Laws Committee, recent decisions. Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:53:15 -0000 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 following decisions have been agreed by the WBF Laws Committee and ratified by the WBF Executive Council 1. To open e-mail links to committee members via Grattan Endicott. 2. To adopt the proposal of Mr. Bavin that the sentence in Law 71C beginning "Until the conceding side..." makes a provision incorporated within the wider provision in the immediately preceding words of that Law. This means that the Director is to cancel an implausible concession, as defined in Law 71C, at any time within the Law 79C correction period. 3. The parenthesis within the definition of 'Convention' - "(or in the last denomination named)" - applies when the main text of the law is not applicable,i.e. in the cases of 'Pass', 'Double' and 'Redouble'. The Committee informs that the only reasonable interpretation of 'the last denomination named' is that it is the denomination in which the contract would be played were all the players to pass following the call in question. 4. The Committee approved movement of the asterisk in Law 17 so that it is placed against "...from his cancelled call.* ". -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o- Two matters of principle were also raised in the Committee and these will have ongoing consideration. Mr. Ghose asked that the committee should continue to have as an objective that players who are inexperienced and do not know the laws shall enjoy the same basic rights as more knowledgeable players, the Committee seeking to avoid possibilities for knowledgeable players to take quick thinking action that will prejudice the rights of inexperienced opponents; and Mr. Schoder asked the Committee to continue Mr. Kaplan's practice of separating out its concerns from those of other bodies, avoiding trespass in other areas of responsibility. -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o- WBFLC/97/002 g.e..Nov 14/97. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 04:03:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:03:35 +1100 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 EAA28357 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:03:26 +1100 Received: from default (client87c1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.193]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id RAA25947; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:03:36 GMT Message-Id: <199711141703.RAA25947@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Sandra Claridge" Subject: WBF Laws Committee information. Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:58:02 -0000 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 : 14th November 1997 I am now provided with the following current list of the WBF Laws Committee:- Ton Kooijman, Chairman Ralph Cohen, Vice Chairman Grattan Endicott, Secretary Virgil V. Anderson; Jens Auken; Carlos Cabanne; Claude Dadoun D. Davenport; Joan Gerard; Santanu Ghose; Robert A. Howes; Dan Morse; Jaime Ortiz-Patino; Jeffrey Polisner; Rebecca Rogers William Schoder; John Wignall. WBFLC/97/001 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 05:27:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:27:16 +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 FAA28987 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:27:10 +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 NAA18555 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:27:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10975; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:27:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:27:20 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711141827.NAA10975@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > >l) He concedes one down when cashing his trumps would have created an > >automatic squeeze Just a quick comment on this one. Doesn't it have to be judged under L71C? Of course, usually it will be "normal" to cash the side winners before the trumps, thereby destroying the entries for the squeeze, but if there's some reason why that's not true, I'd want to give credit for the squeeze regardless of infractions. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 07:20:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 07:20:31 +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 HAA29627 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 07:20:25 +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 PAA25394 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:20:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11050; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:20:39 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:20:39 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711142020.PAA11050@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Tony Musgrove > Suppose the South player, having called the director and been instructed to > play on, elects to double the suspect 5H bid. (If 5H is subsequently deemed illegal, and 4S+1 is the likely result without the infraction:) > a) He collects 300 by normal play. I presume I adjust to +450? +450 for NO's, -450 for O's. I expect this to be non-controversial. > b) East revokes, giving South 500. I presume South keeps the table result 500? Yes, no damage. O's keep their -500. > c) South revokes, and collects only 100? Do I let them keep that result, > and give East -450? (Note to John Probst: your view that a revoke isn't "an egregious error" is definitely a minority one.) The O's clearly get -450, since that result is "at all probable." For the NO's, they were damaged by a combination of their own mistake (for 200 points) and also by the infraction (for 150 points). This situation is where Herman's proposal could really help us. He would give South something along the lines of MP(+450) - [MP(+300) - MP(+100)], i.e. NO's lose for their stupid revoke but only from the "right" starting point, not the starting point after the infraction. Failing this, I think the NO's deserve at least some redress. After all, the best they could possibly have done after the infraction was +300, so they have been damaged by it, independent of their mistake. Another case: d) NS would normally get 500 on defense, but the revoke holds them to 300. Now NS keep their +300 under the Kaplan doctrine. (Here again, Herman's rule could serve.) The O's get -500, which surely was "at all probable." (I could still be talked out of this last; if so, they get -450.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 08:09:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:09:23 +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 IAA29800 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:09:17 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp38.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.38]) by cais2.cais.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10352 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:09:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971114161115.006ddd20@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:11:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Nexus broken? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:53 PM 11/12/97 GMT0, Tim wrote: >I am surprised at the variety of opinions expressed on this thread >even after so much discussion, so to indulge my curiosity I thought I'd >try a quick poll (EMail:twm@cix.co.uk). > >The setting (which may, or may not, bear any resemblance to the original): > South bids 5S after East, who is known to be a highly ethical player, >bids 5H after a hesitation by West. As TD you decide that the 5H bid was >a difficult borderline decision but cannot quite be justified after the >UI. 5H* would have been -300 on best defence. Imps nv-nv. > >South makes ten tricks in 5S because: > >a) He misses the "obvious" backwash squeeze >b) He draws a premature round of trumps and fails to get a ruff in dummy >c) He is in dummy with Sx,-,-,xxx opposite Sx,-,-,AQ9 and finesses the CQ >d) He plays a side suit to be 3-2 instead of taking a double finesse >e) He doesn't take a safety play with K9xx opposite AJxx >f) He counts dummy's 6 timer as a 5 timer and takes an unnecessary finesse >g) He mistimes the use of his entries >h) He calls for a card from dummy (when in hand) and it is accepted >i) He doesn't realise the C6 is high after two rounds >j) He forgets to draw the last trump (due to a "black-on-black" discard) >k) He revokes >l) He concedes one down when cashing his trumps would have created an >automatic squeeze > >I'd like to know how people would adjust (if at all) in each case. >If enough people reply I promise to post the results. I'd adjust in every case. Absent the infraction, declarer would have been playing in 4S. He took 10 tricks, and I have no particular reason to believe that he would have taken a different number of tricks had he in fact been in 4S. Therefore he deserves 10 tricks in 4S, for +420. Consider the alternative. If we allow the "connection between infraction and damage" to be "broken" by an "egregious error", then we must make a value judgment as to what sort of errors are "egregious". Once we get into that business, we have no hope of resolving situations of this type consistently. We might well all agree that (a) is not egregious whereas (l) is. But we could discuss this for years and I'd bet the farm that we'd never come to agreement on between which two of (a) through (l) to draw the line between "not egregious" and "egregious". In practice, when someone calls something an "egregious error", what he usually means is "an error *I* would never make". So I say, if it is demonstrably the case that the NOs would have achieved a better score absent an opponent's infraction, but it is also true that they could have achieved an equal, or even better, score absent their own error, they remain entitled to the score they would have achieved had there been no infraction. The only alternative is to say that they may or may not be entitled to that score depending on what a particular TD or AC thinks of their error. And that can only mean radically different rulings from different TDs or ACs. As a TD, a policy that says "an NO who commits an egregious error subsequent to an opponent's infraction is not entitled to the redress he otherwise would be entitled to" is meaningless unless and until there is a policy that defines "egregious" in a way that can be (relatively) unambiguously applied at the table when I'm making my ruling. I've never seen such a policy, and have my doubts as to whether such a thing would be even possible, much less practical. 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 Nov 15 13:59:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:59:33 +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 NAA00738 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:59:26 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1011593; 15 Nov 97 2:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 02:49:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: How much should the TD see? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I should. Comments please. -- 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 Nov 15 14:42:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:42:56 +1100 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 OAA00816 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:42:48 +1100 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xWZGc-0000DD-00; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:51:30 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.51.187] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xWZ9F-0003tN-00; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:43:54 +0000 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Nexus broken Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:41:06 -0000 Message-ID: <01bcf178$4dbaf980$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 I can only conclude that I have lost the plot. Many very powerful arguments have been adduced for letting declarer have +420 (some ridiculous arguments have been adduced for letting him have +450, but I remain steadfast in my view that a revoke is subject to penalty). But we have done all this years ago, and it staggers me that we have to do it all again. Now. Suppose that instead of bidding 5S, East had doubled 5H. This was two down off the top (EW +500), but a defender revoked and let the contract make (EW -850). Would you adjust the score to EW +420? Answers on a postcard to "No, don't be ridiculous" competition. What, in the name of reason, is different? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 14:52:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:52:10 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA00855 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:52:04 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id VAA23348; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:51:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca3-11.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.107) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023310; Fri Nov 14 21:51:06 1997 Message-ID: <346D1C15.2D5F@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:50:45 -0800 From: B&S <#jonbriss@ix13.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: #jonbriss@ix13.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How much should the TD see? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was > flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. > As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I > should. Comments please. Regardless of your status (kibitzer or TD), I feel you should have stayed out of the situation, allowing the players to decide the result. You should rule only when asked to rule. To give another example, I feel you should remain silent if you spot a card on the floor that matches the deck in play at a table, but you would of course intervene if no deal is in play. Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 14:54:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:54:29 +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 OAA00876 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:54:20 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022772; 15 Nov 97 3:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:44:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: WBF Laws Committee information. In-Reply-To: <199711141703.RAA25947@sand.global.net.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Ton Kooijman, Chairman May I offer my congratulations? >Ralph Cohen, Vice Chairman >Grattan Endicott, Secretary I always did picture Grattan in a short skirt with a notebook . >Virgil V. Anderson; Jens Auken; Carlos Cabanne; Claude Dadoun >D. Davenport; Joan Gerard; Santanu Ghose; Robert A. Howes; >Dan Morse; Jaime Ortiz-Patino; Jeffrey Polisner; Rebecca Rogers >William Schoder; John Wignall. I hope that Robert Howes has read the comments on RGB. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 14:57:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:57:57 +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 OAA00903 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:57:51 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022770; 15 Nov 97 3:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:40:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How much should the TD see? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was >flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. >As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I >should. Comments please. When I pass a table I "see" nothing. -- 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 Nov 15 16:48:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:48:20 +1100 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 QAA01122 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:48:12 +1100 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 IAA10626 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:43:15 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199711150543.IAA10626@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: How much should the TD see? Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:38:28 +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: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was > >flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. > >As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I > >should. Comments please. > > When I pass a table I "see" nothing. And what about L81C6? > -- > 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 ~ Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 21:24:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:24:33 +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 VAA01527 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:24:27 +1100 Received: from timberlands.demon.co.uk ([194.222.74.191]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029886; 15 Nov 97 10:08 GMT Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:08:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Pool Subject: OLOOT 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 The aution has not ended until the correct defender places a card, hopefully face down, on the table. Therefore unless this has happened, if the wrong defender leads face up out of turn it is not a lead but a card exposed during the auction and is treated as such. Is this right ? Martin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 22:22:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:22:29 +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 WAA01644 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:22:18 +1100 Received: from default (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA07097 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:22:09 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199711151122.MAA07097@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:22:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: OLOOT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:08:06 +0000 (GMT) > From: Martin Pool > > The aution has not ended until the correct defender places a card, hopefully > face down, on the table. Therefore unless this has happened, if the wrong > defender leads face up out of turn it is not a lead but a card exposed > during the auction and is treated as such. > > Is this right ? Do you have a nasty toothache, or is that just your tongue in your cheek? L17E tells us that the auction period ends when the opening lead is faced. It does not mention the correct defender as a prerequisite for this to take effect, but it does require the opening lead to be *faced*, not just placed on the table. This last part is important every now and then: S W N E 1S - 2D - 3C - pass 4H - pass- pass- pass W leads face down, and N explains that S should have alerted 3C, which shows at least 5 hearts and 4 clubs (unusual convention, but probably legal almost everywhere). E, who has good hearts but who thought that they were placed under declarers heart suit, now wants to double 4H. Director! As the auction period has *not* ended, L21B1 applies, and E may change his call, W takes back his opening lead (L41A, L47E2), and the auction continues. Just to be nasty, imagine that North absent-mindedly faces his hand as dummy while explaining about the missing alert. Does L47E2 now prevent West from taking back his opening lead? Or would you rule that North's cards are exposed during the auction period? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 15 22:58:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:58:48 +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 WAA01704 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:58:41 +1100 Received: from default (cph63.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.63]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA07533 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:58:32 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199711151158.MAA07533@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:58:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: How much should the TD see? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 02:49:32 +0000 > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was > flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. > As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I > should. Comments please. An unintentionally flawed claim is not an irregularity. It is, of course, an error, but not an error in procedure, just an error in bridge. If the opponents had acquiesced, L69A would have applied. It even says so in L68D. In short, you have no authority to adjust the score just because there is a flawed claim. To do so would be a director's error. ---- Let us change the scenario slightly: A claim is disputed, and the players agree to play on. I notice this while passing the table. Now what? In my opinion, this is a clear case of L81C6: I interrupt the players and give a ruling. ---- If a kibitzer comes up to me and tells me discreetly that table 1 is playing on after a disputed claim, I do two things: 1. Go to table 1 and give a ruling (L81C6). 2. Show the kibitzer to the door (L76B); in friendly neighborhood charity events, however, I might let the kibitzer off with a warning, if I found no grounds for ulterior motives. This procedure was recommended at the course in Milan in January 1996; before then, I would have executed only step 2. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 16 09:25:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:25:35 +1100 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 JAA05883 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:25:28 +1100 Received: from robin (hd17-233.hil.compuserve.com [206.175.208.233]) by m9.sprynet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA03426 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:25:21 -0800 Message-ID: <346E20CD.D8DFDC06@sprynet.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 17:23:09 -0500 From: Robin Wigdor Reply-To: rwigdor@sprynet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: laws Subject: The Diamond Necklace and Law 73 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Any thoughts on the following anecdote and discussion? (Reposted from rec.games.bridge.okbridge): : Dick Vatter wrote: > > I would argue that the laws of contract bridge DO NOT prohibit private > communication between partners during the play of a hand - simply > private or coded communication about the hand being played. > > Imagine the following: > > You are playing with a female of your choice with whom you have > developed a secret code i.e. the wearing of a certain diamond necklace you gave > her indicates she is interested in significantly intimate activities after > the game concludes. If she is either wearing that necklace or nor wearing > it, I would contend that you are in the possession of information which > the opponents have no way of knowing. Yet since this information has and > can have nothing to do with the hand being played, it is not prohibited by > the laws of contract bridge. Yet it may have a effect on the play as its > presence or absence may have a direct or indirect affect on your > ability to concentrate and or desire to play well enough not to get the > invitation revoked. > > The laws of contract bridge govern the method of communication > regarding the hand in play nothing more. > > dick (vatter on ok) to which I responded: A charming example. Let me extend it. It's the last board of the session. You and partner discussed in the break before the round that you need an average and a top on the last two boards to win the event. You got your average on the second to last board. The auction has now proceeded to the grand slam invitation level. The final decision is yours. It's unclear whether partner holds that "little extra something" that makes the grand playable. Partner knows from the auction what your problem is. It's your bid: stop in the small slam, probably guaranteeing second place in the event, or go for all the marbles. No ethical problems so far, right? OK, while you're pondering the critical decision, partner puts on the necklace. What do the Laws actually say? Law 73A1 says: > Communication between partners during the auction and play should be effected only by > means of the calls and plays themselves. (I've copied at the end of my post all of the relevant sections of Law 73, which is what we're talking about.) The limitation you're arguing, "regarding the hand in play nothing more", isn't a limitation that's in the Laws themselves. Is there jurisdiction to regulate communication unrelated to the bridge competition? I would argue yes. By entering the competition, you explicitly or implicitly (depending upon the technical Conditions of Contest) confer jurisdiction on the sponsoring organization to regulate your conduct during the competition. Is there something akin to the U.S. Constitution, which may constrain the force and effect of enacted laws? No. Is there case law with the effect of a precedent of a Supreme Court, that limits Law 73A1? No. Your argument may seem intuitively correct, and perhaps it should be correct as a matter of bridge policy. But I don't think it is correct. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 16 11:28:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:28:18 +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 LAA06323 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:28:12 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012774; 16 Nov 97 0:22 GMT Message-ID: <$u0uXVCPKjb0EwEK@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 23:38:55 +0000 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nexus broken In-Reply-To: <01bcf178$4dbaf980$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bcf178$4dbaf980$LocalHost@default>, David Burn writes >I can only conclude that I have lost the plot. Many very powerful >arguments have been adduced for letting declarer have +420 (some >ridiculous arguments have been adduced for letting him have +450, but >I remain steadfast in my view that a revoke is subject to penalty). >But we have done all this years ago, and it staggers me that we have >to do it all again. > >Now. Suppose that instead of bidding 5S, East had doubled 5H. This was >two down off the top (EW +500), but a defender revoked and let the >contract make (EW -850). Would you adjust the score to EW +420? >Answers on a postcard to "No, don't be ridiculous" competition. What, >in the name of reason, is different? > > No I'd adjust to 4S, making 450 -- 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 Sun Nov 16 23:09:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:09:59 +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 XAA07491 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 23:09:51 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1019207; 16 Nov 97 12:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:57:49 +0000 To: rwigdor@sprynet.com Cc: laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: The Diamond Necklace and Law 73 In-Reply-To: <346E20CD.D8DFDC06@sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <346E20CD.D8DFDC06@sprynet.com>, Robin Wigdor writes >Any thoughts on the following anecdote and discussion? (Reposted from >rec.games.bridge.okbridge): > >: Dick Vatter wrote: >> >> I would argue that the laws of contract bridge DO NOT prohibit private >> communication between partners during the play of a hand - simply >> private or coded communication about the hand being played. >> >> Imagine the following: >> >> You are playing with a female of your choice with whom you have >> developed a secret code i.e. the wearing of a certain diamond necklace > > >The final decision is yours. It's unclear whether partner holds that "little extra something" >that makes the grand playable. Partner knows from the auction what your >problem is. It's your bid: stop in the small slam, probably guaranteeing >second place in the event, or go for all the marbles. No ethical >problems so far, right? > >OK, while you're pondering the critical decision, partner puts on the >necklace. > and so on. >What do the Laws actually say? Law 73A1 says: and so on. Labeo: perhaps before you make your bid you should look up the first few lines of law 16. You will find it is illegal to base your choice of action on what partner does with her neck. ------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 Nov 17 01:19:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:19:05 +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 BAA09971 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:18:58 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-251.innet.be [194.7.10.251]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA04567 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:18:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <346EEC8D.1E603118@innet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 13:52:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199711142020.PAA11050@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > (Note to John Probst: your view that a revoke isn't "an egregious > error" is definitely a minority one.) > Count me among that minority. Failing to play a spade because it is hidden behind the hearts is not more egregious than failing to play the Ace because it is hidden behind a deuce. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 17 01:19:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:19:03 +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 BAA09966 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:18:54 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-251.innet.be [194.7.10.251]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA04550 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:18:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <346EEC05.A211BAF6@innet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 13:50:13 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bcf178$4dbaf980$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > I can only conclude that I have lost the plot. Many very powerful > arguments have been adduced for letting declarer have +420 (some > ridiculous arguments have been adduced for letting him have +450, but > I remain steadfast in my view that a revoke is subject to penalty). > But we have done all this years ago, and it staggers me that we have > to do it all again. > > Now. Suppose that instead of bidding 5S, East had doubled 5H. This was > two down off the top (EW +500), but a defender revoked and let the > contract make (EW -850). Would you adjust the score to EW +420? > Answers on a postcard to "No, don't be ridiculous" competition. What, > in the name of reason, is different? I shall tell you what. The reason why Grattan and Yourself refuse to correct the score is because of a line of reasoning that goes somewhat like this : - before the infraction, NS had a "normal" result of +450, after the infraction, they have a "normal" result of +450, so there is no damage. Applied to the example you set out above, you get : - before the infraction, NS had a "normal" result of +450, after the infraction, they have a "normal" result of +500, so there is no damage. In this case of course you are right not to change -850 to +450. But the real reasoning in our "nexus" case is not what you argue, but rather. - before the infraction, NS were in a contract of 4S, after the infraction, they are in 5S. That is damage in itself, even if the damage only materializes when NS make less than eleven tricks. I firmly believe that even if NS make 11 tricks, the result should be changed from 5S= to 4S+1. Of course I do not suggest you actually go to the table and tell them that, but I think it would be the correct thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 17 01:19:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:19:12 +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 BAA09980 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:19:06 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-251.innet.be [194.7.10.251]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA04584 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:18:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <346EED36.F0239EE5@innet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 13:55:18 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199711142020.PAA11050@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Another case: > d) NS would normally get 500 on defense, but the revoke holds them to 300. > > Now NS keep their +300 under the Kaplan doctrine. (Here again, > Herman's rule could serve.) The O's get -500, which surely was > "at all probable." (I could still be talked out of this last; if > so, they get -450.) The "Herman" Rule would give them : MP(+500) - [MP(+500) - MP(+300)], which is of course MP(-300). This is the classical case of "no damage". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 17 02:50:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:50:24 +1100 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 CAA10302 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:50:14 +1100 Received: from default (client8482.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.130]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id PAA11015; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:50:24 GMT Message-Id: <199711161550.PAA11015@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "martin pool" Cc: Subject: Re: W.B.F. Laws Committee, recent decisions. Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:54:10 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ---------- > From: Martin Pool > To: Grattan Endicott > Subject: Re: W.B.F. Laws Committee, recent decisions. > Date: 15 November 1997 22:40 > > On Fri 14 Nov, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > gester@globalnet.co.uk > > Grattan Endicott > > Liverpool L18 8DJ : > > Re 71C :- > So in normal language this means that we can cross out 'Until the conceding > side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends,'. > Is that right ? Yes. We were concerned to do it in a way that did not require any reprinting of the law book. As a courtesy I am copying this to the mailing list. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 17 07:01:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:01:33 +1100 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 HAA11503 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:01:25 +1100 Received: from default (client8376.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.118]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA03281; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:01:23 GMT Message-Id: <199711162001.UAA03281@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: WBF Laws Committee information. Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:06:08 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: WBF Laws Committee information. > Date: 15 November 1997 03:44 > > > David S. wrote - > > >Grattan Endicott, Secretary > > I always did picture Grattan in a short skirt with a notebook . What a sexist view you have of job titles. I must introduce to you to the gentleman who carries the bricks for Jean Beynon here. He may have a word or two of advice for you. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 17 10:14:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:14:25 +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 KAA11982 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:14:19 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004995; 16 Nov 97 23:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:17:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How much should the TD see? In-Reply-To: <199711150543.IAA10626@adm.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was >> >flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. >> >As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I >> >should. Comments please. >> >> When I pass a table I "see" nothing. >And what about L81C6? That is what I mean: if I have seen nothing, then I have not "become aware of it in any manner"! I think that a TD should not look for problems [except disciplinary]. That is why I do not "see" things: it does not help the game. On the other hand, disciplinary problems are different, so if people are becoming abusive, I am aware of them and will act without a call. -- 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 Nov 17 11:32:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:32:52 +1100 Received: from UFO.star.net.il (UFO.star.net.il [195.8.207.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA12154 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:32:39 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS2-105.star.net.il [195.8.208.105]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA00782; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:32:16 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <346F90DA.C8FCFAC4@star.net.il> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:33:30 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Reg Busch CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Nexus broken? - Lessons - Preamble References: <3.0.1.32.20000105101732.006afc28@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk PPEAMBLE Good Evening to all BLML members. As much as I read the messages this was almost the widest full list' s contribution !?. I suggest to learn the main and very basic subjects arising from the discussion and try to agree the way we will deal with in the future. Here are the items , IMHO, and I"ll send a more detailed e-mail for each one. _____________________________________________________ 1) The main item which we should learn and decide is about an uniform ruling when a lot of irregularities occur , subsequently or instantaneously or both ( I remind you "revoke and claim" too , etc.) ________________________________________________________ 2) The second is an old trouble I submitted here some months ago : Stop bid/play when a "upsetting" irregularity occurs when bidding is at 4th or 5th level, in spite of some common accepted interpretations of Laws 81-85 , in order to avoid "double shot" problems ; "upsetting" include two kinds IMO : a. an UI - especially hesitation - or other "sign" b. egregious wrong explanation of a conventional bid. _______________________________________________________ 3) I think we expect different reactions - in continuation of the bid and play - from different levels' player when a substantial irregularity occurs. When applying the "causality test" to decide if there is the right/need for an adjusted/assigned score - should be a "written" differentiation about ruling at high level tournaments and "daily/regular" ?? Or between professional/expert players and LOLs ??? __________________________________________________________ 4) If we will have a wide agreement about a change needed in some Laws - shall we be able to ask for an updating of the laws before 2009 or at least demanding a "temporary official guiding decision" ?? ____________________________________________________________ Thank you all for the future co-operation and expect your suggestions and remarks to the detailed e-mail which will be sent these hours. Dany Reg Busch wrote: > > In a competitive auction, NS are bidding spades and EW hearts. South bids > 4S, clear hesitation by West, and East bids 5H. South reasonably accepts > the push to 5S. We all agree that East's 5H bid is not justified after the UI. > > 5S is a simple contract and a raw novice could make 11 tricks. However, > declarer manages to revoke! This costs a penalty trick, so NS are -50. NS > apply for an adjusted score, on the grounds that, without the infraction, > they would have been in 4S making even with the revoke. Do we adjust? > > Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 17 12:35:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:35:12 +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 MAA12295 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:35:07 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023913; 17 Nov 97 1:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:56:55 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: How much should the TD see? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Sergei Litvak wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>> >Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was >>> >flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. >>> >As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I >>> >should. Comments please. >>> >>> When I pass a table I "see" nothing. > >>And what about L81C6? > > That is what I mean: if I have seen nothing, then I have not "become >aware of it in any manner"! > > I think that a TD should not look for problems [except disciplinary]. >That is why I do not "see" things: it does not help the game. On the >other hand, disciplinary problems are different, so if people are >becoming abusive, I am aware of them and will act without a call. > The general feeling is I shouldn't have "seen" it, so I paid up tonight and bought the "offenders" a beer, which seems about right. -- 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 Nov 17 14:57:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA12634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:57:04 +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 OAA12629 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:56:53 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2010815; 17 Nov 97 3:43 GMT Message-ID: <4mLLOGAGu7b0EwFn@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:35:34 +0000 To: John Probst Cc: David Burn , Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Nexus broken In-Reply-To: <$u0uXVCPKjb0EwEK@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <$u0uXVCPKjb0EwEK@probst.demon.co.uk>, "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In message <01bcf178$4dbaf980$LocalHost@default>, David Burn > writes ..(cut).. >>Now. Suppose that instead of bidding 5S, East had doubled 5H. This was >>two down off the top (EW +500), but a defender revoked and let the >>contract make (EW -850). Would you adjust the score to EW +420? >>Answers on a postcard to "No, don't be ridiculous" competition. What, >>in the name of reason, is different? >> John Probst: >No I'd adjust to 4S, making 450 O! let me not be mad, not mad, sweet Heaven; keep me in temper; I would not be mad. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 17 19:13:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:13:38 +1100 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 TAA13209 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:13:27 +1100 Received: from FB03W204 (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:12:28 +0100 Message-ID: <346FFCAA.6BD4@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:13:30 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich-Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Nexus broken References: <01bcf178$4dbaf980$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > I can only conclude that I have lost the plot. Many very powerful > arguments have been adduced for letting declarer have +420 (some > ridiculous arguments have been adduced for letting him have +450, but > I remain steadfast in my view that a revoke is subject to penalty). > But we have done all this years ago, and it staggers me that we have > to do it all again. > > Now. Suppose that instead of bidding 5S, East had doubled 5H. This was > two down off the top (EW +500), but a defender revoked and let the > contract make (EW -850). Would you adjust the score to EW +420? > Answers on a postcard to "No, don't be ridiculous" competition. What, > in the name of reason, is different? I think this is a powerful case for not adjusting the original case. I would not adjust the score at all here. And furthermore if I would be a member of a comittee to decide this case I would vote for no-money-back because the frivolousness of the appeal. I hate to make rulings in favor of someone who should blame himself not his opponents for his bad score. If I buy me a rifle and shot myself in my knees I cannot blame the seller of the rifle (even he did sth illegal) but only myself. Just my 2c worth -- Richard Bley From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 17 20:33:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:33:47 +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 UAA13373 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:33:40 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA16255; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:38:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma016055; Mon, 17 Nov 97 01:37:52 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA26265 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:37:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711170937.BAA26265@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 08:31:26 GMT Subject: Re: How much should the TD see? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: >Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was >flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. >As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I >should. Comments please. IMO you shouldn't have been in this position, since you shouldn't be looking at the play at a table unless you had been called there for some reason. Para10.2 of the EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws includes some useful guidance on irregularities not spotted by any player, but spotted by a TD *who has been called to the table*, e.g. to deal with some other irregularity. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 18 03:11:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:11:50 +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 DAA17196 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:11:41 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-116.innet.be [194.7.10.116]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA03684 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:11:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34702CE5.B04C53FF@innet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:39:17 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: How much should the TD see? 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: > > Sergei Litvak wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> >Passing a table while directing I saw a defensive claim which was > >> >flawed. Relying on L81C6 I pointed this out and adjusted the score. > >> >As a casual kibitzer clearly I should say nothing. As a TD I believe I > >> >should. Comments please. > >> > >> When I pass a table I "see" nothing. > > >And what about L81C6? > > That is what I mean: if I have seen nothing, then I have not "become > aware of it in any manner"! > > I think that a TD should not look for problems [except disciplinary]. > That is why I do not "see" things: it does not help the game. On the > other hand, disciplinary problems are different, so if people are > becoming abusive, I am aware of them and will act without a call. > I concur with David, but I would wish to correct his use of words : "When I pass a table I watch nothing. Thus I cannot see anything" If you see anything - you should act - and since it is not fair on those you are watching, you should not watch. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 18 03:14:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:14:34 +1100 Received: from ns2.tudelft.nl (ns2.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA17204 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:11:51 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27325) with SMTP id <0EJS001GFSR8OG@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:06:45 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA10679; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:06:08 +0100 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:06:07 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: correktion ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EJS001GGSR8OG@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk During a match of teams I got the following problem. Players are reasonable. Board 23. S/ALL. S KQ108 W N E S H Q63 1C D 7642 1H !*? ..p 1NT C 72 2H P P ! S 2 N S J9754 P P 2NT P H A98542 H -- P P D K109 W E D AQ3 C Q94 C KJ1063 Z S A63 H KJ107 D J85 C A85 South started with S3 for SQ of North. Then North switched C7 and the contract was made. NS called the director when dummy got opened. After the play they called the director again and asked for correktion of the score. I decided that 2H of W after the ..P of E was not permitted, but S doubled 2H and in my opinion this was very risky (I think he overbid his hand, he already bid 1C and then 1NT over 1H). The defence in my opinion was very weak. I suppose the double of 2H could only be justified by a good H-holding, so when N won the first trick with SQ he could easaly swith to H for two down. Must we decide that 2NT is made and that the bad result is due to bad play of NS ? -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ir. S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 18 04:38:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:38:32 +1100 Received: from mrin41.mail.aol.com (mrin41.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA17494 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:38:26 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin41.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA09842 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:37:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:37:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117123751_-1743235518@mrin41.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Varied Score Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Would some knowledgeable people please define for me what L12C3 means by a varied assigned adjusted score, with an example of each type if there is more than one type? Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 18 07:53:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:53:02 +1100 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18445 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:52:26 +1100 Received: from mike (ip27.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.244.27]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA15619 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:52:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971117155216.006c48e4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:52:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: correktion ? In-Reply-To: <0EJS001GGSR8OG@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:06 PM 11/17/97 +0100, S.E. Angad-Gaur wrote: >During a match of teams I got the following problem. Players are reasonable. >Board 23. S/ALL. > > S KQ108 W N E S > H Q63 1C > D 7642 1H !*? ..p 1NT > C 72 2H P P ! > S 2 N S J9754 P P 2NT P > H A98542 H -- P P > D K109 W E D AQ3 > C Q94 C KJ1063 > Z > S A63 > H KJ107 > D J85 > C A85 > >South started with S3 for SQ of North. Then North switched C7 and the contract >was made. NS called the director when dummy got opened. After the play they >called the director again and asked for correktion of the score. I decided >that 2H of W after the ..P of E was not permitted, but S doubled 2H and in my >opinion this was very risky (I think he overbid his hand, he already bid 1C >and then 1NT over 1H). The defence in my opinion was very weak. I suppose >the double of 2H could only be justified by a good H-holding, so when N won the >first trick with SQ he could easaly swith to H for two down. Must we decide >that 2NT is made and that the bad result is due to bad play of NS ? > 1. Was there an infraction? IMO, yes. West's vul 2H bid opposite a silent partner, with opponents showing cards in his thin 6-bagger, is highly questionable, and Pass is certainly a LA. The interpretation of partner's hesitation is not clear-cut, but it suggests values, making 2H at least slightly less foolish than it would be without the hesitation. Thus 2H is infractive. 2.Damages? If West had passed 1nt, this would, in all probablility, have become the final contract. West might have found the killing club lead, but not very likely, and I'm inclined to think that 1nt would succeed against the likely heart lead. Thus N/S are damaged to the tune of -120 vs. +90. 3. Are damages the direct result of the infraction? This is really the nub of your question. South's double is certainly questionable, but as the cards lay 2H fails, so it is difficult to call this a "flagrant error". Likewise, the defense was less than optimal, but not flagrantly so. Each defender led the suit he thought, on the bidding, would be held by his partner. Certainly North might have (probably should have) found the killing heart shift, but the club shift doesn't rise to the standard of flagrant, so I rule to adjust the score to +90/-90. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 18 08:09:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:09:22 +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 IAA18529 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:09:16 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-85.innet.be [194.7.10.85]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA14231 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:09:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34707720.7E05BCAA@innet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:56:00 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: correktion ? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <0EJS001GGSR8OG@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Allow me ... E.Angad-Gaur wrote: > > During a match of teams I got the following problem. Players are reasonable. > Board 23. S/ALL. > > S KQ108 W N E S > H Q63 1C > D 7642 1H !*? ..p 1NT > C 72 2H P P ! > S 2 N S J9754 P P 2NT P > H A98542 H -- P P > D K109 W E D AQ3 > C Q94 C KJ1063 > Z > S A63 > H KJ107 > D J85 > C A85 > First of all, let me stipulate that I will not go into the question as to whether or not 2H can be allowed. I will follow ir S.E. (these dutchmen with their habit of hiding their first names !!!) and say that 2H is not allowed. Then the contract is 1NT, played by south. Let's say they make seven tricks, so the alternative score would be +90. Now in stead we are faced with a score of -120, which very easily could have been +100. I do not think NS are damaged. End of story - but certainly not of thread -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 18 09:18:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:18:05 +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 JAA18820 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:17:46 +1100 Received: from default (cph17.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.17]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19619 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:17:29 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199711172217.XAA19619@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:17:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Varied Score Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Mlfrench@aol.com > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:37:51 -0500 (EST) > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Varied Score > Would some knowledgeable people please define for me what L12C3 means by a > varied assigned adjusted score, with an example of each type if there is more > than one type? Today my snail mail included the final verdict on a ruling I made in the Danish first division (involving Bermuda Bowl players) about a month ago. I will spare you the details, but share the ruling: --------------------------------------------------------- The result is determined from the following calculation: 80 % weight +420 to N-S, corresponding to 0 imp. 20 % weight - 50 to N-S, corresponding to -10 imp. Weighted average: -2 imp to N-S. Deposit refunded. E-W has been misinformed and may have been damaged by the misinformation. The AC executes its right to vary the result in order to do equity. --------------------------------------------------------- The reasoning behind this is that it is difficult to determine what would have happened, had the infraction not occurred, and the AC feels that it is equitable to weight the table score of 420 as 80%, conceding that there is a slight chance that the offending side might have pushed themselves one too high after interference that might have occurred if there had been no misinformation. I hope this helps. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 18 09:46:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:46:26 +1100 Received: from mail-relay.compulink.co.uk (mail-relay.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA18914 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:46:18 +1100 Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by mail-relay.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA16911 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:58:42 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.cix.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id VAA25312 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:57:22 GMT Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 21:56 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: correktion ? 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: <0EJS001GGSR8OG@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl > During a match of teams I got the following problem. Players are > reasonable. > Board 23. S/ALL. > > S KQ108 W N E S > H Q63 1C > D 7642 1H !*? ..p 1NT > C 72 2H P P ! > S 2 N S J9754 P P 2NT P > H A98542 H -- P P > D K109 W E D AQ3 > C Q94 C KJ1063 > Z > S A63 > H KJ107 > D J85 > C A85 > > South started with S3 for SQ of North. Then North switched C7 and the > contract > was made. NS called the director when dummy got opened. After the play > they > called the director again and asked for correktion of the score. I > decided that 2H of W after the ..P of E was not permitted, but S > doubled 2H and in my > opinion this was very risky (I think he overbid his hand, he already > bid 1C > and then 1NT over 1H). The defence in my opinion was very weak. I > suppose the double of 2H could only be justified by a good H-holding, > so when N won the > first trick with SQ he could easaly swith to H for two down. Must we > decide > that 2NT is made and that the bad result is due to bad play of NS ? Not justified on that basis IMO, there are potential hands for South where a timely club switch is essential (particularly if the double of 2H is anything other than outright penalty). However, I don't understand why you have a problem with the two heart bid. I assume that North doubled 1H (unless !*? is some sort of swear word) and that East then hesitated (and who wouldn't). If, under some bizarre law, we gave East permission to make a suggestion at this stage I think he would say "Partner, for god's sake don't compete in hearts!" - this is what the UI suggests and 2H is probably the most ethical bid that West can make. If West had passed the auction would continue P-P-X and NS would probably go for 500...unless.. ..is it AI that one is in possession of UI? West's dilemma. He thinks that he will almost certainly be barred from leading a minor by the UI and that this is likely to be disastrous - he therefore makes a bid that is superficially non-UI suggested to avoid the problem later. Oooh, I've gone all dizzy so I'll shut up now. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 19 04:42:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:42:08 +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 EAA24488 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:42:01 +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 MAA07348 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13293; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:41:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:41:48 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711181741.MAA13293@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Varied Score (terminology) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jens & Bodil" > 80 % weight +420 to N-S, corresponding to 0 imp. > 20 % weight - 50 to N-S, corresponding to -10 imp. > Weighted average: -2 imp to N-S. As a matter of terminology, are we happy to call this a "varied score?" If not, I'd suggest the term "mixed score," by analogy with the "mixed strategy" of game theory. At least I would suggest using some term other than "split score," which I'd like to reserve for cases where EW and NS are given different results. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 19 04:48:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:48:47 +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 EAA24516 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:48:41 +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 MAA07663 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13327; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:48:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:48:29 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711181748.MAA13327@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: correktion ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > ..is it AI that one is in possession of UI? Yes, I think it is. It is analogous to knowing any other penalty. One is always supposed to try to do one's best in the circumstances. It is very hard for me to see how the hesitation (if that's what happened) "demonstrably" suggests bidding 2H over passing. In fact, I think it tends to suggest the opposite. If East had heart support and a modicum of values, wouldn't he have some way to raise? If we aren't dealing with a hesitation, the above may not apply. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 19 07:04:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:04:46 +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 HAA25164 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:04:38 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1021283; 18 Nov 97 20:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:23:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Laws of Duplicate Bridge 1997 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The English Edition of The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 Promulgated by The World Bridge Federation and approved by The WBF Laws Committee The Portland Club The European Bridge League The American Contract Bridge League is now on the World Wide Web with the written permission of The Portland Club The URL is http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e --------------------------- The differences from the European Edition are very minor and are detailed therein Permission for the European Edition from The European Bridge League is granted by the Introduction --------------------------- Details of changes made in 1997 Links to the English Edition and a downloadable document version of the European version and many other Laws-related matters are available from my Bridgepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm --------------------------- The English Edition was put on the WWW by Niels Wendell Pedersen of Denmark with a little assistance from me An American edition will become available when permission is granted -- 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 Nov 20 01:26:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:26:31 +1100 Received: from brickbat8.mindspring.com (brickbat8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00128 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:26:25 +1100 Received: from mike (ip115.baltimore6.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.182.115]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA09182 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:26:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971119092626.006a5f64@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:26:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: correktion ? In-Reply-To: <199711181748.MAA13327@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:48 PM 11/18/97 -0500, you wrote: >> From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) >> ..is it AI that one is in possession of UI? > >Yes, I think it is. It is analogous to knowing any other penalty. One >is always supposed to try to do one's best in the circumstances. > >It is very hard for me to see how the hesitation (if that's what >happened) "demonstrably" suggests bidding 2H over passing. In fact, I >think it tends to suggest the opposite. If East had heart support and >a modicum of values, wouldn't he have some way to raise? The pass, by itself, indicates that partner either lacks sufficient values or sufficient hearts to compete. The hesitation adds this critical clause: "BUT NOT BOTH", which is the UI. That is, partner either holds 2-3 hearts with insufficient values to raise, say 5-8 points, or a hand with 9-12 HCP and heart shortness. The hand type which has been logically eliminated by the UI is the weak hand with short hearts. Since this is the hand type which poses the greatest risk of a costly set for West, its elimination does, at least somewhat, improve the odds on the 2H call, compared to what they would be without the UI. I say somewhat, because with or without the UI, I find 2H to be a flagrantly stupid call. Perhaps this is a debate that falls into the "reasonably/demonstrably" gap. Mike From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 21 10:13:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:13:28 +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 KAA09862 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:13:20 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008672; 20 Nov 97 22:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:52:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Insufficient bids MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I expect this is all old hat, and been discussed before, but if so I cannot remember what conclusions were reached. It is simple enough, really. A player makes an insufficient bid, say 1D over 1NT. Before the TD reaches the table, he attempts to correct it. I presume we are all agreed that the next player can accept the 1D bid under L27A. The question is what do we do otherwise. 1997 Laws please. [1] He corrected it to 2D, and we are sure that neither 1D nor 2D is conventional. [2] He corrected it to a double. [3] He corrected it to 2H. [4] He corrected it to 1H. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * New Edgar Kaplan memorial message on Bridgepage * * http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 21 22:15:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:15:35 +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 WAA11495 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:15:24 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:14:31 GMT Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 11:14:30 GMT Message-Id: <6375.9711211114@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Illegal premature correction, Re: Insufficient bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David asks: > > I expect this is all old hat, and been discussed before, but if so I > cannot remember what conclusions were reached. It is simple enough, > really. A player makes an insufficient bid, say 1D over 1NT. Before > the TD reaches the table, he attempts to correct it. I presume we are > all agreed that the next player can accept the 1D bid under L27A. The > question is what do we do otherwise. 1997 Laws please. > > [2] He corrected it to a double. > L27B3: partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Offender must now substitute a sufficient bid or pass and L27B1 or L27B2 applies. > [4] He corrected it to 1H. > This is not covered in L27. However, L9C seems to guide us that the illegal premature correction should count as a withdrawn call for purposes of L26. Offender must now substitute a sufficient bid or pass and L27B1 or L27B2 applies. > -- > David Stevenson I'll leave the odd cases (legal premature correction), which may or may not be routine, to someone else. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 21 22:15:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:15:52 +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 WAA11502 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:15:45 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-38.innet.be [194.7.10.38]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01060 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:15:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34756C8E.94DEF6C9@innet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:12:14 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Insufficient bids 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 expect this is all old hat, and been discussed before, but if so I > cannot remember what conclusions were reached. It is simple enough, > really. A player makes an insufficient bid, say 1D over 1NT. Before > the TD reaches the table, he attempts to correct it. I presume we are > all agreed that the next player can accept the 1D bid under L27A. The > question is what do we do otherwise. 1997 Laws please. > > [1] He corrected it to 2D, and we are sure that neither 1D nor 2D is > conventional. > > [2] He corrected it to a double. > > [3] He corrected it to 2H. > > [4] He corrected it to 1H. > This is an interesting question David, because it highlights a new shortcoming in the Law Book. Under the 1987 Laws, there was a discussion as to whether or not L25 was of application. I always said it was, because it did not say it wasn't. That meant opponents could accept the correction, and if they didn't, there were lead penalties and L27 came into play. Now L25 states (in a footnote) that L27 is straight away of application. OK, I say, but what with the attempted rectification ? First of all, opponents can now no longer accept the attempt. I accept that the Lawmakers closed that possibility, and I will no longer offer it, even if I fail to see why it should not be possible. Next we read L27. [2] above is easy, and is dealt with in L27B3. Partner must pass, and L26 penalties apply. [1] should be easy. We tell offender he is allowed to bid 2D without penalty. If he would now choose to bid something else, he's a fool, and I shall worry about the penalties when that happens, or when hell freezes over, whichever comes first (and I suppose it's the latter) How about [3] ? We should now tell offender he is to change his call into something legal. I suppose 2D was conventional, so he cannot change into anything without shutting up his partner and he should now make a final call. And now we have -again- a situation in which a bid (2H) has disappeared, without there being any reference to L26. Since L25 refers us to L27, and L27 does not mention the attepted correction, we should read L26 on its own. I have under the past laws always maintained that L26 was always under application, even if no other Law refered to it. That was not a unanimous opinion and I had thought the Lawmakers would resolve the issue. They haven't, but have continued in their attempt to make the references complete. As we see here, they have not succeeded. I shall still maintain that although no reference has been given that points to this, L26 is of application, and I will rule lead penalties if offender does not repeat his hearts (if they were natural in the first place). I fail to see what difference there is between case [3] and [4], as in both cases partner is barred and lead penalties will drop if offender repeats hearts at whatever level. Now I wonder what David's intention was. Did he try and get this settled, or has he something else up his sleeve to trap even me ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 21 22:16:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:16:05 +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 WAA11509 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:15:54 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-38.innet.be [194.7.10.38]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01075 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:15:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34756D19.59BFADDA@innet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:14:33 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: nexus article (long) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As I announced, I was going to put my thoughts on this subject into an article. This is it. It is long. Please forgive me. Assigning Assigned Adjusted Scores. When assigning adjusted scores, the director will normally follow some steps : a) was there an infraction ? b) what would the contract have been without the infraction ? c) how many tricks would be made in that contract ? d) what would that score ? e) is that better than the score obtained at the table ? - then award this. Sometimes b) can have more than one answer, in which case c-d are repeated and the best result for the non-offenders is chosen. What matters in this article is point c) Two methods seem to be in use around the world : a) applying L12 "the most favourable result that was likely", the TD simply plays out the contract along all "normal" lines and gives the best likely result b) when the contract actually played at the table is of the same denomination as the one considered, simply award the same number of tricks It seems that this b) is against the Laws, and yet it is frequently applied, and not without reason. It seems clear we shall not award a player 11 tricks when he has only made 10. The reasoning behind this procedure is that the damage was done by getting into a different contract, but that if the play was not influenced by the infraction, there is no extra 'damage' and no need to change the number of tricks. I would like to call this method an application of a principle for which I propose a name: **The principle of the return of normality** When after an infraction, at some moment in the play, it becomes clear what has happened, or the situation becomes in such a way similar to that which would have occurred without the infraction, then all subsequent play shall count towards the determination of an adjusted score, without reference to the 'most favourable result'. This principle is not to be found in the Lawbook, but cannot be said to contradict the Laws. It is completely in accordance with many rulings that have been given in the past. Let's apply this principle to some examples : A) A pair have used irregular methods in reaching 6S. The TD decides to turn the result back to 4S. As the cards lie, the slam is cold and a thirteenth trick depends on the finding of the club queen. Declarer manages this and the AS will be +510. B) A pair at the next table did exactly the same thing, but finessed the other way. No-one will see any problem with awarding +480 to this pair, even when both rulings happen on the same board and within minutes of one another. The ruling in A) can only be explained by admitting that there has been a return of normality, and you have to read L12 as "it is likely that this declarer would have made 13 tricks in 4S", and forgetting that it was also likely that he would only find 12 tricks. C) A pair are in 5S after an overcall by opponents of 5H, which is deemed illegal. There are only 10 tricks. Without the infraction a result of +420 would have been "likely", so that becomes the AS. D) Same bidding, but declarer makes eleven tricks. Afterwards he explains that he had two lines, a safe one for 11 tricks, and a more risky one for 10 or 12 tricks, which happens to work. An AS of +480 seems correct. E) Same bidding, 11 tricks. Now declarer explains that he played overcaller for the hand that he needed to merit that overcall. Since he did not have it, the twelfth trick disappeared. Again an AS of +480 seems correct. These two examples are also illustrations of the principle of the return of normality. In both cases normality has not yet returned, in the first because declarer was in a contract that imposed a different line, in the second because declarer correctly inferred something untrue from the bidding. Since normality has not returned, the play has no influence on the AS, and the benefit of the doubt is kept with non-offenders. F) Same bidding, 10 tricks. It is later shown that by expert play declarer could have made 11 tricks. The contract is turned back to 4S, and since normality has returned, declarer gets the ten tricks he made, and an AS of +420 G) Same bidding, 10 tricks. Now declarer needed a simple unblocking paly for eleven tricks but he failed to see it. Although not a beginner and kicking himself for this failure, declarer should still get +420. H) Same bidding, 10 tricks after a revoke from declarer. Since normality has returned, there is no reason not to award +420 in this case too. The reason why I give these three examples is to show that it is very hard to draw a line as to which of the cases C),F),G),H) merit an AS of +420 and which do not. If the correct result in C) is +420 and in H) it is -50, then how does one resolve F) and G) - Where does one draw the line ? There is no reason why the same principle should not be applied in some other examples: I) In stead of bidding 5S, they decide to double. Defenders score 4 tricks for +300. They are clearly damaged. It turns out that 11 tricks are a probable result in 4S, so the AS is +450. J) Same bidding, but they now make 5 tricks. Of course there is no damage and the score stays at +500. K) Same bidding, defense takes 3 tricks. Of course the AS is again at +450. L) The defense might have made 4 tricks on a brilliant defense. The AS is +450. M) The defense was not as hard as all that. I would feel happy with a type of ruling such as the one set out further. N) Defenders make only 3 tricks after a revoke. Now it can be said that with regards to the revoke, normality has returned. Defenders were in a "normal" position of playing a hand, and they revoked. I do not think that the fact that only one player can revoke when the pair is declaring, and now two had that possibility, constitutes a less normal position. Since normality has returned, the subsequent play might well be included in the AS. I will show a bit further how this has to be calculated. Let's first continue with our set of examples: O) Same bidding. Although there are 5 tricks available, defense make only 4, failing to find a brilliant defense. Most directors would still award +450. It is hard to say that normality has returned when one is playing a totally different contract. P) The making of 5 tricks depends on routine card play. I would feel happy with giving the type of ruling set in the next example, but many will disagree. (and the line will be difficult to draw) Q) Defenders make only 4 tricks after a revoke. We can say that normality has returned. Since non-offenders were not damaged (they would have scored +500 in normal play) there is no redress. Let's now see how the score in example N) might be calculated. I will illustrate for two manners of calculation, but the principle is the same : At IMP play, we shall compare to a result at the other table. Let's say this is +420 (a slight declarer error). +450 at this table would score +1 for the non-offenders. +300 would have scored -3, and that would be corrected to +420 and +1. +100 scores -8, and to this we add +4 to arrive at an AS of -4. At Pairs' Play, we might see that +450 scores 80%, +300 20% and +100 a measly 5%. The cost of the failing downtrick is 15% and so the AS is 65%. This method has recently been dubbed "Herman's Rule". Vain as I am, I like that name. It has been represented as : MP(+450) - [MP(+300) - MP(+100)] This might seem to solve some problems, but in reality it doesn't, because there are still two different calculations : In two situations (H and N) we have adjusted the normal AS of 4S, making 11 tricks, downwards. We feel this is correct since the revoke cannot be deemed as "damage caused by offenders". However I have now suggested two different approaches : When playing in 5S, we have awarded to NS the result of 10 tricks. This is equal to subtracting one trick. But when playing in 5HX, we have applied Herman's rule and we have subtracted from +450 a score of 15%. If we would have applied Herman's rule to example H, we would arrive at : MP(+450) - [MP(+450) - MP(-50)] And we arrive again at -50. OTOH, Applying the first principle to example N, we could also say : AS = 4S, making 11 - 1 trick for the revoke = +420. I think it is bad for two different approaches to exist side by side and I am forced to choose. I think that an approach which concentrates on the hand in question alone, should be preferred over one in which the AS is determined by exterior factors. I propose therefor to always adjust in playing tricks: If normality has returned, and non-offenders make a mistake in play, and this same (type of) mistake could also have happened in the alternative play, then in the alternative contract the normal number of tricks is also adjusted. That would make the AS in example N) to be +420 as well. Example M) would then be determined by examining how "grave" the defensive error actually was, and how "grave" an error could have been possible in the alternative play. Sometimes no error at all is possible, and +450 should be the AS. Sometimes, a little delicate play is needed and the defensive error could still result in an AS of +420. I have recently applied this into a ruling I had to give in Belgium. The contract is 4S, but a misexplanation has been given which effectively rules out a diamond start. With a correct information, the diamond start is possible, maybe even obligatory. With a diamond start and continuation (not very hard to find), defense take three diamond tricks and their natural trump trick. In actual play however, declarer was able to discard one of dummy's diamond losers. The defender with the last trump decides however to use this to overruff in stead of waiting one trick when he can remove dummy's last trump. This defensive error causes the contract to be made. We must realize that normailty has returned. The defensive error could still count towards the height of the AS. Yet the type of error could NOT have happened in the alternative line of play. In order for the contract to make after the diamond lead and continuance, which is what we have to assume under L12C2, defenders should have done something far more erroneous, in fact only revoking will do. They did not do that in the actual play and they should still get the -50 they were entitled to. To summarize the necessary steps : a) determine if there was an infraction b) determine the alternative contract and line of play c) check whether in the actual contract and play, normality has returned d) check for non-offenders error after returning of normality (which by definition is totally unaffected by the infraction) e) check if this did not in fact reduce a score that would not have been damaging to a damaging one, in which case non-offenders were not damaged after all f) check whether the same type of error might also have occurred in the alternative line g) if it could have, adjust the alternative line of play to include the same error. h) Award the score thus obtained Or in shorthand : things that happen after an infraction, but were not caused by the infraction, shall count towards the determination of an adjusted score, but only if they could also have happened in the alternative under consideration, and scored as in that alternative. And this my vanity likes : after being forced to accept something named after me, I go on to disown it. please please please please please : I would like to read your comments on this, but please snip everything in reply except the parts you are replying to. This is far too long to be resent even once. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 22 00:15:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:15:18 +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 AAA14096 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:15:11 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac1019231; 21 Nov 97 13:09 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCF677.5A5CBEE0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:16:53 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Insufficient bids Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:16:52 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 16 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Originally, I was of the view that if a player corrected his insufficient bid to a legal alternative before the TD was called then he was stuck with his choice. However, Law 27 does refer to Law 10C1 in a way that suggests that this should *not* be so, ie. the player should hear all of the alternatives before making his final choice. This is also similar to the situation in Law 25 where a player who makes a delayed or purposesful change of call without the TD present is not stuck with his substituted call if it is not condoned but will find it cancelled and all of the choices presented to him. Finally, I personally have no doubts that Laws 16 and 26 apply to all relevant withdrawn calls whether or not there is a cross reference to them from some other Law, ie. I think that each Law stands in its own right irrespective of any other Law except where one Law makes specific reference to the inapplicability, exclusion or overriding of another Law. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 23 12:34:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:34:43 +1100 Received: from cshore.com (cshore.com [206.165.153.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA23335 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:34:37 +1100 Received: from [192.168.3.18] ([192.168.3.18]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.0/64) id 2891500 ; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:33:41 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: bills@cshore.com (Bill Segraves) Subject: WBF alert policies when screens are in use Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:33:41 EST Message-Id: <199711230133.2891500@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings - In conjunction with a review of alert procedures in on-line bridge, I am gathering information on WBF alerting policies when screens are in use. WBF alert policy, as described on the WBF web site, indicates a broad class of calls (including all doubles) which are not to be alerted *except* when screens are in use. If anyone on this group is able to provide further information on WBF guidelines or practice when screens are in use, I would be most appreciative. I am particularly interested in responsibilities concerning alerts and explanations of doubles. Thanks you very much. Sincerely, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT U.S. bills@cshore.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 02:25:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:25:23 +1100 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 CAA03836 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:25:14 +1100 Received: from 207.124.26.112 ([207.124.26.112]) by thebest.net (Eureka! Gold(tm) v2.4 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Nov24.102614.G1000.373646; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:26:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3479AB90.4628@thebest.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:30:07 -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: Insufficient bid 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 I would appreciate someone answering the following question for me. In a local game yesterday, opponent bid 4 spades and my partner bid 4 hearts. The director was called, and my partner chose to pass. Our opponents thought that they should then have the option of requiring or forbidding the opening lead of a heart. The director said that they did not have this option---that I (declarer) could lead any card I wanted to. Was the director correct? Thanks. Ann Parker From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 03:49:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 03:49:10 +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 DAA04134 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 03:49:04 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017168; 24 Nov 97 16:35 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCF8F6.CE122470@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:34:16 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:34:13 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 16 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ann Parker wrote: > >I would appreciate someone answering the following question for me. In >a local game yesterday, opponent bid 4 spades and my partner bid 4 >hearts. The director was called, and my partner chose to pass. Our >opponents thought that they should then have the option of requiring or >forbidding the opening lead of a heart. The director said that they did >not have this option---that I (declarer) could lead any card I wanted >to. Was the director correct? Thanks. Ann Parker > The TD was correct. See Law 26 which refers only to lead penalties for defenders as their withdrawn calls convey unauthorised information and declarer needs to be protected from this. Declarer, on the other hand, can see Dummy from the opening lead onwards and therefore the Defenders >are not damaged by any information that Dummy's withdrawn call conveyed. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 03:49:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 03:49:24 +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 DAA04141 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 03:49:16 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:48:32 GMT Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 16:48:31 GMT Message-Id: <7085.9711241648@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My reply to annparker@thebest.net ----- Begin Included Message ----- From rmb1 Mon Nov 24 16:46:25 1997 To: annparker@thebest.net Subject: Re: Insufficient bid Content-Length: 4686 You ask: > > I would appreciate someone answering the following question for me. In > a local game yesterday, opponent bid 4 spades and my partner bid 4 > hearts. The director was called, and my partner chose to pass. Our > opponents thought that they should then have the option of requiring or > forbidding the opening lead of a heart. The director said that they did > not have this option---that I (declarer) could lead any card I wanted > to. Was the director correct? Thanks. Ann Parker > The director should give the opponents the option to accept the 4H bid. If it was you to make the opening lead (i.e. you were on the left of declarer), and your partner had not otherwise bid hearts then, NO, the director was wrong. The opponents can require or forbid a heart lead at the opening lead. If you were declarer (or partner has bid hearts at some other time) then there are no penalties, you can play what you like. I have copied the relevant laws below. When your partner chose to pass, the situation is covered by Law27B2: you must pass for the rest of the auction, and various laws (including Law 26) may apply. Law 26A2 says that if your partner did not specify hearts in the legal auction then declarer can require or forbid a heart lead at your first turn to lead, including the opening lead. Robin LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD PENALTIES [snip] LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID [snip] ----- End Included Message ----- 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 Nov 25 05:15:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:15:37 +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 FAA04464 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:15:31 +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 NAA28072 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:15:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16561; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:15:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:15:28 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711241815.NAA16561@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > If you were declarer (or partner has bid hearts at some other time) > then there are no penalties, you can play what you like. Here's an interesting example of a change in the 1997 Laws. Once the new Laws are in effect, the insufficient bid is UI, and the usual rules apply. That is, if there are logical alternatives, and the insufficient bid suggests one over another, you may not choose the one suggested. This restriction applies not only at the opening lead but in all subsequent plays. If applied strictly (and how else are we to apply it?), this new rule could create quite a few cases for considering adjusted scores. The saving factor, I suppose, is that once a suit is bid, bidding it again (insufficiently) doesn't usually suggest one alternative over another. Nevertheless, I think we will have to be suspicious of, for example, attempts to find bidder's short suit. (The insufficient bid might suggest extra length, hence shortness elsewhere.) Defending is very tough, and there are nearly always logical alternatives, so these cases won't be easy ones. My personal opinion is that this change in the Laws was a bad one because it creates undue complication, but we seem to be stuck with it. (And no doubt my opinion is a minority one, as usual. :-) ) At any rate, the TD should advise everyone at the table of the Law 16 implications (not only Law 26) _before_ the insufficient bidder chooses an option. Just out of curiousity, what are the usual insufficient bid rules when screens are in use? (At least they should solve the L16 problem!) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 05:53:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:53:05 +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 FAA04630 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:53:00 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa16713; 24 Nov 97 10:52 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:15:28 PST." <199711241815.NAA16561@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:52:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9711241052.aa16713@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > From: Robin Barker > > If you were declarer (or partner has bid hearts at some other time) > > then there are no penalties, you can play what you like. > > Here's an interesting example of a change in the 1997 Laws. Once the > new Laws are in effect, the insufficient bid is UI, and the usual rules > apply. That is, if there are logical alternatives, and the > insufficient bid suggests one over another, you may not choose the one > suggested. This restriction applies not only at the opening lead but > in all subsequent plays. > > If applied strictly (and how else are we to apply it?), this new rule > could create quite a few cases for considering adjusted scores. The > saving factor, I suppose, is that once a suit is bid, bidding it again > (insufficiently) doesn't usually suggest one alternative over another. There seems to be another relevant change in the new Laws that applies also. If I'm reading it correctly, under the old Laws, there could still be lead penalties in this situation, since Law 26 says there are no lead penalties only if the offender later specifies the same suit AFTER the withdrawn call, while the new Law 26 says there are no lead penalties if the offender specified the suit any time during the legal auction. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 05:53:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:53:13 +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 FAA04637 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:53:07 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-218.innet.be [194.7.10.218]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA20274 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:53:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3479C9CB.2739DCF9@innet.be> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 19:39:07 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Insufficient bid X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3479AB90.4628@thebest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk annparker wrote: > > I would appreciate someone answering the following question for me. In > a local game yesterday, opponent bid 4 spades and my partner bid 4 > hearts. The director was called, and my partner chose to pass. Our > opponents thought that they should then have the option of requiring or > forbidding the opening lead of a heart. The director said that they did > not have this option---that I (declarer) could lead any card I wanted > to. Was the director correct? Thanks. Ann Parker I have read four replies and am baffled. Did I understand the problem ? Ann Opp1 Part Opp2 4Sp 4H pass If the director got it right, Ann is now supposed to continue to pass, so how did she get to be declarer ? And then if she's not declarer, of course there are lead penalties ! Unless Ann forgot to tell us that het partner had bid hearts before, in which case indeed the 1997 laws do no longer give lead penalties. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 06:08:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 06:08:09 +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 GAA04732 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 06:08:03 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00787; 24 Nov 97 11:07 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:15:28 PST." <199711241815.NAA16561@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:07:27 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9711241107.aa00787@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Here's an interesting example of a change in the 1997 Laws. Once the > new Laws are in effect, the insufficient bid is UI, and the usual rules > apply. That is, if there are logical alternatives, and the > insufficient bid suggests one over another, you may not choose the one > suggested. This restriction applies not only at the opening lead but > in all subsequent plays. > > If applied strictly (and how else are we to apply it?), this new rule > could create quite a few cases for considering adjusted scores. The > saving factor, I suppose, is that once a suit is bid, bidding it again > (insufficiently) doesn't usually suggest one alternative over another. > Nevertheless, I think we will have to be suspicious of, for example, > attempts to find bidder's short suit. (The insufficient bid might > suggest extra length, hence shortness elsewhere.) Defending is very > tough, and there are nearly always logical alternatives, so these cases > won't be easy ones. > > My personal opinion is that this change in the Laws was a bad one > because it creates undue complication, but we seem to be stuck with > it. . . . Actually, I don't see how the situation was any "better" under the old Laws. There was no Law saying that a withdrawn insufficient bid was considered UI, but there was (and is) L271(b): (b) Award of Adjusted Score If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score. I wonder, can someone come up with an example that would not warrant an adjustment under this Law, but that *would* warrant one under the new Law that the withdrawn bid is UI? I haven't studied this carefully, but my first impression is that it would be hard to find such a case, and that such an example would be quite obscure. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 11:20:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:20:59 +1100 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 LAA06704 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:20:46 +1100 Received: from default (client82ac.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.172]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA32070; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:21:13 GMT Message-Id: <199711250021.AAA32070@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Insufficient bids Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:19:43 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : --------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Insufficient bids > Date: 21 November 1997 11:12 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > I expect this is all old hat, and been discussed before, > > > \\\\\\\\snip////// Herman de Wael then remarks: > I shall still maintain that although no reference has been given that > points to this, L26 is of application, and I will rule lead penalties if > offender does not repeat his hearts (if they were natural in the first > place).> +++ The intention of each law is that it shall stand in its own right without need for cross-reference in any situation which fits the circumstance it is to deal with. An attempt has been made to reduce the numbers of X-refs and those which are present are there 'for the avoidance of doubt' if the drafting committee felt the Director might be unsure or occasionally felt the Director might need to be reminded. Law 26 is a significant instance of a law that always applies when a call is withdrawn, another substituted, by an offending player and that player becomes a defender. There is no need for a X-ref in some other law to activate Law 26; only the existence of the given circumstances. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 12:47:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:47:47 +1100 Received: from mail.thebest.net (thebest.net [207.124.26.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA07000 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:47:40 +1100 Received: from [207.124.26.151] ([207.124.26.151]) by thebest.net (Eureka! Gold(tm) v2.4 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Nov24.204758.G1000.374783; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:48:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 21:51:55 -0500 x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-MailServer: Eureka! Gold Internet Server (v2.4) for Windows NT Organization: TheBest.Net, St. Simons Island, GA 31522, USA Message-ID: <1997Nov24.204758.G1000.374783@thebest.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk So sorry, I meant to say that I was defender. I typed declarer (in parentheses) by mistake. Ann From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 25 16:10:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:10:06 +1100 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 QAA07604 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:10:01 +1100 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 QAA03665; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:09:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p21.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.173]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA06931; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:09:56 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971125151116.006b4f80@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:11:16 +1100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:52 20/11/97 +0000, you wrote: > > I expect this is all old hat, and been discussed before, but if so I >cannot remember what conclusions were reached. It is simple enough, >really. A player makes an insufficient bid, say 1D over 1NT. Before >the TD reaches the table, he attempts to correct it. I presume we are >all agreed that the next player can accept the 1D bid under L27A. The >question is what do we do otherwise. 1997 Laws please. > >[1] He corrected it to 2D, and we are sure that neither 1D nor 2D is >conventional. > >[2] He corrected it to a double. > >[3] He corrected it to 2H. > >[4] He corrected it to 1H. > The 1987 Law 27B had a very specific proviso that 'the offender is entitled to select his final call at that turn after the applicable penalties have been ststed, and any call he has previously attempted to substitute is cancelled.' I have always interpreted this to mean that *any* call (including double or redouble) made before the arrival of the Director is cancelled (but subject to possible lead penalty), options are explained and the call then corrected. Further, Law 25 did not apply because we would deprive offender of his rights under Law 27B. This proviso has been deleted from the 97 Laws, for two possible reasons (a) because the lawmakers no longer wished it to apply, or (b) because they felt it was now superfluous. If one accepts (a), then the answers are: 1. The 2D bid stands, bidding proceeds, but 27B1b applies. 2. The double is cancelled, partner is barred, and presumably he must make a legal call (though the Law doesn't specifically say so). 3. The 2H bid stands, but partner is barred. 4. Another insufficient bid, so apply Law 27 again, with the 1H being subject to lead penalty, and Law 16C2. What about (b)? Could it be that the now deleted clause was included only to ensure that Law 25 was not applicable in this situation, and now that Law 25 itself specifies that it is not to be applied, the clause was dropped as superfluous? Other postings seem to assume that the deleted clause still applies, or that 10C means the same thing. I don't see anything in 9B2, 9C or 10C that specifically requires or strongly suggests cancellation of a premature attempt to correct an insufficient bid, or any other irregularity. On balance, it seems to me that the intention of the new Law 27 is that the offender is stuck with his premature correction if it is a legal call. Otherwise, why drop what was a very specific clause without some further clarification? Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 00:28:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:28:14 +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 AAA11045 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:28:05 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1018665; 25 Nov 97 13:21 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCF9A4.B7032280@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:19:09 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'Herman De Wael'" , "'Bridge Laws'" , "'annparker@thebest.net'" Subject: RE: Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:19:08 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 8 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ann Parker wrote: > >So sorry, I meant to say that I was defender. I typed declarer (in >parentheses) by mistake. Ann > Sorry Ann, I should have spotted this mistake. Now Law 26 applies and a lead penalty may be imposed unless the heart suit has already been >specified by the insufficient bidder. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 01:08:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 01:08:10 +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 BAA11224 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 01:08:03 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028851; 25 Nov 97 13:58 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCF9A9.F1722470@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:56:35 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Insufficient bids Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:56:33 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 91 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> I expect this is all old hat, and been discussed before, but if so I >> cannot remember what conclusions were reached. It is simple enough, >> really. A player makes an insufficient bid, say 1D over 1NT. Before >> the TD reaches the table, he attempts to correct it. I presume we are >> all agreed that the next player can accept the 1D bid under L27A. The >> question is what do we do otherwise. 1997 Laws please. >> >> [1] He corrected it to 2D, and we are sure that neither 1D nor 2D is >> conventional. >> >> [2] He corrected it to a double. >> >> [3] He corrected it to 2H. >> >> [4] He corrected it to 1H. >> SNIP >[2] above is easy, and is dealt with in L27B3. Partner must pass, and >L26 penalties apply. > I am not so sure about this. Some time ago, I was of the opinion that the premature correction of an insufficient bid to double would cause the old Law 27B3 to be applied and silence partner. However, Mssrs Barnfield and Stevenson disagreed with me on this and I am not sure that the new Laws would cause their arguements to change? Perhaps they might update their answers for us? For the benefit of those who missed the original thread, I enclose the whole of Steve's original reply: >Someone asked me, more than a month ago, for my commments on this. Now as Mr >Burn would say, that's one more than is usually the slightest bit interested >in >what I think, so, with apologies for the delay, and for repeating the facts, >here goes. > >> Partner bids 1S, RHO bids 3H, you bid 3S, and LHO says "You can't!" >> >> You eventually discover that RHO actually bid 4H not 3H. "Damn" says >>you, and you double. > >The TD is then summoned, and, if you are in Europe, (i) LHO is offered, but >declines, acceptance of your double (Law25B1); (ii) LHO is offered, but >declines, acceptance of you 3S (Law25B2 and Law27A); (iii) you are then told >what your options are, and you choose to bid 4S. > >The question is whether Law27B3 applies to require your partner to pass for >the >rest of the auction. > >In short I think not. > >I have thought quite hard about this. On the plain words of the Law either >view is arguable. The reason I have decided Law27B3 does not apply is that I >think the bracketed bit in Law27B "the offender is entitled to select his >final >call at that turn after the applicable penalties have been stated, and any >call >he has previously attempted to substitute is cancelled, but the lead >penalties >of Law26 may apply" includes the full extent of the penalty for the change of >call following the statement of the applicable penalties. > >To me Law27 reads more naturally if interpreted this way: ie that the >"bracketed bit" deals with an attempted correction before the penalties have >been stated, and B1, B2 and B3 deal with corrections once the applicable >penalties have been stated. > >The use of the present tense in Law27B3 suggests to me that it is not >intended >to apply to an infraction that has, at least partly, been dealt with earlier >in >Law27B. > >As a further straw in the wind, suppose the auction went 1S (4H) 3S corrected >to 4D, then, after statement of the applicable penalties, to 4S. The wording >of Law27B2 does not suggest it applies to the 4D bid. I realise this is not >analagous, but there are similarities which suggest Law27B3 should not apply >to >the earlier problem. > >My reasoning may not be very good, and I would be quite prepared, as ever, to >be corrected, but I cast my vote for Law27B3 not applying. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 02:54:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:54:18 +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 CAA11692 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:54:06 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id IAA13698; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma013527; Tue, 25 Nov 97 08:00:48 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id IAA11206 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:00:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711251600.IAA11206@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 25 Nov 97 15:32:05 GMT Subject: RE: Insufficient bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >Herman wrote: >> David Stevenson wrote: >>> I expect this is all old hat, and been discussed before, but if so I >>> cannot remember what conclusions were reached. It is simple enough, >>> really. A player makes an insufficient bid, say 1D over 1NT. Before >>> the TD reaches the table, he attempts to correct it. I presume we are >>> all agreed that the next player can accept the 1D bid under L27A. The >>> question is what do we do otherwise. 1997 Laws please. SNIP >>> [2] He corrected it to a double. >>[2] above is easy, and is dealt with in L27B3. Partner must pass, and >>L26 penalties apply. >> >I am not so sure about this. Some time ago, I was of the opinion that >the premature correction of an insufficient bid to double would cause >the old Law 27B3 to be applied and silence partner. However, Mssrs >Barnfield and Stevenson disagreed with me on this and I am not sure that >the new Laws would cause their arguements to change? Perhaps they might >update their answers for us? I don't know about DWS, but I think the 1997 code's omission of "the bracketed bit" in the 1987 version of L27B does change things. There used to be a case, which I accepted, for arguing that the bracketed bit meant that the only penalty for a premature correction to a double was a lead penalty. I think that case has now weakened, if not disappeared. Thus I think L27B3 applies to both premature and other attempted corrections to double, i.e. that the offender's partner must pass throughout. I should add that at least one important person thinks there has been no change to L27 between the 1987 code and the 1997 code. That being so, it rather casts doubt on the previous (tentative) view I had on this point. It may also help to say that I think L27B2 would have been better written by replacing "apply L10C1 and" with "any call made by the offender after the insufficient bid and before the Director has applied Law10C1 is cancelled and". Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 07:04:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:04:39 +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 HAA12820 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:04:32 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020174; 25 Nov 97 20:00 GMT Message-ID: <3tYOPABVjxe0EwsS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:28:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >I am not so sure about this. Some time ago, I was of the opinion that >the premature correction of an insufficient bid to double would cause >the old Law 27B3 to be applied and silence partner. However, Mssrs >Barnfield and Stevenson disagreed with me on this and I am not sure that >the new Laws would cause their arguements to change? Perhaps they might >update their answers for us? > >For the benefit of those who missed the original thread, I enclose the >whole of Steve's original reply: > >>Someone asked me, more than a month ago, for my commments on this. [mega-snip] Whatever I actually think the answer to the problem is, I believe looking at the answer under another Law book is not helpful. Have my views changed? Of course they have: the Law book is different so the result is different. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * New Edgar Kaplan memorial message on Bridgepage * * http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 09:38:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:38:51 +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 JAA13381 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:38:39 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017299; 25 Nov 97 21:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:13:55 +0000 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Varied Score (terminology) In-Reply-To: <199711181741.MAA13293@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199711181741.MAA13293@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Jens & Bodil" >> 80 % weight +420 to N-S, corresponding to 0 imp. >> 20 % weight - 50 to N-S, corresponding to -10 imp. >> Weighted average: -2 imp to N-S. > >As a matter of terminology, are we happy to call this a "varied >score?" If not, I'd suggest the term "mixed score," The distinction is valid. "Weighted" seems to convey the right sense. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 11:25:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:25:48 +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 LAA13652 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:25:41 +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 TAA29283 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:25:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17527; Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:25:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:25:43 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711260025.TAA17527@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Carelessly, I wrote: > ...the TD should advise everyone at the table of the Law 16 > implications (not only Law 26) _before_ the insufficient bidder chooses > an option. Of course that should be "before insufficient bidder's LHO chooses an option," i.e. whether or not to accept the insufficient bid. From: Adam Beneschan > Actually, I don't see how the situation was any "better" under the old > Laws. There was no Law saying that a withdrawn insufficient bid was > considered UI, but there was (and is) L271(b): > > (b) Award of Adjusted Score > If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such > substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall > assign an adjusted score. [The word 'substantial' is missing from my copy of the 1997 Laws. I think the above must be from the 1987 version.] The point is arguable, but generally L27B1b was (and is still to be) used when the insufficient bid lets the opponents create an auction that they couldn't have had without an infraction. An example is an insufficient 3NT, corrected to 4NT, which would have been Blackwood but is now natural. The penalty (partner must pass, since 4NT would have been conventional) is no burden at all. Under the new Laws, the result (an adjusted score) is the same, although we might have to use a slightly different route to get there. I think L27B1b still applies because the headings are not part of the Laws (Preface). Even if you don't agree with that or (more likely) read the words I read as headings to be part of the text, you still have L72B1 (the "could have known rule"). Actually, on close reading, there is a slight difference. L27B1b calls for an immediate adjusted score, while L72B1 calls for the hand to be played out to see if damage really results. As noted, I think L27B1b is applicable. It would have been better to give it its own number, perhaps L27B1 and renumber all following. That would have the advantage of making this law harder to overlook. (Anybody keeping a list for 2007? Or am I just wrong here?) While L27B1b is similar to L16A, it isn't the same. I don't believe restrictions similar to L16A were intended or ever applied in practice. Remember, the old L16C2 explicitly made the withdrawn call AI, and it is to be expected that pairs will gain advantage from using AI. Perhaps the only difference is in the standard of proof, but I think there's a real difference nonetheless. At least now the legal position is clear (with the possible exception noted above), although applying it to specific cases may be very difficult. From: Reg Busch > The 1987 Law 27B had a very specific proviso that 'the offender is entitled > to select his final call at that turn after the applicable penalties have > been stated, and any call he has previously attempted to substitute is > cancelled.' I have always interpreted this to mean that *any* call > (including double or redouble) made before the arrival of the Director is > cancelled (but subject to possible lead penalty), options are explained and > the call then corrected. Further, Law 25 did not apply because we would > deprive offender of his rights under Law 27B. > > This proviso has been deleted from the 97 Laws, for two possible reasons > (a) because the lawmakers no longer wished it to apply, or (b) because they > felt it was now superfluous. The cross references are very confusing. After a change of call, you do apply L25. Under L25A, a mere mechanical error (if the change is made without pause for thought) is corrected without penalty. So much for the easy part! If L25A doesn't apply, we go to L25B1, which has a footnote for an insufficient bid taking you to L27. What isn't clear at all is whether the footnote overrides or is a mere supplement to the first sentence of L25B1. Perhaps this was one of the points of David's original question! Let us try reading the footnote as a supplement. This would, I think, be the normal interpretation. Then LHO can accept the correction, _but the L27 penalties still apply_. But then L27B3 would cancel a double or redouble, even if LHO has accepted it. This can't be right. What about an override? Then LHO has no option of accepting the substituted call, and we go straight back to L27. As Reg says, there is no provision for withdrawing the substituted call unless it's a double or redouble. So the offender is stuck with the attempted correction _and_ the applicable penalty unless LHO elects to accept the insufficient bid under L27A. At least this makes logical sense (and is consistent with L9C). It also means we don't need to worry about lead penalties for the substituted call because offender cannot substitute a different call. (We still may have lead penalties for the insufficient bid itself.) I suppose there's a third interpretation: ignore the footnote altogether. Then LHO gets to accept the substitute call if he likes. If he doesn't, L25B2 cancels the substituted call, and L25B2a sends us to L27 for the usual options and penalties. This is all very logical (in fact I quite like it), but I can't find any excuse to ignore that pesky footnote, which was added only in 1997. I am anxiously awaiting David's explanation of why I'm wrong. :-) At least one thing is clear: as Grattan E. noted, L26 applies to all withdrawn calls: the insufficient bid and any withdrawn substitutes. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 12:25:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:25:30 +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 MAA13856 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:25:21 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa25257; 25 Nov 97 17:24 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:25:43 PST." <199711260025.TAA17527@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:24:43 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9711251724.aa25257@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > > Actually, I don't see how the situation was any "better" under the old > > Laws. There was no Law saying that a withdrawn insufficient bid was > > considered UI, but there was (and is) L271(b): L27B1(b), actually > > > > (b) Award of Adjusted Score > > If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such > > substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall > > assign an adjusted score. > While L27B1b is similar to L16A, it isn't the same. I don't believe > restrictions similar to L16A were intended or ever applied in > practice. Remember, the old L16C2 explicitly made the withdrawn call > AI, and it is to be expected that pairs will gain advantage from using > AI. Perhaps the only difference is in the standard of proof, but > I think there's a real difference nonetheless. Good point. I was thinking of a case like this: RHO You LHO Partner 1S pass 2S 2H(1) (1) not accepted, corrected to Pass 4S all pass The opponents exercise the option to forbid a heart lead, but this prohibition lasts only while you retain the lead. With Axx of spades, you punt with a low spade, win the next spade at trick 2, and now you lead hearts and beat the contract. We'll assume that partner followed to both spades and that your first trump signal is not suit preference. Under the new laws, if there are logical alternatives to the heart shift, you would be guilty of using UI and the score would be adjusted, and you could receive a PP (is this right?). Under the old laws, the Unauthorized Information law wouldn't apply, and you couldn't get a PP, but would 27B1(b) still apply? Could it be argued that the 3H bid conveyed substantial information that damaged the opponents because it told you to find the killing heart shift? I don't know how cases like this were handled in practice. If 27B1(b) was not applied, and if that law were used only in cases where, as Steve said, it "[let] the opponents create an auction that they couldn't have had without an infraction", then my previous post is wrong. But I don't like the idea that the defense could profit from an illegal bid in this type of situation; so if a heart shift would have been allowed without adjustment under the old Laws, then I think the new Laws are better. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 19:42:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 19:42:31 +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 TAA14834 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 19:42:25 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id AAA09336; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:50:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma009260; Wed, 26 Nov 97 00:49:41 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA21841 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:49:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711260849.AAA21841@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 08:32:58 GMT Subject: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My local bridge club is a reasonable standard, at a guess one of the best two in Kent, England (for the benefit of those from abroad, Kent is a County, and a County is an administrative unit in English local government: there are about 50 counties, and Kent is one of the largest). It meets twice a week, with attendances averaging approximately 15 tables. The Tournament Directing is organised by the club's TD: basically people volunteer to do one night a month (as a playing TD) - e.g. at present I usually do 3rd Tuesdays in the month. TDs are unpaid, but get free entry (œ2-20). I am not sure what qualifications the TDs have: I would guess that some might be qualified as club TDs. Generally, IMO, they do a very good job, and the club's TD (if that is indeed his title) does a very good job of cajoling people into doing the work, and making sure someone is there to TD. At last night's club duplicate the club's TD announced: (i) they had recently had a seminar for the club's TDs (I believe this was run by a very experienced EBU TD who is on BLML); (ii) the club's committee had decided that it was no longer appropriate to have playing TDs, because the new laws added so much to the TD's burden. Whilst there clearly are some extra burdens, e.g. UI on OLOOT, it had not been my impression that they were that significant. Of course it may that this is just the straw that has broken the camel's back as far as the club's committee was concerned. The club are therefore looking for a paid non-playing TD. Does anyone else have views, or similar experiences to share? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 21:35:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 21:35:13 +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 VAA15038 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 21:35:04 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:34:18 GMT Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 10:34:15 GMT Message-Id: <8258.9711261034@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > > My local bridge club is a reasonable standard, at a guess one of the best two > in Kent, England (for the benefit of those from abroad, Kent is a County, and a > County is an administrative unit in English local government: there are about > 50 counties, and Kent is one of the largest). It meets twice a week, with > attendances averaging approximately 15 tables. The Tournament Directing is > organised by the club's TD: basically people volunteer to do one night a month > (as a playing TD) - e.g. at present I usually do 3rd Tuesdays in the month. [snip > (ii) the club's committee had decided that it was no longer appropriate to have > playing TDs, because the new laws added so much to the TD's burden. [snip] > Steve Barnfield > Tunbridge Wells, England > The experience at my local club is different. Standard: reasonable to poor. Meets: once a week. Tables: 10-15. TD: playing, from a pool of 2 regulars, 2+ irregulars. TD calls: 1-3 per evening. Impact of new laws: nil Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 26 21:42:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 21:42:50 +1100 Received: from ns2.tudelft.nl (ns2.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA15054 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 21:42:23 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27325) with SMTP id <0EK900L1F1OUOD@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:41:18 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA26340; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:40:29 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:40:28 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Insufficient bid old new In-reply-to: <9711251724.aa25257@flash.irvine.com>; from "Adam Beneschan" at Nov 25, 97 5:24 pm To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EK900L1G1OUOD@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: > Good point. I was thinking of a case like this: > > RHO You LHO Partner > 1S pass 2S 2H(1) (1) not accepted, corrected to Pass > 4S all pass > > The opponents exercise the option to forbid a heart lead, but this > prohibition lasts only while you retain the lead. With Axx of spades, > you punt with a low spade, win the next spade at trick 2, and now you > lead hearts and beat the contract. We'll assume that partner followed > to both spades and that your first trump signal is not suit > preference. > > Under the new laws, if there are logical alternatives to the heart > shift, you would be guilty of using UI and the score would be > adjusted, and you could receive a PP (is this right?). Under the old > laws, the Unauthorized Information law wouldn't apply, and you > couldn't get a PP, but would 27B1(b) still apply? Could it be argued > that the 3H bid conveyed substantial information that damaged the > opponents because it told you to find the killing heart shift? > > I don't know how cases like this were handled in practice. If 27B1(b) > was not applied, and if that law were used only in cases where, as > Steve said, it "[let] the opponents create an auction that they > couldn't have had without an infraction", then my previous post is > wrong. But I don't like the idea that the defense could profit from > an illegal bid in this type of situation; so if a heart shift would > have been allowed without adjustment under the old Laws, then I think > the new Laws are better. > > -- Adam > --------------------------------------------------------------- My opinion: With the old laws after getting the lead back with Spade A I you had your penalty and you might use the witdrwn information. (27B1 did not apply for susch cases). I always ruled in this way. With the new law because of 16 you may not shift to H in the case as described. Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 01:09:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:09:12 +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 BAA18085 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:09:02 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac1023332; 26 Nov 97 13:58 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFA62.42223B90@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:55:58 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Insufficient bids Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:55:53 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 51 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I previously wrote: > >Originally, I was of the view that if a player corrected his insufficient bid >to a legal alternative before the TD was called then he was stuck with his >choice. However, Law 27 does refer to Law 10C1 in a way that suggests that >this should *not* be so, ie. the player should hear all of the alternatives >before making his final choice. This is also similar to the situation in Law >25 where a player who makes a delayed or purposesful change of call without >the TD present is not stuck with his substituted call if it is not condoned >but will find it cancelled and all of the choices presented to him. > >Finally, I personally have no doubts that Laws 16 and 26 apply to all >relevant withdrawn calls whether or not there is a cross reference to them >from some other Law, ie. I think that each Law stands in its own right >irrespective of any other Law except where one Law makes specific reference >to the inapplicability, exclusion or overriding of another Law. Taking all of the discussion on this thread into account, I have now refined my view slightly from the above. I now think that if a player prematuely corrects his insufficient bid to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and it is clear that both the insufficient bid and the correction are not conventional then it should *not* be cancelled by the TD (as Law 27B1a does not refer to Law 10C1) and the auction should continue without penalty but still subject to Law 27B1b. If the player prematurely corrects the insufficient bid to a double then I think that Law 27B3 immediately applies (again because this section makes no direct reference to Law 10C1), therefore the double is cancelled, the offender's partner is silenced for the rest of the auction and the offender may pass or make any other sufficient bid. If the player prematurely corrects to anything other than the above then I believe that Law 27B2 now applies and, since this directly refers to Law 10C1, the substituted call should be cancelled and the player given all of his options before selecting his final call at that turn. This last bit is in disagreement with Steve Wilner (& Reg Busch) who writes: As Reg says, there is no provision for withdrawing the substituted call unless it's a double or redouble. So the offender is stuck with the attempted correction _and_ the applicable penalty unless LHO elects to accept the insufficient bid under L27A. I believe that the reference to Law 10C1 within Law 27B2 specifically requires the TD to cancel the premature call and inform the offender of his options. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 01:27:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:27:38 +1100 Received: from ns2.tudelft.nl (ns2.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA18180 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:27:24 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27325) with SMTP id <0EK90028PC4MF5@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:26:48 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA27478; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:25:56 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:25:55 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? In-reply-to: from <"Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com"@Nov> To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EK90028QC4MF5@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -------------------------------------------------------------- > At last night's club duplicate the club's TD announced: > > (i) they had recently had a seminar for the club's TDs (I believe this was run > by a very experienced EBU TD who is on BLML); > > (ii) the club's committee had decided that it was no longer appropriate to have > playing TDs, because the new laws added so much to the TD's burden. > > Whilst there clearly are some extra burdens, e.g. UI on OLOOT, it had not been > my impression that they were that significant. Of course it may that this is > just the straw that has broken the camel's back as far as the club's committee > was concerned. The club are therefore looking for a paid non-playing TD. > > Does anyone else have views, or similar experiences to share? > > Steve Barnfield ----------------------------------------------------------- I think that it is always good to have a non-playing TD. But the problem always is paying (I mean reasanble paying!!). I am from Holland and member of a reasanble strong club. We don't have a non-playing TD. We only have paid TD in special occasions eg. if there are competetion with other clubs or special evenings on the club. On the normal club evenings things are done with volonteers. This has nothing to do with old or new laws. We have about 20 tables on an evening. Most clubs here don't have a non-playing TD. Once again, in my opnion it's better to have a non-playing TD. I am sure that the players more often will call the TD. Now they don't do so and often don't solve the problems at the table in a good way. Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 01:50:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:50:09 +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 BAA18256 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:50:02 +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 JAA03465 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17755; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:50:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:50:06 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711261450.JAA17755@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Insufficient bids X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Martin > I believe that the reference to Law 10C1 within Law 27B2 specifically > requires the TD to cancel the premature call and inform the offender of > his options. I agree with this and all the rest of David M.'s summary. (I hadn't noticed the 10C1 reference until David pointed it out.) An odd rule, but there it is. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 02:28:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 02:28:03 +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 CAA18540 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 02:27:57 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-38.innet.be [194.7.10.38]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA04471 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:27:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <347C2448.E2E78A98@innet.be> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:29:44 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re: Insufficient bid) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9711251724.aa25257@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > From: Adam Beneschan > > > Actually, I don't see how the situation was any "better" under the old > > > Laws. There was no Law saying that a withdrawn insufficient bid was > > > considered UI, but there was (and is) L271(b): > L27B1(b), actually > > > > > > (b) Award of Adjusted Score > > > If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such > > > substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall > > > assign an adjusted score. > > > > > While L27B1b is similar to L16A, it isn't the same. I don't believe > > restrictions similar to L16A were intended or ever applied in > > practice. Remember, the old L16C2 explicitly made the withdrawn call > > AI, and it is to be expected that pairs will gain advantage from using > > AI. Perhaps the only difference is in the standard of proof, but > > I think there's a real difference nonetheless. > > Good point. I was thinking of a case like this: > > RHO You LHO Partner > 1S pass 2S 2H(1) (1) not accepted, corrected to Pass > 4S all pass > > The opponents exercise the option to forbid a heart lead, but this > prohibition lasts only while you retain the lead. With Axx of spades, > you punt with a low spade, win the next spade at trick 2, and now you > lead hearts and beat the contract. We'll assume that partner followed > to both spades and that your first trump signal is not suit > preference. > Excellent example Adam ! This does raise another question : If my opponents forbid me to lead hearts, then I need no other reason than that in itself to lead hearts whenever I can. For example, if there were a general 26B penalty, and opponent, having the choice of forbidding any one suit, forbids hearts, then am I not allowed to play small spade, spade ace, hearts ? So why not accept from that first man that he leads hearts simply because opponent forbid him to ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 03:34:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 03:34:27 +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 DAA18899 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 03:34:19 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:33:16 GMT Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 16:33:14 GMT Message-Id: <8428.9711261633@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, DAVIDM@casewise.demon.co.uk Subject: RE: Insufficient bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DavidM: > I believe that the reference to Law 10C1 within Law 27B2 specifically > requires the TD to cancel the premature call and inform the offender of > his options. > Although this gives a workable answer, I am not happy with this interpretation ("cancel in L27B2 not in L27B1"). I do not believe that the answer is given by the position of the reference to L10C1. L10C1 "the Director shall explain all the options available" is universally applicable: when do we _not_ explain the options available? The reference to L10C1 in L27B2 can only remind us that L10C1 applies. Suppose an insufficient 1D is prematurely corrected to 3NT, the director explains the options, offender bids 2D (and now L27B1 applies). Does the director look at L27B1 and, seeing no reference to L10C1, say "oh dear, I should not have explained your options to you". ?! The only question is whether the offender still has any options after he has made a premature correction. Despite what DavidM says, nowhere is there a statement that the premature correction (pass or bid) is cancelled (as there was in the 1987 laws): we do not get far enough in L25B (because of that dratted footnote), and L27B3 does not apply. I am forced to conclude that in DavidS's original question of premature correction we should rule: 2D - offender has no options, 2D is his call at that turn, apply L27B1; 2H - offender has no options, 2H is his call at that turn, apply L27B2; X - apply L27B3, cancel X, allow offender to chose a sufficient bid or pass; 1H - 1H is insufficient, allow LHO to accept 1H, and if he does not accept, allow offender to chose a sufficient bid or pass. 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 Nov 27 10:05:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:05:47 +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 KAA20682 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:05:39 +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 SAA19156 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:05:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA18183; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:05:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:05:45 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199711262305.SAA18183@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > RHO You LHO Partner > 1S pass 2S 2H(1) (1) not accepted, corrected to Pass > 4S all pass > > The opponents exercise the option to forbid a heart lead, but this > prohibition lasts only while you retain the lead. With Axx of spades, > you punt with a low spade, win the next spade at trick 2, and now you > lead hearts and beat the contract. We'll assume that partner followed > to both spades and that your [partner's] first trump signal is not suit > preference. Fine example. > Under the new laws, if there are logical alternatives to the heart > shift, you would be guilty of using UI and the score would be > adjusted, and you could receive a PP (is this right?). I think this is correct. As Herman points out, declarer's forbidding a heart lead on the first round is AI, and LA's have to be judged with this in mind. And of course we must demonstrate, not just assume, that the withdrawn 2H bid suggested a heart lead. (That seems highly likely in this example but might not always be true.) We might reach the same result by applying the "could have known rule" to the 2H bid itself. I suppose we need to consider both possibilities and adjust if either L16A+C2 or L72B1 calls for it. It's even possible that the adjustment for the NO's ("had the irregularity not occurred") might depend on which irregularity we are adjusting for. > Under the old > laws, the Unauthorized Information law wouldn't apply, and you > couldn't get a PP, but would 27B1(b) still apply? Could it be argued > that the 3H bid conveyed substantial information that damaged the > opponents because it told you to find the killing heart shift? It could be argued, but it would not be clear. I suspect most TD's (and AC's) would adjust only if the heart lead was quite hard to find without the infraction and not if it was one reasonable alternative among several. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 12:05:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:05:21 +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 MAA21014 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:05:15 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015411; 27 Nov 97 0:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:55:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Disagreement over tricks won MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Facts: Club game, player approaches you shortly after start of new round and says "I agreed 620 in the hurry to move after round was called and I believe I made 650". L79B and not L79C (See! I looked in the book David and at the right page :-) ) You establish from a statement from the player concerned that on the opening lead and play of the trump suit it is *very probable* that 650 was scored. Dummy states that 11 tricks were made and makes no comment on agreeing to 620. The opposing side agree with the opening lead and first play in the trump suit and state they can remember nothing thereafter of the play even when shown the hand and assert that 620 was agreed. Given the players at the table you are inclined to believe 650 should have been the agreed score (98% certainty if you need a figure) Am I ultra vires in adjusting the score to 650? IMO I'm not as the FLB says I do not *need* to adjust (implying that I may if I wish) Am I allowed to award 650/-620 (in order to keep harmony in a commercial club?) Observations please which I will take back with me next week -- 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 Nov 27 12:57:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:57:45 +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 MAA21158 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:57:39 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024974; 27 Nov 97 1:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:14:51 +0000 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? In-Reply-To: <199711260849.AAA21841@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199711260849.AAA21841@cactus.tc.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@e urope.notes.pw.com writes >My local bridge club is a reasonable standard, at a guess one of the best two >in Kent, England (for the benefit of those from abroad, Kent is a County, and a >County is an administrative unit in English local government: there are about >50 counties, and Kent is one of the largest). It meets twice a week, with >attendances averaging approximately 15 tables. The Tournament Directing is >organised by the club's TD: basically people volunteer to do one night a month >(as a playing TD) - e.g. at present I usually do 3rd Tuesdays in the month. >TDs are unpaid, but get free entry (2-20). I am not sure what qualifications >the TDs have: I would guess that some might be qualified as club TDs. >Generally, IMO, they do a very good job, and the club's TD (if that is indeed >his title) does a very good job of cajoling people into doing the work, and >making sure someone is there to TD. > >At last night's club duplicate the club's TD announced: > >(i) they had recently had a seminar for the club's TDs (I believe this was run >by a very experienced EBU TD who is on BLML); > >(ii) the club's committee had decided that it was no longer appropriate to have >playing TDs, because the new laws added so much to the TD's burden. > >Whilst there clearly are some extra burdens, e.g. UI on OLOOT, it had not been >my impression that they were that significant. Of course it may that this is >just the straw that has broken the camel's back as far as the club's committee >was concerned. The club are therefore looking for a paid non-playing TD. > >Does anyone else have views, or similar experiences to share? > >Steve Barnfield >Tunbridge Wells, England IMO the Club Committee has finally become aware as a result of the seminar that TD'ing is not a part time job. I personally perceive no difference in the load on a TD as a result of the new laws. I direct at many London Clubs from time to time and I do believe strongly that players in general prefer a non-playing paid TD. They feel that they will get more equitable rulings and that the game will be better generally (ie keep to time, etc etc) If you can persuade them to accept a rise in table money from UKL2-20 to UKL3-00 to pay for a TD then you should do it. In a sense it marks the club's metamorphosis from a cottage industry to a commercial organisation. -- 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 Nov 27 14:17:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA21300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:17:12 +1100 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 OAA21295 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:17:08 +1100 Received: from xoigoynt (p21-max23.auck.ihug.co.nz [209.76.151.21]) by smurfy.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.3) with SMTP id QAA28437 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:17:34 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971127161838.006866e0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:18:38 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: Law46B1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The new law 46 says - "if declarer, in playing from dummy calls 'high', or words of like import he is deemed to have called the highest card; in 4th seat he MAY be deemed to have called for the lowest winning card of the suit indicated. Does anyone have any idea why the word may has been used here? Is there any reason why you would allow the LWCOTSI in some cases but enforce the highest card in others? Patrick Carter Director Auckland Bridge Club Chairman Laws & Ethics NZCBA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 15:05:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA21422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:05:46 +1100 Received: from cmx.netvision.net.il (cmx.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA21417 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:05:39 +1100 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts051p2.pop3b.netvision.net.il [199.203.203.166]) by cmx.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id GAA29962 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 06:04:37 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 06:04:37 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <199711270404.GAA29962@cmx.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: Law46B1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:18 PM 27/11/97 +1300, you wrote: >The new law 46 says - "if declarer, in playing from dummy calls 'high', or >words of like import he is deemed to have called the highest card; in 4th >seat he MAY be deemed to have called for the lowest winning card of the >suit indicated. > >Does anyone have any idea why the word may has been used here? Is there any >reason why you would allow the LWCOTSI in some cases but enforce the >highest card in others? > >Patrick Carter >Director Auckland Bridge Club >Chairman Laws & Ethics NZCBA > Perhaps because of the following? If *must* instead of *should*: Declarer intended to unblock in dummy - he says high and means high, and opponents say that he *must* play the LWCOTSI, but as the law says *may* the TD will of course allow him to play a higher card than necessary in order to unblock. Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 19:35:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:35:57 +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 TAA21848 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:35:48 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id AAA12044; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma011997; Thu, 27 Nov 97 00:43:29 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA29957 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:43:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199711270843.AAA29957@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 27 Nov 97 08:29:26 GMT Subject: Re: Disagreement over tricks won Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk john @ probst.demon.co.uk wrote: >Club game, player approaches you shortly after start of new round and >says "I agreed 620 in the hurry to move after round was called and I >believe I made 650". L79B and not L79C (See! I looked in the book David >and at the right page :-) ) > >You establish from a statement from the player concerned that on the >opening lead and play of the trump suit it is *very probable* that 650 >was scored. Dummy states that 11 tricks were made and makes no comment >on agreeing to 620. > >The opposing side agree with the opening lead and first play in the >trump suit and state they can remember nothing thereafter of the play >even when shown the hand and assert that 620 was agreed. > >Given the players at the table you are inclined to believe 650 should >have been the agreed score (98% certainty if you need a figure) > >Am I ultra vires in adjusting the score to 650? IMO I'm not as the FLB >says I do not *need* to adjust (implying that I may if I wish) > >Am I allowed to award 650/-620 (in order to keep harmony in a commercial >club?) > >Observations please which I will take back with me next week I had forgotten about, or not noticed, the change to L79B, from "may" to "need". Before an opinion a request for some clarification: (1) Was there a claim or concession? If so please give details. (2) Was the *number of tricks* agreed, and if so as 10 or 11, or was it just the *score* that was agreed? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 21:49:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA22096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:49:41 +1100 Received: from ns2.tudelft.nl (ns2.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA22091 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:49:33 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27325) with SMTP id <0EKA00FUIWOSDY@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:48:29 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA29924; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:47:37 +0100 Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:47:36 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Disagreement over tricks won In-reply-to: from <"John"@Nov> To: john@probst.demon.co.uk (John Probst) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EKA00FUJWOSDY@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John wrote : > The Facts: > > Club game, player approaches you shortly after start of new round and > says "I agreed 620 in the hurry to move after round was called and I > believe I made 650". L79B and not L79C (See! I looked in the book David > and at the right page :-) ) > > You establish from a statement from the player concerned that on the > opening lead and play of the trump suit it is *very probable* that 650 > was scored. Dummy states that 11 tricks were made and makes no comment > on agreeing to 620. > > The opposing side agree with the opening lead and first play in the > trump suit and state they can remember nothing thereafter of the play > even when shown the hand and assert that 620 was agreed. > > Given the players at the table you are inclined to believe 650 should > have been the agreed score (98% certainty if you need a figure) > > Am I ultra vires in adjusting the score to 650? IMO I'm not as the FLB > says I do not *need* to adjust (implying that I may if I wish) > > Am I allowed to award 650/-620 (in order to keep harmony in a commercial > club?) > ---------------------------------------------------- In my opinion in the new laws you have the possibility to change the score if you are sure the agreement about the tricks won was wrong. This means that you must be sure. At least both sides must agree. If you are sure then you can change the score to 650/-650. For me sure means 100% and not 98%. In your case they first agreed 10 tricks and afterwards they did not agree for sure for 11 tricks. I would not change the score. I don't see how you can change it to 650/-620. I don't think you are allowed to do that. Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 22:24:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:24:23 +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 WAA22200 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:24:16 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-94.innet.be [194.7.10.94]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA06023 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:24:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <347D5754.241362E0@innet.be> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:19:48 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can I be off-topic just once ? John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > If you can persuade them to accept a rise in table money from UKL2-20 to > UKL3-00 to pay for a TD then you should do it. In a sense it marks the The ISO-code for the British pound is GBP ! I'm somewhat of a watchdog on codes in several groups, so I thought I'd start here too. Sorry folks ! And no David, no need to put this in the abbreviations ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 23:30:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:30:16 +1100 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 XAA22374 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:30:08 +1100 From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Message-Id: <199711271230.XAA22374@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8534; Thu, 27 Nov 97 07:30:02 EST Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 07:30:00 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although Law 93 hasn't been changed much since 1973, I would like to have some comments on it now. I have never been very happy with L93. I have been serving, for over a year now, on a "District" AC (to the NBB a district is more or less what a county is to the EBU). This made me think more about L93, and I haven't become happier in the process - this may well have been caused by my attitude to life in general, though .... Anyway, my mood may improve if somebody were to answer the following questions. 1) What is a "point of law" ? 2) What about correcting misuse by a TD of his disciplinary powers ? 3) Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one ? 4) If the NA is a particular type of AC, is it subjected to the restrictions mentioned in L93B3 ? 5) If the NA is NOT a particular type of AC, does it have the power given to AC's only in L12C3 ? 6) What can be done if an AC (or NA) acts contrary to L93B3 ? The following, mainly hypothetical, cases, may or may not have anything to do with the questions above. I would like to receive some comments on these cases as well. C1 A TD wrongly rules blatant misexplanation of a bid, and awards an AS and (teams of four) imposes a penalty of 1 VP. a) The AC wants to reinstate the original result. Does this touch a point of law ? b) is the AC authorised to cancel the 1 VP penalty ? C2 A TD correctly rules blatant misexplanation of a bid, and awards an AS but (teams of four) does not impose a further penalty. a) The AC upholds the ruling, but wants to impose a 1 VP. Is the AC authorised to impose the 1 VP penalty ? C3 A TD mishandles an established revoke. The AC intends to adjust the score. a) Is this a case dealing with a point of law ? C4 (This one really happened, and is IMO not just about L93) A TD correctly rules blatant misexplanation of a bid, and awards an AS and (teams of four) imposes a penalty of 3 IMP (!) a) The AC upholds the ruling, but would like to change the penalty to 1 VP. b) is the AC authorised to do so ? c) The result of the match, disregarding the penalty, was in IMP 93 - 40 i.e. 25 - 5 in VP. At the time (over a month ago, but the competition will take some more months to end) the TD told the players to take care of the 3 IMP penalty, and they calculated the result to be 90 - 40 i.e. 24 - 6. Both captains, as well as the TD signed the form accordingly. It should, of course, have been 90 - 40 / 40 - 93, hence 24 -5 in VP. The AC discovers this. It upholds the ruling. Is the AC (still) entitled to correct the result of the match ? If not: what would the result become if the AC replaced the 3 IMP penalty by a 1 VP penalty ? While writing this mail, It occurred to me that the penalties in the cases should probably be seen as PP's, not DP's, so I have given up my objections to the AC interfering with these. But maybe, somebody disagrees with this ? Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 27 23:50:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:50:33 +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 XAA22458 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:50:27 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013342; 27 Nov 97 12:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 03:17:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? In-Reply-To: <0EK90028QC4MF5@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk E.Angad-Gaur wrote: >I think that it is always good to have a non-playing TD. But the problem >always is paying (I mean reasanble paying!!). In Merseyside no club TD is paid [as far as I am aware] except for special events: the Merseyside Bridge Centre pays a TD on about 20 occasions a year. I am married to her! She is not a member of that club: they just see fit to employ her. [They have never asked me!] -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * New Edgar Kaplan memorial message on Bridgepage * * http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 28 08:28:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:28:39 +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 IAA25182 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:28:26 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2028811; 27 Nov 97 15:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:53:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? In-Reply-To: <347D5754.241362E0@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Can I be off-topic just once ? >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> If you can persuade them to accept a rise in table money from UKL2-20 to >> UKL3-00 to pay for a TD then you should do it. In a sense it marks the >The ISO-code for the British pound is GBP ! > >I'm somewhat of a watchdog on codes in several groups, so I thought I'd >start here too. Personally I use UKP: GBP must be considered *very* insulting by our friends in Northern Ireland. UKL, on the other hand, is likely to confuse people who do not come from the UK and do not realise that the word pound starts with an L. My rail newsgroup muttered things about ISOs as well. What is an ISO? >Sorry folks ! > >And no David, no need to put this in the abbreviations ! I have had a suggestion for iff [= if and only if] which looks quite an idea to 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 Fri Nov 28 08:28:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:28:40 +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 IAA25181 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:28:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025219; 27 Nov 97 12:43 GMT Message-ID: <0piOuGA7xVf0Ewlu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:41:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Disagreement over tricks won In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >The Facts: > >Club game, player approaches you shortly after start of new round and >says "I agreed 620 in the hurry to move after round was called and I >believe I made 650". L79B and not L79C (See! I looked in the book David >and at the right page :-) ) > >You establish from a statement from the player concerned that on the >opening lead and play of the trump suit it is *very probable* that 650 >was scored. Dummy states that 11 tricks were made and makes no comment >on agreeing to 620. > >The opposing side agree with the opening lead and first play in the >trump suit and state they can remember nothing thereafter of the play >even when shown the hand and assert that 620 was agreed. > >Given the players at the table you are inclined to believe 650 should >have been the agreed score (98% certainty if you need a figure) > >Am I ultra vires in adjusting the score to 650? IMO I'm not as the FLB >says I do not *need* to adjust (implying that I may if I wish) There is no problem in adjusting to 650. You have made a judgement decision. I believe it to be generally understood that the only reason for the hesitancy in the Law is to stop people coming to an 'agreement'. Kaplan, so I understand, was always worried about an incident where one of the top Americans, playing in a top American tournament, had come second by a small margin. He then appeared with two gushing ladies in tow, who told the Directors that dear Mr ******* had made an overtrick in 3NT against them, and weren't they silly to only score it as -600! The next Law book forbade an increase in score over a change in number of tricks made: the current Law book has very sensibly made it a matter for TD's judgement. >Am I allowed to award 650/-620 (in order to keep harmony in a commercial >club?) Why not give each side +1700? That should keep harmony. No, of course you cannot give 650/-620. That is no better than 1700/1700. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * New Edgar Kaplan memorial message on Bridgepage * * http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 28 08:29:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:29:58 +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 IAA25208 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:29:52 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012530; 27 Nov 97 15:14 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFB46.F1A38800@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:12:57 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Demonstrably Diamonds? Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:12:56 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was asked to give a ruling last night at the Young Chelsea in a strong match-pointed pairs game. A pair of ladies internationals were playing against a pair of strong club players when the following happened. Board 15 Dealer: South Vul: NS South West North East 1S Pass 2D Pass 3S Pass 3NT Pass 4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation 5S Pass 6D Pass Pass Pass Result: 6D= for NS +1370 The ladies internationals complained about the 5S bid after an agreed lengthy hesitation. South's hand was: S: AQJT93 H: A42 D: K86 C: 3 I would appreciate opinions from everyone on how they would have ruled as a TD and as an AC (if different). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 28 08:31:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:31:05 +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 IAA25225 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:31:00 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1023732; 27 Nov 97 14:23 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFB3F.CC8E4AC0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:21:49 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Insufficient bids Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:21:48 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 24 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > >DavidM: >> I believe that the reference to Law 10C1 within Law 27B2 specifically >> requires the TD to cancel the premature call and inform the offender of >> his options. >> > >Although this gives a workable answer, I am not happy with this >interpretation ("cancel in L27B2 not in L27B1"). I do not believe >that the answer is given by the position of the *reference* to L10C1. > >L10C1 "the Director shall explain all the options available" is >universally applicable: when do we _not_ explain the options >available? The *reference* to L10C1 in L27B2 can only remind us >that L10C1 applies. > (My asterisks above). Law 27B2 does not contain a *reference* to Law 10C1 in the usual sense, eg. See also Law 10C1, but an instruction to *apply* it and I think that this makes an important difference. Also, IMO, the fact that this instruction does not appear in L27B1 and L27B3 nor in the introduction to all three sections of part B is highly >significant and forms the basis of my recent conclusions. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 28 08:31:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:31:09 +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 IAA25224 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:30:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2028806; 27 Nov 97 15:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:23:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au In-Reply-To: <199711271230.XAA22374@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac wrote: >Although Law 93 hasn't been changed much since 1973, I would like to have >some comments on it now. >I have never been very happy with L93. I have been serving, for over a year >now, on a "District" AC (to the NBB a district is more or less what a county >is to the EBU). This made me think more about L93, and I haven't become >happier in the process - this may well have been caused by my attitude >to life in general, though .... >Anyway, my mood may improve if somebody were to answer the following >questions. >1) What is a "point of law" ? Where no judgement is involved. >2) What about correcting misuse by a TD of his disciplinary powers ? That is considered a special exception. An AC cannot overrule the TD. They may suggest he changes his mind. >3) Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one ? It is not an AC under L93B. It might be considered a special one not subject to L93B. >4) If the NA is a particular type of AC, is it subjected to the restrictions > mentioned in L93B3 ? It isn't, and it isn't. >5) If the NA is NOT a particular type of AC, does it have the power given > to AC's only in L12C3 ? Certainly. It has all powers given to TDs and ACs. >6) What can be done if an AC (or NA) acts contrary to L93B3 ? An NA is not bound by L93B3, and can overrule a TD. ACs do not promulgate results. If an AC attempts to overrule a TD illegally, he could ignore them in promulgating results. Note this is all very theoretical: it would be very unlikely for a TD not to accept an AC's recommendation, but they certainly cannot force it on him. >The following, mainly hypothetical, cases, may or may not have anything to >do with the questions above. I would like to receive some comments on these >cases as well. > >C1 A TD wrongly rules blatant misexplanation of a bid, and awards an > AS and (teams of four) imposes a penalty of 1 VP. > a) The AC wants to reinstate the original result. Does this touch a > point of law ? No doubt *some* judgement was involved, so the AC can do this. > b) is the AC authorised to cancel the 1 VP penalty ? Certainly. >C2 A TD correctly rules blatant misexplanation of a bid, and awards an > AS but (teams of four) does not impose a further penalty. > a) The AC upholds the ruling, but wants to impose a 1 VP. > Is the AC authorised to impose the 1 VP penalty ? Certainly. >C3 A TD mishandles an established revoke. The AC intends to adjust the score. > a) Is this a case dealing with a point of law ? Probably. If he read out the wrong bit of law then an AC cannot overrule him. Mind you, if they point this out and the TD refuses to change his mind, then I trust the SO will not employ the TD again. >C4 (This one really happened, and is IMO not just about L93) > A TD correctly rules blatant misexplanation of a bid, and awards an > AS and (teams of four) imposes a penalty of 3 IMP (!) > a) The AC upholds the ruling, but would like to change the penalty to 1 VP. > b) is the AC authorised to do so ? This is a little tricky. If the case is legitimately before them then they can uphold a TD's decision as to who was wrong but amend the amount of the ruling. If, on the other hand, the TD were to rule "a standard fine" and allow it as 3 imps, and the AC accept "a standard fine" but feel the TD got that wrong, that seems to be a matter of regulation. In such a case they would explain to the TD. Normally it will now be sorted out: if the TD was wrong he will change his ruling: if the AC was wrong they will withdraw gracefully. > c) The result of the match, disregarding the penalty, was > in IMP 93 - 40 i.e. 25 - 5 in VP. > At the time (over a month ago, but the competition will take some more > months to end) the TD told the players to take care of the 3 IMP penalty, > and they calculated the result to be 90 - 40 i.e. 24 - 6. > Both captains, as well as the TD signed the form accordingly. > It should, of course, have been 90 - 40 / 40 - 93, hence 24 -5 in VP. > The AC discovers this. It upholds the ruling. > Is the AC (still) entitled to correct the result of the match ? They should recommend to the TD that he reconsiders his ruling. If he doesn't he will be sent to direct in Los Angeles *giggle*! Technically, they cannot change it: but it is unbelievable that the TD will not change it. I am assuming the Appeal was in time. > If not: what would the result become if the AC replaced the 3 IMP penalty > by a 1 VP penalty ? Technically they cannot do so if they are upholding the TD but merely think that a point of Law or regulation has gone awry. >While writing this mail, It occurred to me that the penalties in the cases >should probably be seen as PP's, not DP's, so I have given up my objections >to the AC interfering with these. >But maybe, somebody disagrees with this ? Certainly we are only talking about PPs. Note that if the TD does not change a blatant error on a point of law or regulation the AC cannot actually overrule him but the NA 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 Fri Nov 28 08:31:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:31:59 +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 IAA25253 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:31:49 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002545; 27 Nov 97 13:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:57:42 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >E.Angad-Gaur wrote: > >>I think that it is always good to have a non-playing TD. But the problem >>always is paying (I mean reasanble paying!!). > > In Merseyside no club TD is paid [as far as I am aware] except for >special events: the Merseyside Bridge Centre pays a TD on about 20 >occasions a year. I am married to her! She is not a member of that >club: they just see fit to employ her. [They have never asked me!] > Heh heh heh! John -- 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 Nov 28 08:37:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:37:28 +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 IAA25269 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:37:22 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1016693; 27 Nov 97 13:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:56:46 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? In-Reply-To: <347D5754.241362E0@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <347D5754.241362E0@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Can I be off-topic just once ? > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >> >> If you can persuade them to accept a rise in table money from UKL2-20 to >> UKL3-00 to pay for a TD then you should do it. In a sense it marks the > >The ISO-code for the British pound is GBP ! > >I'm somewhat of a watchdog on codes in several groups, so I thought I'd >start here too. > >Sorry folks ! > >And no David, no need to put this in the abbreviations ! Thanks for correcting me on this, but remember I am English and we don't believe in standardisation :) -- 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 Nov 28 08:45:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:45:06 +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 IAA25284 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:45:00 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1016694; 27 Nov 97 13:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:50:07 +0000 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Disagreement over tricks won In-Reply-To: <199711270843.AAA29957@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199711270843.AAA29957@cactus.tc.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@e urope.notes.pw.com writes >john @ probst.demon.co.uk wrote: > >>Club game, player approaches you shortly after start of new round and >>says "I agreed 620 in the hurry to move after round was called and I >>believe I made 650". L79B and not L79C (See! I looked in the book David >>and at the right page :-) ) >> >>You establish from a statement from the player concerned that on the >>opening lead and play of the trump suit it is *very probable* that 650 >>was scored. Dummy states that 11 tricks were made and makes no comment >>on agreeing to 620. >> >>The opposing side agree with the opening lead and first play in the >>trump suit and state they can remember nothing thereafter of the play >>even when shown the hand and assert that 620 was agreed. >> >>Given the players at the table you are inclined to believe 650 should >>have been the agreed score (98% certainty if you need a figure) >> >>Am I ultra vires in adjusting the score to 650? IMO I'm not as the FLB >>says I do not *need* to adjust (implying that I may if I wish) >> >>Am I allowed to award 650/-620 (in order to keep harmony in a commercial >>club?) >> >>Observations please which I will take back with me next week > >I had forgotten about, or not noticed, the change to L79B, from "may" to "need". > >Before an opinion a request for some clarification: > >(1) Was there a claim or concession? If so please give details. > The hand was played out, so no claim or concession >(2) Was the *number of tricks* agreed, and if so as 10 or 11, or was it just >the *score* that was agreed? > 10 tricks agreed. Sorry not to clarify this before >Steve Barnfield >Tunbridge Wells, England -- 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 Nov 28 09:19:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:19:09 +1100 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 JAA25435 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:19:03 +1100 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 JAA02525; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:19:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p47.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.63]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA26191; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:18:56 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971127143758.006af204@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:37:58 +1100 To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re: Insufficient bid) In-Reply-To: <347C2448.E2E78A98@innet.be> References: <9711251724.aa25257@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:29 26/11/97 +0100, you wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: snip > >Excellent example Adam ! > >This does raise another question : > >If my opponents forbid me to lead hearts, then I need no other reason >than that in itself to lead hearts whenever I can. > >For example, if there were a general 26B penalty, and opponent, having >the choice of forbidding any one suit, forbids hearts, then am I not >allowed to play small spade, spade ace, hearts ? > >So why not accept from that first man that he leads hearts simply >because opponent forbid him to ? > >-- >Herman DE WAEL I submitted a posting on this issue in relation to the penalty card law, but don't recall any opinions offered. If partner leads the HK at my turn to play and declarer forbids a heart lead from me, am I entitled later to lead a heart on the basis that, if declarer didn't like it, it must be a good play for our side? Law 50: 'Other information arising from the facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner'. The fact that declarer prohibited a heart lead is certainly 'other information arising from the facing of the penalty card', so one could reasonably argue that a heart switch now was based on UI. This seems to me to be quite an important issue, and I for one would welcome opinions. Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 28 21:24:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:24:33 +1100 Received: from ns2.tudelft.nl (ns2.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27067 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:24:25 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27613) with SMTP id <0EKC0001RQ7ZDT@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:23:59 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA03122; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:23:06 +0100 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:23:05 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-reply-to: ; from "David Martin" at Nov 27, 97 3:12 pm To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EKC0001SQ7ZDT@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------------------------------------------------------> > I was asked to give a ruling last night at the Young Chelsea in a strong > match-pointed pairs game. A pair of ladies internationals were playing > against a pair of strong club players when the following happened. > > Board 15 > > Dealer: South > Vul: NS > > South West North East > 1S Pass 2D Pass > 3S Pass 3NT Pass > 4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation > 5S Pass 6D Pass > Pass Pass > > Result: 6D= for NS +1370 > > The ladies internationals complained about the 5S bid after an agreed > lengthy hesitation. > > South's hand was: > > S: AQJT93 > H: A42 > D: K86 > C: 3 > > I would appreciate opinions from everyone on how they would have ruled > as a TD and as an AC (if different). >----------------------------------------------------- A quick response. Normally I want to know more about the reasons why South bid 4D and later on 5S. I suppose partner denied a two-card Spade. In my opinion with the facts I have a PASS from South on the 5D-bid of North is a logical alternative. Because the hesitation of North before bidding 5D and because South already bid her cards with 1S-3S and finally 4D I don't see that she has more to bid after 5D. So I will rule that 5S was not allowed and now that 6D is made I will correct the score to 5D+1. I suppose that EW did not play so badly that we must give a split score. Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 28 21:50:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:50:56 +1100 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 VAA27140 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:50:50 +1100 From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Message-Id: <199711281050.VAA27140@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6515; Fri, 28 Nov 97 05:50:45 EST Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:50:43 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: LAW 93, APPEAL C'S & NATIONA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 27 Nov 1997, David Stevenson wrote : >>3) Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one ? > > It is not an AC under L93B. It might be considered a special one not > subject to L93B. >>5) If the NA is NOT a particular type of AC, does it have the power given >> to AC's only in L12C3 ? > > Certainly. It has all powers given to TDs and ACs. > > > An NA is not bound by L93B3, and can overrule a TD. > > Note that if the TD does not change a blatant error on a point of law > or regulation the AC cannot actually overrule him but the NA can. I know the following two questions aren't very fair, but I can't resist putting them: What law(s) do you base this on ? Is the "NA" concept consistent with what happens at international events ? (A World Championships appeal will never be passed on to a NA, I am sure) Thank you, David, for your elaborate and convincing reply, Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 28 22:41:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:41:39 +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 WAA27335 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:41:31 +1100 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id MAA25215; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:41:25 +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 sma024998; Fri Nov 28 12:40:38 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 MAA18828; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:40:37 +0100 Received: from darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com (darwin [130.144.63.231]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with SMTP id MAA21613; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:40:37 +0100 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/) id GAA02365; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:40:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199711281140.GAA02365@darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:40:34 MET Cc: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk, jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote JF> Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one? DS> It is not an AC under L93B. It might be considered a special DS> one not subject to L93B. The Dutch NA of which I am a member, considers itself an AC and subject to L93B. In the regulations of the Dutch Bridge League, it is called "the AC" in contrast with "an AC" for other AC's in the Netherlands. JF> If the NA is a particular type of AC, is it subjected to the JK> restrictions mentioned in L93B3 ? DS> It isn't, and it isn't. That is a matter of opinion. The Laws do not say (nor deny) this. 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 Nov 28 23:21:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:21:50 +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 XAA27491 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:21:42 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-19.innet.be [194.7.10.19]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA28337 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 13:21:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <347EB13E.51751CD3@innet.be> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:55:42 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello David (another one !) I believe we have met, as I have played in the Young Chelsea, but the last time was in 1993. Anyway, David Martin wrote: > > > South West North East > 1S Pass 2D Pass > 3S Pass 3NT Pass > 4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation > 5S Pass 6D Pass > Pass Pass > > Result: 6D= for NS +1370 > > South's hand was: > > S: AQJT93 > H: A42 > D: K86 > C: 3 > Remember I'm not a good player, but what might the hesitation suggest ? North is either choosing between : - pass or bid : no, the situation is game forcing, I do believe - 5D or 6D : in which case bidding on is the suggested alternative - 4S or 5D : in which case converting to spades is the suggested alternative. In each case 5S is the alternative that was "demonstrably" suggested. If pass is considered a logical alternative, South should not have bid. FWIW, I believe South has bid his hand and Pass is a logical alternative. Decision : 5D+1, +620 to both sides. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 28 23:30:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:30:57 +1100 Received: from mh1.omnitel.net (mail@mh1.omnitel.net [205.244.196.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA27549 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:30:48 +1100 Received: from perkunas.omnitel.net [205.244.196.2] (root) by mh1.omnitel.net with esmtp; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:32:49 +0200 Received: from VytautasRekus.omnitel.net (din17.omnitel.net [205.244.196.166]) by perkunas.omnitel.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA39884 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:30:01 +0200 Received: by VytautasRekus.omnitel.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BCFC0A.5C6C3880@VytautasRekus.omnitel.net>; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:31:49 +-200 Message-ID: <01BCFC0A.5C6C3880@VytautasRekus.omnitel.net> From: Vytautas Rekus To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:30:53 +-200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Martin[SMTP:DAVIDM@casewise.demon.co.uk] > Sent: ketvirtadienis, Lapkritis 27, 1997 05:12=20 > To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' > Subject: Demonstrably Diamonds? > I was asked to give a ruling last night at the Young Chelsea in a = strong > match-pointed pairs game. A pair of ladies internationals were = playing > against a pair of strong club players when the following happened. > > Board 15 > > Dealer: South > Vul: NS > > South West North East > 1S Pass 2D Pass > 3S Pass 3NT Pass > 4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation > 5S Pass 6D Pass > Pass Pass > > Result: 6D=3D for NS +1370 > > The ladies internationals complained about the 5S bid after an agreed > lengthy hesitation. > > South's hand was: > > S: AQJT93 > H: A42 > D: K86 > C: 3 > > I would appreciate opinions from everyone on how they would have ruled > as a TD and as an AC (if different). My result - 5D+1.=20 South's hand was completely described by his/her 3 first bids. Club = shortness does not seem to be very attractive value against North's = (promised) stopper for NT. I also do not see arguments, why AC could have different meaning. Regards, Vytautas Rekus From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 01:05:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:05:31 +1100 Received: from ns2.tudelft.nl (ns2.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29994 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:05:21 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27613) with SMTP id <0EKC0064QZZ39Q@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:54:40 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA04082; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:53:47 +0100 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:53:46 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: pass or six. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EKC0064RZZ39Q@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a team of four I got this problem: game 3 S A107 Bidding. S/EW H A5 E S W N D QJ109754 p 1S 3D C 3 3H p 4C p S KQJ983 N S 64 4H p 4NT p H 42 W E H KQJ86 5D p .5S p D A2 D K6 p p C AK10 S C Q542 S 52 3H=game forcing. H 10973 4C=advanced cue or two-suits. D 83 4H=minimum. C J9876 5D=1cue card and bacause hearts was mentioned as last suit also K of hearts. 5S=to play according to EW and not asking for Q of hearts. After playing this hand and after playing all the other 17 boards N and W together with the non-playing captain of NS came to the TD and told the story above. In was in time so I had to rule. After asking different questions about the bidding which I gave you (I have more but these are the most important) NS found that W has thought for a long time before bidding 5S. West disagreed and said that perhaps 1 or 2 seconds might be possible but no longer. At the table the had not agreed about the thinking and they had not called for the TD. It was busy , this was high level, a lot of tables and the other players could not easaly be reached. The non-playing captain of NS and the North player found that E had to bid 6H or something like that. I think that if E had something like H AQJ864 and the King of hearts would be in N and 6H was bid and made then NS would say that bidding 6H was forbidden because the .5S . Well this is the problem, I like to know what other TD will decide. Evert. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 01:22:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:22:44 +1100 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00142 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:22:38 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic47.cais.com [207.226.56.47]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA16840 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:17:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971128092426.006cd878@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:24:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <9711251724.aa25257@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:24 PM 11/25/97 PST, Adam wrote: > RHO You LHO Partner > 1S pass 2S 2H(1) (1) not accepted, corrected to Pass > 4S all pass > >The opponents exercise the option to forbid a heart lead, but this >prohibition lasts only while you retain the lead. With Axx of spades, >you punt with a low spade, win the next spade at trick 2, and now you >lead hearts and beat the contract. We'll assume that partner followed >to both spades and that your first trump signal is not suit >preference. > >Under the new laws, if there are logical alternatives to the heart >shift, you would be guilty of using UI and the score would be >adjusted, and you could receive a PP (is this right?). Under the old >laws, the Unauthorized Information law wouldn't apply, and you >couldn't get a PP, but would 27B1(b) still apply? Could it be argued >that the 3H bid conveyed substantial information that damaged the >opponents because it told you to find the killing heart shift? > >I don't know how cases like this were handled in practice. If 27B1(b) >was not applied, and if that law were used only in cases where, as >Steve said, it "[let] the opponents create an auction that they >couldn't have had without an infraction", then my previous post is >wrong. But I don't like the idea that the defense could profit from >an illegal bid in this type of situation; so if a heart shift would >have been allowed without adjustment under the old Laws, then I think >the new Laws are better. L27B1(b) has no bearing at all on Adam's case (under either set of laws); it applies only to situations in which there would otherwise be no penalty under L27B1(a). Under the 1987 laws there could be no adjustment, whereas under the 1997 laws there could be an adjustment. This is based solely on the change to L72A5. 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 Nov 29 01:27:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:27:50 +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 BAA00177 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:27:44 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1013594; 28 Nov 97 14:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:17:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please may I put my occasional appeal to copy subject headings when replying? The two articles below each had different headings, from each other and from the original. For people who have good software like mine which threads these articles it is annoying that this means I have three threads: for people who do not have good software now, you will! Prepare for when you get better software! Jac Fuchs wrote: >>>3) Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one ? >> It is not an AC under L93B. It might be considered a special one not >> subject to L93B. >>>5) If the NA is NOT a particular type of AC, does it have the power given >>> to AC's only in L12C3 ? >> Certainly. It has all powers given to TDs and ACs. >> An NA is not bound by L93B3, and can overrule a TD. >> Note that if the TD does not change a blatant error on a point of law >> or regulation the AC cannot actually overrule him but the NA can. >I know the following two questions aren't very fair, but I can't resist >putting them: > >What law(s) do you base this on ? I base it on the fact that L93C is a separate Law from Law 93B. It makes no reference to L93B. It makes no reference to Appeals Committees. There is no basis for applying L93B to a NA. It is the absence rather than the presence of a statement in the Law. >Is the "NA" concept consistent with what happens at international events ? > (A World Championships appeal will never be passed on to a NA, I am sure) Are you? My understanding is that the WBF is present and can consider an appeal to the NA. However, this is second-hand: perhaps Grattan, or someone else who attends international events, could give a definitive answer. ------------ Con Holzscherer wrote: >David Stevenson wrote > >JF> Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one? > >DS> It is not an AC under L93B. It might be considered a special >DS> one not subject to L93B. > > The Dutch NA of which I am a member, considers itself an AC and >subject to L93B. In the regulations of the Dutch Bridge League, it >is called "the AC" in contrast with "an AC" for other AC's in the >Netherlands. It depends what it is doing whether this is a reasonable approach. I understand that the policy in Denmark is for appeals to be heard by a National Appeals Committee, and as such they are acting as an AC under L93B. Do you mean that they hear appeals against TD's rulings? If so, then they are acting as a L93B AC. However, L93C gives players a further recourse, and the Dutch NA has to provide that. As explained above, the lack of cross-reference and the lack of the term Appeals Committee in L93C, plus logic, convinces me that the final appeal should be to an NA not bound by L93B. Why do I say logic? Well, consider a situation. You play in a two- session event. Halfway through the second session, the TD, who has been drinking heavily for about six hours, leaps to his feet, takes all his clothes off, and announces that he is going to make the winner the best- looking woman, and the second one the second, and so on. He charges round the room, tells every pair they are ejected from the tournament except three, fines one of them for not being as good-looking, and one of them twice as much for being a bit plainer still. If anyone dares ask, they will discover the fines are DPs! What do you do about it? Whatever you think of his conduct, his actions are under L91A, and he is going to take no notice of any AC that disagrees with him, and they cannot reverse his decision. Thus his decision is *final*, and no-one can overturn it. Are you happy with that? In England, the EBU L&EC, which is the NA, would overturn the TD's decisions under L93C, because L93C gives it the right to deal with further appeals without limiting them. If they *cannot* overturn the TD in Holland, I believe they should reconsider their interpretation of this Law. I have taken a fairly silly example to make my point, but when you start to think of other possibilities I think you will realise that you *must* have a NA that is not limited by L93B. Then you look at the actual wording of L93C, and I hope will be reassured. If the people who run bridge in a country wish to have a National Appeals Committee then it would be far better for that to be separate from the National Authority which will hear appeals against the National Appeals Committee. If they have to have the same people then the method should be very clear, and what they may do at each stage. >JF> If the NA is a particular type of AC, is it subjected to the >JK> restrictions mentioned in L93B3 ? > >DS> It isn't, and it isn't. > > That is a matter of opinion. The Laws do not say (nor deny) this. I feel that L93C would be worded differently, and that it is a logical consequence of the wording. -- 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 Nov 29 01:31:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:31:04 +1100 Received: from hqinbh2.ms.com (firewall-user@hqinbh2.ms.com [144.14.128.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00211 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:30:57 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by hqinbh2.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id JAA26889 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:30:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by hqinbh2.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma026880; Fri, 28 Nov 97 09:30:47 -0500 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 OAA26336 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:30:44 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id OAA03710 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:30:44 GMT Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:30:44 GMT Message-Id: <9711281430.ZM3708@ms.com> In-Reply-To: Herman De Wael "Re: Demonstrably Diamonds?" (Nov 28, 1:21pm) References: <347EB13E.51751CD3@innet.be> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Nov 28, 1:21pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? [question snipped] > Remember I'm not a good player, but what might the hesitation suggest ? > North is either choosing between : > - pass or bid : no, the situation is game forcing, I do believe Me too, but North may have been in doubt. > - 5D or 6D : in which case bidding on is the suggested alternative OK. > - 4S or 5D : in which case converting to spades is the suggested > alternative. You expect partner to pass 5S? I think that if partner was contemplating whih game to play, then Pass is suggested. You missed one: 4NT or 5D : in which case, passing is the suggested alternative (assuming 4NT is natural/discouraging). > In each case 5S is the alternative that was "demonstrably" suggested. > If pass is considered a logical alternative, South should not have bid.> > FWIW, I believe South has bid his hand and Pass is a logical > alternative. It would be helpful to know how strong 2D was, whether 3S showed extras or a good suit or both, and what 4NT by responder would have meant. Assuming the answers are 10+, extras only, and natural, then both Passing and bidding on are logical alternatives, and I do not think that bidding is demonstrably suggested. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 01:49:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:49:44 +1100 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 BAA00285 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:49:34 +1100 Received: from default (client82f6.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.246]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA01246; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:50:42 GMT Message-Id: <199711281450.OAA01246@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Patrick" Subject: Re: Law46B1 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:50:44 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ----- > From: Patrick > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Law46B1 > Date: 27 November 1997 03:18 > > The new law 46 says - "if declarer, in playing from dummy calls 'high', or > words of like import he is deemed to have called the highest card; in 4th > seat he MAY be deemed to have called for the lowest winning card of the > suit indicated. > > Does anyone have any idea why the word may has been used here? Is there any > reason why you would allow the LWCOTSI in some cases but enforce the > highest card in others? > ++++ The word 'may' is usually an indication that the Director is allowed exercise of some discretion in order to achieve rough equity. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 01:49:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:49:45 +1100 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 BAA00286 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:49:34 +1100 Received: from default (client82f6.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.246]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA01227; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:50:35 GMT Message-Id: <199711281450.OAA01227@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: LAW 93, APPEAL C'S & NATIONA Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:13:09 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ------- > From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: LAW 93, APPEAL C'S & NATIONA > Date: 28 November 1997 10:50 > > > On 27 Nov 1997, David Stevenson wrote : > > > > >>3) Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one ? > \\\\\snnnnipppped/////// > Is the "NA" concept consistent with what happens at international events ? > (A World Championships appeal will never be passed on to a NA, I am sure) > > Thank you, David, for your elaborate and convincing reply, > ++++Regulations for WBF competitions have been known to specify that for the purposes of 93C the WBF is the national authority.++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 01:49:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:49:46 +1100 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 BAA00287 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:49:35 +1100 Received: from default (client82f6.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.246]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA01253; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:50:43 GMT Message-Id: <199711281450.OAA01253@sand.global.net.uk> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Martin" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:51:56 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : --------- > From: David Martin > To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' > Subject: Demonstrably Diamonds? > Date: 27 November 1997 15:12 > > I was asked to give a ruling last night at the Young Chelsea happened. > > Dealer: South > Vul: NS > > South West North East > 1S Pass 2D Pass > 3S Pass 3NT Pass > 4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation > 5S Pass 6D Pass > Pass Pass > > Result: 6D= for NS +1370 > > S: AQJT93 > H: A42 > D: K86 > C: 3 > ++++ I would suggest the bridge logic, in the absence of any specific agreement, is that the 4D bid will frequently be made on a hand with slam interest - but may occasionally be an exercise of bridge judgement on a hand with strength concentrated in the bid suits and fearing a leakage in one of the others. On this reading it behoves partner with any interest in slam opposite a hand of the first type to do something more helpful than merely bid 5D which states 'no slam interest', one might think. I do not believe the South hand has anything more to say over 5 Diamonds and Pass is clearly, in my view, a logical alternative. The score should be returned to 5D+1. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 01:57:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:57:47 +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 BAA00328 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:57:38 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:56:53 GMT Date: Fri, 28 Nov 97 14:56:52 GMT Message-Id: <9080.9711281456@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: hermandw@innet.be, john@probst.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Thanks for correcting me on this, but remember I am English and we don't > believe in standardisation :) > -- > 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 Can't let this one go. This English TD believes in standardisation (professionally). yours Robin Barker (member of a number of ISO committees) NPL (the UK national standards laboratory) P.S. ISO means the international organisation for standardiation. 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 Nov 29 02:30:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:30:05 +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 CAA00546 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:29:48 +1100 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id QAA10224 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:29:41 +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 sma009990; Fri Nov 28 16:28:56 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 QAA20668 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:28:55 +0100 Received: from darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com (darwin [130.144.63.231]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with SMTP id QAA09591 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:28:56 +0100 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/) id KAA14247 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:28:54 -0500 Message-Id: <199711281528.KAA14247@darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:28:53 MET X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au DS> Please may I put my occasional appeal to copy subject headings when DS> replying? The two articles below each had different headings, from each DS> other and from the original. For people who have good software like DS> mine which threads these articles it is annoying that this means I have DS> three threads: for people who do not have good software now, you will! In my definition of 'good software' minor differences (like the prefixing of a subject string by "Re: " or "RE: ") should not yield separate threads. Also it should not abbreviate subjects like it seems to do (cutting off 'thority') and than treat these subjects as different. I think your software is far far from being 'good'. Con Holzscherer wrote: >David Stevenson wrote > >JF> Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one? > >DS> It is not an AC under L93B. It might be considered a special >DS> one not subject to L93B. > > The Dutch NA of which I am a member, considers itself an AC and >subject to L93B. In the regulations of the Dutch Bridge League, it >is called "the AC" in contrast with "an AC" for other AC's in the >Netherlands. DS> It depends what it is doing whether this is a reasonable approach. I DS> understand that the policy in Denmark is for appeals to be heard by a DS> National Appeals Committee, and as such they are acting as an AC under DS> L93B. That seems exactly what we are doing in the Netherlands! DS> Do you mean that they hear appeals against TD's rulings? Yes. DS> If so, then they are acting as a L93B AC. No. Our interpretation of the Law is, that there are several instances of Appeal (like in our jurisdicial system there are a number of levels of appeal, from a local court up to the supreme court). A person can for instance appeal to a decision of a TD at his club to the club-AC and if not satisfied, appeal higher, to the county-AC and if really really pissed off, even appeal to the supreme court (i.e. us, the national-AC). This exhausts the options however. There is no higher authority; we are considered the NA for the Netherlands. DS> However, L93C gives players a further recourse, No! L93C only gives people a second level of appeal! DS> and the Dutch NA has to provide that. Is provided as described above. DS> As explained above, the lack of cross-reference and the lack DS> of the term Appeals Committee in L93C, plus logic, convinces DS> me that the final appeal should be to an NA not bound by L93B. It does not convince me, nor as far as I know anyone else in the Netherlands DS> What do you do about it? Whatever you think of his conduct, his DS> actions are under L91A, and he is going to take no notice of any AC DS> that disagrees with him, and they cannot reverse his decision. So what; I completely fail to see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. If people have been thrown out of a tournament on let's say October 12th, an AC, NA or whatever can not, when meeting on let's say November 19th, go back in time and have the expelled players continue on October 12th. Of course throwing players out is final, because it is impossible to halt a tournament for possibly weeks until a committee has convened. DS> I have taken a fairly silly example to make my point, but when you DS> start to think of other possibilities I think you will realise that DS> you *must* have a NA that is not limited by L93B. Presambly I lack in creativity, because I can not think of one, nor has one occurred in the 15 years I am member of the Dutch AC/SC/NA. Of course there are gremia within the structure of the Dutch Bridge League that do not consider themselves an AC, like the Board of Management and the Disciplinary Committee, so if it makes you happy, you can consider the whole organizational structure of the DBL as "the NA". DS> I feel that L93C would be worded differently..... Aha, he confesses that it is merely a feeling! My opinion is that Law 93C only stipulates that a further appeal is possible, not suggesting whether or not this should be to a body considering itself a 'supreme court' or to a body that consideres itself 'above the Laws'. 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 Sat Nov 29 03:50:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 03:50:12 +1100 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 DAA00858 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 03:50:02 +1100 From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Message-Id: <199711281650.DAA00858@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 5794; Fri, 28 Nov 97 11:49:55 EST Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:49:53 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: LAW 93, APPEAL C'S & NATIONA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 28 Nov 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Please may I put my occasional appeal to copy subject headings when > replying? The two articles below each had different headings, from each > other and from the original. For people who have good software like > mine which threads these articles it is annoying that this means I have > three threads: for people who do not have good software now, you will! > Prepare for when you get better software! > I'm sorry, David. The software at my office doesn't allow headings to have over 36 characters, and I am unable to change that. Next time I start a thread, I'll take this into account by providing a shorter initial heading. > Jac Fuchs wrote: > > >>>3) Is, or is not, the National Authority an AC, if only a special one ? > >> It is not an AC under L93B. It might be considered a special one not > >> subject to L93B. > > >>>5) If the NA is NOT a particular type of AC, does it have the power given > >>> to AC's only in L12C3 ? > >> Certainly. It has all powers given to TDs and ACs. > > >> An NA is not bound by L93B3, and can overrule a TD. > >> Note that if the TD does not change a blatant error on a point of law > >> or regulation the AC cannot actually overrule him but the NA can. > > > > I know the following two questions aren't very fair, but I can't resist > >putting them: > > > >What law(s) do you base this on ? > > I base it on the fact that L93C is a separate Law from Law 93B. It > makes no reference to L93B. It makes no reference to Appeals > Committees. There is no basis for applying L93B to a NA. It is the > absence rather than the presence of a statement in the Law. What if a similar argument is applied to L12C3 ? L12C3 does mention AC's only, not NA's. That does suggest the AC bit of L12C3 may not be applied to NA's, doesn't it? > > >Is the "NA" concept consistent with what happens at international events ? > > (A World Championships appeal will never be passed on to a NA, I am sure) > > Are you? My understanding is that the WBF is present and can consider > an appeal to the NA. However, this is second-hand: perhaps Grattan, or > someone else who attends international events, could give a definitive > answer. In the mean time, Mr. Endicott gave a similar reaction. My question didn't imply I was unaware of this construction. I may be taking the law too literally, of course, but I wouldn't consider the WBF to be a NATIONAL Authority. Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 03:58:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 03:58:14 +1100 Received: from hqinbh2.ms.com (firewall-user@hqinbh2.ms.com [144.14.128.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA00890 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 03:58:08 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by hqinbh2.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id LAA07093 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:58:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by hqinbh2.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma007003; Fri, 28 Nov 97 11:57:26 -0500 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 QAA21393 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:57:25 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id QAA03789 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:57:25 GMT Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:57:25 GMT Message-Id: <9711281657.ZM3787@ms.com> In-Reply-To: Con Holzscherer "Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority" (Nov 28, 4:39pm) References: <199711281528.KAA14247@darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Nov 28, 4:39pm, Con Holzscherer wrote: > Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority > From: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au > > DS> Please may I put my occasional appeal to copy subject headings when > DS> replying? The two articles below each had different headings, from each > DS> other and from the original. For people who have good software like > DS> mine which threads these articles it is annoying that this means I have > DS> three threads: for people who do not have good software now, you will! I also have three threads. > In my definition of 'good software' minor differences (like the > prefixing of a subject string by "Re: " or "RE: ") should not yield > separate threads. Also it should not abbreviate subjects like it > seems to do (cutting off 'thority') and than treat these subjects > as different. I think your software is far far from being 'good'. The original message of this thread was: 199711271230.XAA22374@octavia.anu.edu.au It was titled "LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au". Since then, two people have changed their subject line, Jac Fuchs (the sender of the original message), whose second contribution was titled "RE: LAW 93, APPEAL C'S & NATIONA", and Con Holzscherer, whose contributions have been titled "Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority". Con's messages also have no In-Reply-To or References headers, which makes it very difficult for software to thread them correctly. David Stevenson's messages, OTOH, have all the headers present and correct. - Ed From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 05:11:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:11:10 +1100 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 FAA01160 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:11:03 +1100 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xbUtL-0005Oh-00; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:11:51 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.46.223] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xbUtE-0000Pd-00; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:11:45 +0000 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:10:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01bcfc28$e0a91500$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 David wrote: >I was asked to give a ruling last night at the Young Chelsea in a strong >match-pointed pairs game. A pair of ladies internationals were playing >against a pair of strong club players when the following happened. > >Board 15 > >Dealer: South >Vul: NS > >South West North East >1S Pass 2D Pass >3S Pass 3NT Pass >4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation >5S Pass 6D Pass >Pass Pass > >Result: 6D= for NS +1370 > >The ladies internationals complained about the 5S bid after an agreed >lengthy hesitation. > >South's hand was: > >S: AQJT93 >H: A42 >D: K86 >C: 3 > >I would appreciate opinions from everyone on how they would have ruled >as a TD and as an AC (if different). > Tricky. Would have liked to hear from South what he was doing. At any form of scoring other than pairs, one would be inclined to rule that pass was certainly a logical alternative, and adjust to 5D+1. But at pairs, I could imagine being persuaded by a South who argued that 5D making was going to be a mouldy score, and that since North could not do more than 5D over 4D, he was not expecting North to proceed over 5S. Mind you, I would need a lot of persuading that South didn't have this in mind: "Well, I'll bid 5S and if partner persists to 6D, it may make anyway given that he has some extras for the slow 5D." As to unauthorised *information*, a slow 5D is probably good diamonds, a stiff or void spade, the HK and not the CA. But a quick 5D would be most of that also, so it is not entirely that South actually has any extra information from the tempo break (apart from making the HK clearer). I would be inclined to consider that the slowness actually conveyed something that the bid itself did not. As a TD, I think your course is clear: 5S is certainly a selection from among LAs of one that could have been suggested over another [pass] by the UI. So, cancel 5S and what followed from it, and adjust to 5D+1. As an AC, I would need to hear the players. Arguments such as "South has bid his hand" are specious; South would have bid the same way with AQxxxx AQx KJx x and should now (obviously) pass 5D; here, since it's pairs and his spades are one-loser rather than possibly four-losers facing a void (something that North can't know), his correction to 5S may very well be untainted. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 05:15:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:15:00 +1100 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 FAA01201 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:14:53 +1100 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xbUx3-0005oF-00; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:15:41 +0000 Received: from default [195.99.46.223] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0xbUww-0001iQ-00; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:15:34 +0000 From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Abbreviations Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:14:32 -0000 Message-ID: <01bcfc29$79843f20$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 Iff = if and only if Whenn = when and only when Thenn = then and only then But these are terms that only mathematicians would recognise. To the rest of us, they will look like (and may very well be) typos. You will understand what I mean when I say that Stevensonn would consider adding them to a list of abbreviations. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 05:32:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:32:01 +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 FAA01283 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 05:31:51 +1100 Received: from cph3.ppp.dknet.dk (cph3.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.3]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA16953 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:31:32 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:31:32 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34820dd6.2729494@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199711281528.KAA14247@darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com> In-Reply-To: <199711281528.KAA14247@darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:28:53 MET, Con Holzscherer wrote: >DS> It depends what it is doing whether this is a reasonable approach. = I=20 >DS> understand that the policy in Denmark is for appeals to be heard by = a=20 >DS> National Appeals Committee, and as such they are acting as an AC = under=20 >DS> L93B. > > That seems exactly what we are doing in the Netherlands! Yes it does, but the NA also has the L93C authority. It happens that our NA overrules a TD on a point of law. > Presambly I lack in creativity, because I can not think of one,=20 [Reason for allowing NAs to overrule on points of law] >nor has one occurred in the 15 years I am member of the Dutch AC/SC/NA. We also discussed this subject in May. For the benefit of newcomers, and in the hope that the long-time subscribers will forgive me, here is (part of) what I wrote at that time and still means: On Fri, 09 May 1997 18:59:05 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >L93C says nothing at all about what the national authority can do or >cannot do. My interpretation is that the national authority can do >anything it wants to, since that is what we would normally expect an >appeals authority to be allowed to do unless the laws specify >otherwise. > >Your interpretation seems to be that "further appeal" means that what >is being taken to the NA (a candidate to the abbreviation list, >David?) is not the TD & AC ruling combined, but only the AC ruling, >and that the NA can therefore only do what the AC can do. > >I find both interpretations consistent with the wording of L93, but it >seems to me that my interpretation is obviously the useful and natural >one. In fact, I find it absolutely necessary to have some ultimate >authority on law interpretation; if we did not have national >authorities on law interpretation, there would be nobody to set >precedents of law interpretation, and each TD would effectively be on >his own. It would be impossible to tell a stubborn TD that his ruling >was wrong, since there would be no authority with the power to >determine that the ruling was wrong. > >Assume that the Danish First Division is playing. Half the teams play >in one location with TD A, and the other half play elsewhere with TD >B. Assume that the same irregularity occurs on the same hand in these >two different locations, ruled by the two different directors. If >they read the law differently, and none of them can be convinced that >they're wrong, and there is no appeals authority to overrule them, >then we'd have to live with the fact that the laws of the game >effectively depends on which TD happens to be ruling. > >This is not acceptable; we want the same law interpretation throughout >the country, at least for those players who take the trouble to appeal >to the NA. > >With a NA that has the authority to say which law interpretation is >correct in Denmark, we can tell TDs who ask what the correct ruling in >some case is: "this matter came up in an appeals case in 1993, and the >NA ruled that a trick should be transferred; you should therefore do >the same in that situation". If we did not have such a national >authority, we'd have to say things like "in the First Division in >1993, this matter came up twice, and TDs A and B insisted on different >rulings, so we have no authoritative precedent to help you rule >similar situations". > >In other words, we really need some authority who can overrule a TD's >incorrect ruling. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 07:56:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:56:31 +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 HAA01986 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:56:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1024217; 28 Nov 97 20:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:58:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority In-Reply-To: <199711281528.KAA14247@darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote: >From: David Stevenson >Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au >DS> Please may I put my occasional appeal to copy subject headings when >DS> replying? The two articles below each had different headings, from each >DS> other and from the original. For people who have good software like >DS> mine which threads these articles it is annoying that this means I have >DS> three threads: for people who do not have good software now, you will! > In my definition of 'good software' minor differences (like the >prefixing of a subject string by "Re: " or "RE: ") should not yield >separate threads. Also it should not abbreviate subjects like it >seems to do (cutting off 'thority') and than treat these subjects >as different. I think your software is far far from being 'good'. I agree that software that treats the prefixing of subjects by "Re: " or "RE: " as different is poor. Mine doesn't. I also think that software that abbreviates the subject heading is poor. Mine doesn't, as can be seen from the following lines taken from the headers of the relevant emails as received: From the article that started this thread: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From the other two articles: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: LAW 93, APPEAL C'S & NATIONA Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-Id: <199711281140.GAA02365@darwin.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Authority To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Jac has actually explained that his software has limitations. Anyway, I am not the Net police, but I do find the occasional comment is not unhelpful, because most people who do such things do not realise the problems: very few would do it intentionally, and they would ignore my comments anyway! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 12:47:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:47:13 +1100 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 MAA02506 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:47:09 +1100 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 MAA05642; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:47:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p49.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.65]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA19731; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:47:04 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971129112813.0076edd0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:28:13 +1100 To: David Martin , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: RE: Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:55 26/11/97 -0000, you wrote: Snip > >Taking all of the discussion on this thread into account, I have now >refined my view slightly from the above. > >I now think that if a player prematuely corrects his insufficient bid to >the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and it is clear that >both the insufficient bid and the correction are not conventional then >it should *not* be cancelled by the TD (as Law 27B1a does not refer to >Law 10C1) and the auction should continue without penalty but still >subject to Law 27B1b. > >If the player prematurely corrects the insufficient bid to a double then >I think that Law 27B3 immediately applies (again because this section >makes no direct reference to Law 10C1), therefore the double is >cancelled, the offender's partner is silenced for the rest of the >auction and the offender may pass or make any other sufficient bid. > >If the player prematurely corrects to anything other than the above then >I believe that Law 27B2 now applies and, since this directly refers to >Law 10C1, the substituted call should be cancelled and the player given >all of his options before selecting his final call at that turn. > >This last bit is in disagreement with Steve Wilner (& Reg Busch) who >writes: > >As Reg says, there is no provision for withdrawing the substituted call >unless it's a double or redouble. So the offender is stuck with the >attempted correction _and_ the applicable penalty unless LHO elects to >accept the insufficient bid under L27A. > >I believe that the reference to Law 10C1 within Law 27B2 specifically >requires the TD to cancel the premature call and inform the offender of >his options. The consequence of this approach is that *some* premature correctors have the benefit of Law 10C1 and others don't, a concept I find hard to accept in logic or equity. Are you reading too much into the fact that 10C1 is quoted in 27B2 but not in 27B1? To quote Grattan's recent posting:* The intention of each law is that it will stand in its own right without need for cross-referencing in any situation which fits the circumstance it is to deal with. An attempt has been made to reduce the numbers of X-refs and those which are present are there for the 'avoidance of doubt' if the drafting committee felt that the Director might be unsure or occasionally felt the Director might need to be reminded.* On this basis, *all* insuficient bidders are entitled to the benefit of 10C1, even though it is specified only in 27B2. So, if one reads 10C1 as requiring cancellation of the premature call, this must apply to all such calls. But I see the reference to 10C2 in 27B2 as just a reminder, and cannot read therein a requirement to cancel the premature call. If this were the intention surely the Law would have retained some part of the 87 Law and read something like 'cancel the premature call (laws 26 and 16C2 may apply)and apply Law 10C1'? It seems to me that, under the 97 Laws, the player who prematurely corrects his insufficient bid to any other call has to live with its legal consequences. I presume that LHO would retain the right to accept the first (insufficient) bid. If he does so, then bidding proceeds but the substituted bid becomes UI and subject to Law 26. Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 29 14:06:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:06:50 +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 OAA02647 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:06:45 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004233; 29 Nov 97 3:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:20:15 +0000 To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Martin writes >I was asked to give a ruling last night at the Young Chelsea in a strong >match-pointed pairs game. A pair of ladies internationals were playing >against a pair of strong club players when the following happened. > >Board 15 > >Dealer: South >Vul: NS > >South West North East >1S Pass 2D Pass >3S Pass 3NT Pass >4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation >5S Pass 6D Pass >Pass Pass > >Result: 6D= for NS +1370 > >The ladies internationals complained about the 5S bid after an agreed >lengthy hesitation. > >South's hand was: > >S: AQJT93 >H: A42 >D: K86 >C: 3 > >I would appreciate opinions from everyone on how they would have ruled >as a TD and as an AC (if different). 70% of *good* match point players will bid 6D, otherwise they lose to 4S. I'm unhappy about the 5S bid. I'd rule result stands, but only in a *very strong* game -- 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 Nov 29 14:10:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:10:34 +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 OAA02661 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:10:28 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2006534; 29 Nov 97 3:02 GMT Message-ID: <3NUUhGAR33f0EwGX@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:28:33 +0000 To: David Burn Cc: Bridge Laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Abbreviations In-Reply-To: <01bcfc29$79843f20$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bcfc29$79843f20$LocalHost@default>, David Burn writes >Iff = if and only if >Whenn = when and only when >Thenn = then and only then > >But these are terms that only mathematicians would recognise. To the >rest of us, they will look like (and may very well be) typos. You will >understand what I mean when I say that Stevensonn would consider >adding them to a list of abbreviations. > > heh heh heh -- 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 Sun Nov 30 10:45:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:45:06 +1100 Received: from mx1.landsraad.net (chusuk.arrakis.es [195.5.65.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07736 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:44:52 +1100 Received: from arrakis.es (ie-57.arrakis.es [195.5.74.57]) by mx1.landsraad.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA18539; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:43:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3480A895.D9C64642@arrakis.es> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:43:17 +0000 From: Lucas Mendoza Organization: Federaciòn Tinerfeña de Bridge X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [es] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: Grattan Endicott , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Must be alerted? Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------15EE559DFB5AA4A5E7C146C6" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Este es un mensaje multipartes en formato MIME. --------------15EE559DFB5AA4A5E7C146C6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello everybody: my question is : Must be alerted North 1D(Precision 11-15 H maybe one card),East 1H, South 2D*? ( raise, 8-14 H,not fourth major and more strong than 3D that will be preemptive.). In a little club in Tenerife(Canary Islands.) I saw 1D-1H-2D-2H Dbl. and the player who calls 2H with only Q10x in hearts,red and no more points in a 4333 call the tournament director asking to retreat 2H and change for a pass.He says that North not alerted 2D*. The TD say no and say to continue the auction and play.Is this a correct ruling? Many thanks to all.Lucas. --------------15EE559DFB5AA4A5E7C146C6 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Description: Tarjeta de LUCAS MENDOZA CONTRERAS Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.landsraad.net id AAA18539 begin: vcard fn: LUCAS MENDOZA CONTRERAS n: MENDOZA CONTRERAS;LUCAS=20 org: Federacion Tinerfe=F1a de Ajedrez adr: Tirso de Molina 6 Piso 8=BA Vda. 4;;;SANTA CRUZ DE TENERI= FE;SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE (CANARIAS);38005;ESPA=D1A email;internet: lucasedu@arrakis.es title: Vicepresidente tel;work: (922) 33-15-81 tel;home: (922) 22-18-76 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------15EE559DFB5AA4A5E7C146C6 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Description: Tarjeta de Lucas Eduardo Mendoza Contreras Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.landsraad.net id AAA18539 begin: vcard fn: Lucas Eduardo Mendoza Contreras n: Mendoza Contreras;Lucas Eduardo org: Federaci=F2n Tinerfe=F1a de Bridge email;internet: lucasedu@arrakis.es title: Appeal Committee.President. x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------15EE559DFB5AA4A5E7C146C6--