From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 1 03:54:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:54:47 +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 DAA11881 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:54:32 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS2-125.star.net.il [195.8.208.125]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA20829; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 18:54:33 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <34819A81.94387178@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 18:55:31 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? References: <199711260849.AAA21841@cactus.tc.pw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > snip > > 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 Dear Stephen IMHO a TD shouldn't play !!! There should be a difference between social/fun duplicate and tournaments awarding some "anything". Here we almost achieved the right equilibrium (as I think is "right") : Any tournament which awards master points (from local to international ) must be directed by an oficial (graduated by the IBF) non-playing TD ; otherwise no master points !! Almost 95% of clubs employee graduated non-playing TDs. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 04:41:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 04:41:37 +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 EAA17796 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 04:41:28 +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 MAA26573 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:41:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01671; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:41:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:41:26 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712011741.MAA01671@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LAW 93, Appeal C's & National Au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > 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. This is the key point. If everyone is trying to apply the Laws, there will virtually never be a conflict. > >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. A bit of clarification may help here. If the AC believes that the explanation given was correct, this is a question of fact and judgment, and the AC may rule as it wishes. If they believe that no explanation was required or that it was legal to give a wrong explanation (!), this is a point of law, and they may not overrule the TD on this basis. Perhaps this example illustrates how unlikely a conflict really is. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 06:36:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 06:36:16 +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 GAA18282 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 06:36:07 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS3-179.star.net.il [195.8.208.179]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25237; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 21:34:47 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <34831198.78BDC6A5@star.net.il> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 21:35:53 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Probst CC: David Martin , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear John & all the world TDs Analysis : A. South 4D is a slam invitation for Diamond . From this moment North is the "boss" . IFF he wants to check he will Cue-bid or RKC or any method to find Aces/Keycards . B. South bid 5D - it means he decided - as the BOSS - there is no reason for slam. - he is the BOSS . Decision: 1. The result is 5D+1 . 2. I"ll say more - even without any hesitasion !!! the result will be 5D+1. By the way - I decided this way more than 40 times and brought about 10-12 of them to high level international AC (most of them convincing the players to appeal). These AC always "rejected" the appeal before it started...... Dany John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > In message ise.demon.co.uk>, David Martin writes > > snip From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 07:32:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:32:33 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA18691 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:32:26 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA06372; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:31:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from 26.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.17.26) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006309; Mon Dec 1 14:31:28 1997 Received: by 26.middletown-05.va.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BCFE6E.195834C0@26.middletown-05.va.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:30:48 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCFE6E.195834C0@26.middletown-05.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "'Dany Haimovici'" , John Probst Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" , David Martin Subject: RE: Demonstrably Diamonds? Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:30:45 -0500 Encoding: 26 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: (snip) Analysis : A. South 4D is a slam invitation for Diamond . From this moment North is the "boss" . IFF he wants to check he will Cue-bid or RKC or any method to find Aces/Keycards . B. South bid 5D - it means he decided - as the BOSS - there is no reason for slam. - he is the BOSS . Decision: 1. The result is 5D+1 . 2. I"ll say more - even without any hesitasion !!! the result will be 5D+1. Did I miss something? If there is no hesitation or other violation, why are we adjusting a score? The last I knew it remained legitimate to violate a partnership agreement, bid foolishly or incompetently, get lucky and keep a good result IN THE ABSENCE of any UI. It is not for us to rule on good or bad bidding...extended play in good competition will do that far more effectively. Only when a violation is present is it right to take this fortuitous result away. (If there's a violation then perhaps is it not so fortuitous?) Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 07:59:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:59:04 +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 HAA18892 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:58:55 +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 PAA31559 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:58:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01779; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:58:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:58:54 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712012058.PAA01779@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oh, dear. I'm in the minority again. Well, that never stopped me before.... > From: David Martin > 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 > South's hand was: > > S: AQJT93 > H: A42 > D: K86 > C: 3 1) Logical alternatives: in a strong matchpoint game, I can't imagine anyone passing 5D. Give North AQ-sixth of diamonds and out, and 6D is hardly worse than the spade finesse. Having bypassed 3NT, it cannot be right to stop in 5D with this hand. Before reading the other answers, I was trying to decide whether pass would be a LA in the ACBL (thinking the answer obvious under less stringent EBU rules). I was prepared to vote that it was not! (Although I'd be prepared to be outvoted here, and it seems I would be.) In the EBU, I'd still vote that the only LA's are 5S and 6D. If an expert committee were to vote otherwise, well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, but I'd like to know what hand they think North could hold. 2) Suggested over another: what was North thinking about doing instead of 5D? Bidding 4NT to sign off? Bidding 5S to play? Or cue bidding or a direct 6D? The first suggests passing 5D (or bidding 5S, but only if you agree that pass isn't a LA). The second suggests bidding 5S. The third suggests bidding 6D. I don't see how South can tell which of these North was thinking, and thus I don't see how the hesitation suggests any alternative over another. If you agree with me about *either* 1) or 2), you should let the table result stand. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 08:06:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:06:14 +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 IAA18923 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:06:08 +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 QAA32341 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:06:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA01794; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:06:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:06:06 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712012106.QAA01794@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > A. South 4D is a slam invitation for Diamond . > From this moment North is the "boss" . > IFF he wants to check he will Cue-bid or RKC or > any method to find Aces/Keycards . Are you looking at the same auction I am? South has made no non- forcing bids (after the initial 1S opening). North attempted to sign off in 3NT, limiting his hand. South is clearly the captain, and I wouldn't expect North to be able to ask for aces in most partnerships. No doubt an AC, if not a TD, should check on the actual NS methods. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 08:56:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:56:56 +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 IAA19167 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:56:39 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS3-179.star.net.il [195.8.208.179]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA25551; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:56:39 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <348332DB.C766F7D7@star.net.il> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 23:57:47 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Insufficient bid References: <3.0.1.32.19971128092426.006cd878@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I consider both examples - Ann's and Adam's . (IB= Insufficient Bid) Analysis : A. 4H and 2H were IB , the H suit was NOT specified during any legal period of the auction. B. By 97 Laws - assuming that the TD told the non-offending side they can accept the IB , but they didn't and offending side PASSED - Law 26 applies (it doesn't apply when H was called before e.g. 1S-2H-3S-3H*......). Bb.By the 87 Laws there was the same ruling if TD deems that the offending side "could have known ...." which was a very ...? almost impossible decision for a TD ! C. The Lead of H when the offending side gets again the lead is basically UI and must be a "very logical" alternative (see 16C2) My opinion : (assuming the TD explained the rights of all players, as he/she should do according to 10C ) A. The Declarer can prohibit or compel an offender to lead H. B. The prohibition stands as much as described in Law 26B. C. When H lead prohibited it is an UI for the offenders - if I have 5% doubt it is a logical continuation when a defender gets the lead again - I rule against them (with the penalty or adjustment specified by laws) and send them to appeal. D. For VILNER - Law 27 doesn't change when using Screens. Thank all for paying attention. Dany Eric Landau wrote: > > 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 Tue Dec 2 09:47:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:47:37 +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 JAA19381 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:47:25 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS3-179.star.net.il [195.8.208.179]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA25634; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:46:53 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <34833EA1.3689524D@star.net.il> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 00:48:01 +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: Insufficient bids References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear friends I came back today and read many messages and remarks . I believe that this issue should be treated according to :" Herman's enhanced normality restoring principle" (as described in my message resent today). ONE First we must apply Law 25A if the correction is immediate: 1. 2D,Dbl,2H stand and we should consider 1D as an "accident" but ask players to summon TD at opening lead or end of play ( to be sure that 1D wasn't a true bid ). 2. 1H will be dealt by law 27 - as a purely IB - and again check the "meaning" of 1D ( if any ). TWO Second apply Law 25B(if the correction was after someone drew attention to the irregularities or the change was very delayed )and then always going to Law 27 (see both 25BB1 with the footnote or 25B2(a)) THREE 1.The NO may accept 1D ; then : A. 2D -> "vanishes" - no penalties. B. Double -> "vanishes" with provisions of L27B3. C. 2H -> "vanishes" and L26 applies D. 1H -> as about 2H. 2. the NO doesn't accept the 1D then : A. 2D -> auction goes on by 27B1(a) B. Double -> isn't allowed and it continues by 27B3 C. 2H -> stands and provisions by 27B2. D. 1H -> 1)NO may accept it; then 1D is UI and Law 26 applies. 2)NO doesn't accept it; then it goes on by 27B (header) and all subsequent ramifications , Law 26 applies both to D and H . Dany 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. > > -- > David Stevenson ***************************************************** > * New Edgar Kaplan memorial message on Bridgepage * > * http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm * > ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 15:23:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA20140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:23:03 +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 PAA20135 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:22:54 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005282; 2 Dec 97 4:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 04:16:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: <199712012058.PAA01779@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Oh, dear. I'm in the minority again. Well, that never stopped me >before.... Sure hasn't ! >> From: David Martin >> 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 > >> South's hand was: >> >> S: AQJT93 >> H: A42 >> D: K86 >> C: 3 > >1) Logical alternatives: in a strong matchpoint game, I can't imagine >anyone passing 5D. Give North AQ-sixth of diamonds and out, and >6D is hardly worse than the spade finesse. Having bypassed 3NT, >it cannot be right to stop in 5D with this hand. Really? Why should he have AQ-sixth? Why not Ace-fifth? He did not pull 3NT - you did! If pd has a void spade then no game might make except 5D. >Before reading the other answers, I was trying to decide whether pass >would be a LA in the ACBL (thinking the answer obvious under less >stringent EBU rules). I was prepared to vote that it was not! >(Although I'd be prepared to be outvoted here, and it seems I would >be.) When considering LAs consider the hands that do not support the action taken rather than those that do. Of course AQ-sixth supports it: try poor diamond holdings. >In the EBU, I'd still vote that the only LA's are 5S and 6D. If an >expert committee were to vote otherwise, well, it wouldn't be the >first time I've been wrong, but I'd like to know what hand they >think North could hold. > >2) Suggested over another: what was North thinking about doing instead >of 5D? Bidding 4NT to sign off? Bidding 5S to play? Or cue bidding >or a direct 6D? The first suggests passing 5D (or bidding 5S, but only >if you agree that pass isn't a LA). The second suggests bidding 5S. >The third suggests bidding 6D. IMO 5D is discouraging, Thus a slow 5D is not quite so discouraging! >I don't see how South can tell which of these North was thinking, and >thus I don't see how the hesitation suggests any alternative over >another. Are you sure that is not the BL argument? 5D is discouraging: any think suggests that pd is better, surely? >If you agree with me about *either* 1) or 2), you should let the table >result stand. True! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 15:54:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA20166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:54:59 +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 PAA20161 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:54:52 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin46.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA26326 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:54:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 23:54:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971201235416_1605075534@mrin46.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Alert Ruling in St. Louis Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From the first qualifying session of the Life Master Pairs in St. Louis: Bd: 19 Dlr: S Vul: E-W S-KQT H-752 D-QT9 C-JT32 N S-86 S-973 H-A W E H-KQJ8643 D-J75 D-842 C-AQ98765 S C- S-AJ542 H-T9 D-AK63 C-K4 The auction: West North East South - - - 1S 2C 2S 3H Dbl (not Alerted) 4C Dbl 4H P P Dbl All pass Down 500, for 6 matchpoints out of 64. I was East. Partner West was an inexperienced player who thought she had to rescue me from a bad situation. As she said later, she would not have bid 4C if she had known that the double was not a penalty double and only showed a desire to compete further. I called TD Sol Weinstein, who ruled, after going away to consult the Alert Procedure, that the double of 3H was not Alertable. I wonder what he read. My copy of the ACBL reg says that Type II doubles must be Alerted if not penalty or penaltyish. Type II doubles are defined as "those made when partner has made any call other than a PASS." This looks to me like a Type II double implying "cards" and a side diamond suit, not penalty or penaltyish (North would have pulled to 3S, or maybe even would have bid 4S in view of the diamond fit), which makes it Alertable. South could hardly double 3H for penalty, looking at the finessable club king and weak heart doubleton. I did not appeal this decision because I couldn't afford to lose $50 and the AC might have ruled that partner's bad 4C bid, bad even if the double was for penalty, caused the damage. Another point of view is that there was a failure to Alert, an irregularity, so the NOs should be granted the benefit of doubt. The TD might ask North what she would do if the double had been explained, and if she says pass then the TD should assign an adjusted score of +140 for N-S. Comments, please. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 17:58:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:58:29 +1100 Received: from mrin51.mail.aol.com (mrin51.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA20439 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:58:22 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin51.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA24736; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 01:53:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 01:53:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971202015337_1745533684@mrin51.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: john.strauch@juno.com, slvrmn@netcom.com Subject: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following account of the subject appeal is taken from the Daily Bulletin of the St. Louis NABC, with my comments in parentheses: Subject: Tempo Event: Life Masters Pairs, 21 Nov 1997, Second Session Board: 19 Dealer: South Vul: E/W Alice Leicht S-KJ853 H-AQ2 D-J6 C-A75 Claude Vogel George Jacobs S- S-10962 H-J854 H-KT97 D-AKT9872 D-Q53 C-T9 C-Q3 Marvin French S-AQ74 H-63 D-4 C-KJ8642 West North East South 1C 3D(1) Dbl(2) Pass 3S Pass 4S All Pass (1) No skip-bid warning (2) Break in tempo before and after looking at convention card marked as penalty, not Alerted. (Two errors here. Alice looked at the opponents' card, not ours, and I certainly did Alert her double, as was plainly shown on the TD's write-up. Rich Colker has promised to correct the "not Alerted" statement in the official record. This was added by him when editing this record of the appeal, at the direction of someone on the AC whose identity he could not remember. I did not notice the convention card mistake until just now, and must try to get that corrected also. Both these errors, while not pertinent to the appeal, are embarrassing to see in print. Alice never looks at her own card, and I Alert all Type I penalty doubles without fail. Why do we not get to look at write-ups until they appear in the Daily Bulletin?) The Facts: 4S made six, plus 480 for N/S. South was considerably more experienced than North. After West's 3D call, North was uncertain about the best action. The Director was called at the time of the break in tempo and was called back to the table after the hand was over. The Director ruled that unauthorized information was present and the removal of the penalty double could have been suggested by tempo. Since pass was a logical alternative for South, the Director changed the contract to 3D doubled made four, plus 870 for E/W. (Pass is not a logical alternative in our methods. Having opened a 10 HCP distributional hand, I MUST pull a double when holding a singleton in the opposing suit. Even if I had a doubleton diamond and singleton heart I should pull. I would not do so after a break in tempo in that case, since a pass becomes somewhat logical in view of the ruffing potential.) The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South asserted that he had played tournament bridge for 50 years and that he did not play negative doubles. His approach to doubles was modeled after S. J. Simon book, Why You Lose at Bridge. He stated that the double was a suggestion, not a command, and that he should have about four defensive tricks to pass the double. South thought his hand warranted the 3S call. (Not just warranted...demanded is the word I used. My system notes on this subject, adopted from S. J. Simon, say that I must pass a double with three cards in the opposing suit, pass with a doubleton unless the opening was weak and distributional, pull with a singleton unless holding four defensive tricks, and always pull with a void. Screener Brian Moran pointed out to me that Simon had one and two-level overcalls in mind when he stated these principles. That may be true, but the principles apply with even more force after a preemptive overcall, which crowds the auction. For instance, if one of Alice's spades had been a diamond, her double would have been correct. Such doubles are not made at lower levels, so partner must be quicker to pull with an unsuitable hand at this level.) North admitted uncertainty about her choice of calls. When asked why she didn't bid 3S, she said she didn't want to bid "just a king-jack suit." She said, "I'm doubling to let him make the decision." South submitted that the North hand was not one that called for a double in their methods. He also stated that he had system notes at home which could substantiate and corroborate the criteria he used to decide which penalty doubles to pull and which to pass. (They did not believe me, one AC member calling my statement "self-serving." That adjectival phrase is used by ACs to categorize any statement that would tend to undermine their decisions. It is a polite, some would say gutless, euphemism for "lying.") The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that if North's spade and diamond suits had been interchanged, the hesitation was not likely to have occurred. The hesitation thus conveyed the information to South that the penalty double was not based on length and strength in trump. (I highly resented the assertion concerning what Alice might do if her spades and diamonds were exchanged. Alice never doubles fast, not for ethical reasons (although she is highly ethical), but because she plays negative doubles with everyone else and has to stop and think every time the occasion for a penalty double arises. Of course the AC had no way of knowing that, but they also had no reason to imply that she is an unethical cheater who doubles fast or slow depending on her trump holding. Jon Brissman, who made the statement, withdrew it after I objected to the implication, but there it is in the official record. And by the way, Jon, if a partner makes an unethically fast double, I pull it. While South did not have an ideal hand for defense, his hand was within the range that his partner could have anticipated when she chose the penalty double. (Ignorant of Simon's classic approach to penalty doubles, they believe that penalty doubles are always to be passed if the opening bid was valid and not extremely distributional. As negative doublers, they have no conception that what is true after an overcall does not apply after an opening bid. If I had overcalled in clubs, then I certanly would pass a penalty double of 3D with this hand. As to the range my partner might expect when she doubles, of course she expects that I might hold a hand like this. She also knows that I will not pass the double with such a hand.) The unauthorized information suggested that bidding 3S was more likely to be successful than passing so South was not allowed to select that action. Since E/W would most probably win ten tricks, the contract was changed to 3D doubled made four, plus 870. The $50 deposit was returned. (Yes, the UI suggested that a systemic 3S bid was more likely to be successful than a non-systemic pass. So what? I AM allowed to bid 3S if, as in this case, there is no logical alternative. The word "reasonably" was changed to "demonstrably" in the 1997 version of L16A. The AC's thinking may have been reasonable, but they failed to demonstrate that I had a logical alternative to bidding 3S. Unlike me, they did not come up with any authoritative source supporting their view of penalty doubles.) Chairman Jon Brissman Committee Members: Phil Brady, Ed Lazarus. ----------------------------------------------------------------- And the TD was Olin Hubert. Why are TDs granted anonymity in these AC write-ups, when everyone else is named? ACs are used to seeing cheaters who double fast/slow and pass/pull accordingly. Instead of automatically putting everyone in that class, calling every explanation "self-serving," they should look a little more deeply into each case. Also, I must remember to include my 10 lb book of system notes when I pack for the Reno NABC. For those who agree with the AC that penalty doubles are to be passed, that Simon's approach is not standard, I just looked up Goren's words on the subject (1963): "Even though you make a business double, partner may still be entitled to his opinion." Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 20:33:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:33:58 +1100 Received: from hqinbh1.ms.com (firewall-user@hqinbh1.ms.com [144.14.128.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA20613 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:33:52 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by hqinbh1.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id EAA19364 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 04:33:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by hqinbh1.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma019350; Tue, 2 Dec 97 04:33:35 -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 JAA01122 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:33:33 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id JAA01994 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:33:33 GMT Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:33:33 GMT Message-Id: <9712020933.ZM1992@ms.com> In-Reply-To: Dany Haimovici "Re: Demonstrably Diamonds?" (Dec 1, 8:37pm) References: <34831198.78BDC6A5@star.net.il> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Dec 1, 8:37pm, Dany Haimovici wrote: > Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? > Dear John & all the world TDs > > Analysis : > A. South 4D is a slam invitation for Diamond . > From this moment North is the "boss" . > IFF he wants to check he will Cue-bid or RKC or > any method to find Aces/Keycards . > > B. South bid 5D - it means he decided. - as the BOSS - > there is no reason for slam. - he is the BOSS . You seem to be arguing that Pass is an LA. I do not think that anyone disputed this. [ BTW, on bidding theory rather than law: this is only your style (and a poor one at thaat, IMHO). Some play that 4S and 4NT are still possible contracts after this start. ] The issue is: does the UI demonstrably suggest that bidding will be better than passing? I say no, since South may have been thinking about bidding 4NT to play. You don't address this issue at all. > Decision: > 1. The result is 5D+1 . > 2. I"ll say more - even without any hesitasion !!! > the result will be 5D+1. Would you care to say under what law you justify this ruling? - Ed From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 21:10:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:10:40 +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 VAA20758 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:10:35 +1100 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-aagw1.notes.compuserve.com [149.174.221.56]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA08224.; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:33:09 -0500 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA4029; Tue, 02 Dec 97 05:09:59 -0500 Message-Id: <9712021009.AA4029@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027340012F89CC1256561002C29C4; Tue, 2 Dec 97 05:09:59 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 2 Dec 97 9:08:53 Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a first impulse, I would have corrected the result to 5D+1. But after considering that it is matchpoints, a pass on 5D is absolutely foolish. Even if partner got a void in spades, something like -/DBx/ADxxxx/DBxx, 5S would be a better contract than 5D. And please consider: In sequences like this, almost every bid has to be considered and will be done after hesitation. Therefor IMHO no adjustment. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 2 23:36:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:36:52 +1100 Received: from hqinbh1.ms.com (firewall-user@hqinbh1.ms.com [144.14.128.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA21241 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:36:45 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by hqinbh1.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id HAA26954; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by hqinbh1.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma026947; Tue, 2 Dec 97 07:24:39 -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 MAA21385; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:24:36 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id MAA02129; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:24:36 GMT Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:24:36 GMT Message-Id: <9712021224.ZM2127@ms.com> In-Reply-To: Mlfrench@aol.com "St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long)" (Dec 2, 7:45am) References: <971202015337_1745533684@mrin51.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: Mlfrench@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) Cc: john.strauch@juno.com, slvrmn@netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Dec 2, 7:45am, Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > Subject: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) [much snipped] > My system notes on this > subject, adopted from S. J. Simon, say that I must pass a double with three > cards in the opposing suit, pass with a doubleton unless the opening was weak > and distributional, pull with a singleton unless holding four defensive > tricks, and always pull with a void. [snip] > For those who agree with the AC that penalty doubles are to be passed, that > Simon's approach is not standard, I just looked up Goren's words on the > subject (1963): "Even though you make a business double, partner may still > be entitled to his opinion." It is worth remembering that Simon was writing at a time when artificial bidding was regarded with some distaste. For example, one of his arguments for 1S-3S being a limit raise rather than a forcing raise was that the limit raise was more natural that the forcing raise. Simon made it quite clear that his style of penalty doubles was very different to the traditional style; he emphasised that you had to have agreement as to which style ('solo flight' or 'proposition to partner') of penalty doubles your partnership was playing. Simon called his new-style doubles 'penalty' to avoid the stigma of artificiality. Nowadays there is no such problem, and we have many terms available to describe doubles from pure penalty to pure takeout. It sounds like your doubles would be best described as 'optional', which implies a good, probably balanced, hand with some sort of trump holding, usually at least Q-x-x. If you don't think this term would be widely understood, then I suggest "balanced and defensive" would be an acceptable description. I have played the style of doubles you describe, and found them extremely effective. I admit it is quite fun to announce in thunderous tones "PENALTY DOUBLES" when someone has just made a dubious weak jump overcall, and I'm sure you enjoy saying that you have played duplicate bridge for fifty years and play good ol' fashioned penalty doubles. I would advise giving up these pleasures in order to make sure that your opponents, the tournament directors and the appeals committee members are clear as to what your methods are. This is a legal obligation in the case of your opponents and, as you have discovered, is certainly in your interests in the case of the TD and AC. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 01:09:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:09:25 +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 BAA23763 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:09:13 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS2-66.star.net.il [195.8.208.66]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA26822; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:09:16 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <348416CE.AE51226@star.net.il> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 16:10:22 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? References: <199712012106.QAA01794@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve First - all fellows sorry for mistaken typing.. Please correct paragraph B in my original message : "....B. North bid 5D - ......" Now I try to emphasize the analysis (based on the assumption that there are no very special conventions on their CC) : 1)North didn't show any slam interest - he signed off 3 NT. 2)The moment south bid 4D - he/she shows a better hand (maybe distribution ?, mild extra values ?..) inviting for slam if north thinks he/she has some interesting values/fit/distribution ; from this moment on NORTH must decide : a) either asking for south extras (distr. or values or specific cards or whatever their system is ) b) or deciding that his hand can't contribute to slam even south has some mild extras, as he/she showed. And now please forgive me if some words are not academic enough ! 3) The TD shouldn't check -IMHO- the subconscious or unconscious or suspicious action of players , just to behave serious and polite. When South bid 5S, IMHO there are two possibilities : a) His partner bid 5D together with a tone/gesture/mannerism/etc. (which are told as UI by Law 16) perceptible only by a long-term partnership. b) South "got crazy" or is total "drunk" or any other bad definition. As I wrote in 3) above I don't like to be in a very embarrassing position and this is why I - when summoned to table , which usually happens only if opponents saw or deemed some strange event - don't allow any bid subsequent to 5D , if opps. passed. This is the explanation for "even without agreed hesitation" - but of course only when summoned (I try as a TD to be involved as less as possible - let players enjoy !). I hope this more detailed message and the correction for "North" is more understandable. Dany Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Dany Haimovici > > A. South 4D is a slam invitation for Diamond . > > From this moment North is the "boss" . > > IFF he wants to check he will Cue-bid or RKC or > > any method to find Aces/Keycards . > > Are you looking at the same auction I am? South has made no non- > forcing bids (after the initial 1S opening). North attempted to sign > off in 3NT, limiting his hand. South is clearly the captain, and I > wouldn't expect North to be able to ask for aces in most partnerships. > > No doubt an AC, if not a TD, should check on the actual NS methods. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 01:25:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:25:21 +1100 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA23814 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:25:13 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id OAA25018 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:25:01 GMT Date: Tue, 2 Dec 97 14:22 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? 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: <9712020933.ZM1992@ms.com> Edward Sheldon wrote: > On Dec 1, 8:37pm, Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? > > Dear John & all the world TDs > > > > Analysis : > > A. South 4D is a slam invitation for Diamond . > > From this moment North is the "boss" . > > IFF he wants to check he will Cue-bid or RKC or > > any method to find Aces/Keycards . > > > > B. South bid 5D - it means he decided. - as the BOSS - > > there is no reason for slam. - he is the BOSS . > > You seem to be arguing that Pass is an LA. I do not think > that anyone disputed this. At least one other person has disputed this, as would I. The hand came from a Wednesday pairs game at the Young Chelsea. Almost no-one there will play in 5m if there is any possible alternative. The 4D bid suggests several possible final contracts (4D, 4S, 4NT, 5S, 6D) but 5D is not one of them. South's spade suit is playable opposite a void and on the bidding partner may well hold HQJx(x) (he has denied 1st and 2nd round controls in H/C but still bid NT). However, I could be convinced that pass is an LA for the pair in question. > The issue is: does the UI demonstrably suggest that bidding > will be better than passing? I say no, since South may have ^North^ > been thinking about bidding 4NT to play. You don't address > this issue at all. This is just one of the possibilities. North could also be considering a jump to six diamonds or a bid of 4S. In order to determine what the hesitation suggests I believe we need to consider the most likely reason for the hesitation. A hand that cannot cue bid H or C is unlikely to be considering 4NT or a jump to 6D so that leaves 4S which is... A cue-bid guaranteeing the SK, A cue bid showing SK/singleton/void Discouraging and to play? Unfortunately I still don't know what pard decided 4S would be so the hesitation per se doesn't actually suggest any particular course of action. Thus, with apologies to Michele, I would have to rule result stands. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 01:47:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:47:41 +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 BAA23876 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 01:47:35 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1011890; 2 Dec 97 14:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:35:46 +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 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. On this occasion I shall give an opinion without quoting everyone else's replies. I originally asked this after a top man who does not take BLML gave me an opinion and asked if I disagreed. Regrettably some of the arguments on this subject have been conducted by email rather than here. My understanding of L25B is that the position of the footnote disallows accepting the attempted correction under *that* Law. L27A surely allows the next player to accept the 1D bid whatever the player does in attempting to correct his mistake. >[1] He corrected it to 2D, and we are sure that neither 1D nor 2D is >conventional. Many of the postings were about the point I am trying to make: can the player take back his 2D after hearing the options? In 1987 there was a bit in parentheses that says yes, and Reg Busch pointed out the difficulty with that bit being removed: did the Lawmakers consider it superfluous or were they trying to change it? It has been suggested by email that the former is correct. However, unless or until there is a formal pronouncement, we have to interpret as best we can the Laws as written, and the correct approach IMO is to forget 1987 and see what we have. Several people have quoted L10C1 which says that the TD must explain the options. It does not say that then the player can choose, even though this is a reasonable inference. Perhaps the omission is deliberate because they did not want to say "... after which the player concerned chooses amongst the options, unless he is not permitted to do so." The premature correction is an infraction under L9B2 anyway. Now consider L9C: it warns that further action by the offender is likely to make it worse. If you think he should be permitted to withdraw the 2D in this case because of L10C1 then I would say that L9C indicates the opposite. Indeed, if we always allow everything to be retracted because of L10C1, when does L9C apply? In view of the fact that L10C1 does *not* say that a player always makes a choice after hearing his options it cannot IMO be applied here. I believe that the player has made his correction in defiance of L9B2 and is stuck with that choice under L9C. >[2] He corrected it to a double. The logic is the same, thus my answer is the same: the player is stuck with the penalty provisions of L27B3. >[3] He corrected it to 2H. Now we have a different situation: when we read L27B2 it directs us to apply L10C1. It is difficult to believe that this means that we are required to spell out the choices in detail and then not offer them: the only logical reason for it being put here is to allow the choices to be offered. This means in effect that the 2H bid can be withdrawn. >[4] He corrected it to 1H. The first word of L27A "Any ..." is so clear that I am sure that the next player must be given the option of accepting 1H as well as accepting 1D. Note this is not allowing him to accept it under L25B *not* under L27A. Since the 1H bid is not an option under any of L27B he must be offered the chance to change it under the first sentence of L27B1 [not under L10C1, as explained earlier]. I think lead penalties are fairly obvious in all cases. L26 makes it clear that it applies to withdrawn calls, whether another law points to it or not. There you have it. I believe that the player is allowed to change the call of 2H or 1H, unless the next player accepts the 1D [or 1H] bid. I do not believe the player may change the call of double or 2D. I accept that this may not have been the lawmakers' intention, but this is the way the Laws read IMO. -- 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 Dec 3 03:35:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:35:08 +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 DAA24447 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:35:00 +1100 Received: from default (hdn88-034.hil.compuserve.com [206.175.98.34]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA05667 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:40:21 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971202163420.00aa6ef8@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 10:34:20 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >(... Why do we not get >to look at write-ups until they appear in the Daily Bulletin?) Probably because they're putting the Bulletins out on the fly and, from a practical standpoint, don't have time or personpower to hunt down both parties to each appeal and get their signoff. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 03:47:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:47:19 +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 DAA24511 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:47:14 +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 LAA15784 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02212; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:47:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:47:14 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712021647.LAA02212@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 Stevenson Oddly enough, David and I seem to agree! I think he was a little unclear at the end: > >[4] He corrected it to 1H. > > The first word of L27A "Any ..." is so clear that I am sure that the > next player must be given the option of accepting 1H as well as > accepting 1D. Note this is not allowing him to accept it under L25B > *not* under L27A. Since the 1H bid is not an option under any of L27B > he must be offered the chance to change it under the first sentence of > L27B1 [not under L10C1, as explained earlier]. I think David means that L27A applies and L25B does not. The upshot is that L27A applies to both the 1D and 1H calls. If neither is accepted, we go to L27B while observing L10C1. (Of course L10C1 tells us to explain the options before LHO chooses whether or not to accept 1D or 1H.) In particular, if the insufficient 1D bid is corrected to 2D and neither is conventional, L27B1a tells us that there is no penalty except the lead penalties of L26. (L27B2 with its penalties applies only if the correction is to a _sufficient_ bid. Don't forget L27B1b and L72B1, though.) > There you have it. I believe that the player is allowed to change the > call of 2H or 1H, unless the next player accepts the 1D [or 1H] bid. I > do not believe the player may change the call of double or 2D. Well, the player _must_ change the double under L27B3, but the penalty (partner is barred) applies. If this is not what David meant, I'm sure we will hear it. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 03:54:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:54:33 +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 DAA24536 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:54:28 +1100 Received: from mike (ip242.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.242]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA18794 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:54:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971202115319.006b64ec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 11:53:19 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: <01bcfc28$e0a91500$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:10 PM 11/28/97 -0000, David Burn wrote: > >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. > What South has to say in his own defense is virtually irrelevant, whether the decision is being made by the TD or reviewed by an AC. The only relevant information that South can provide pertains to specific partnership understandings, and in this case, only a documented agreement that this partnership never declares 5m contracts at pairs, unless sacrificially, would sway me. Law 16 is carefully constructed in such a way as to avoid the necessity of considering South's motivations. If we unwisely solicit a defense from South, and then rule against him anyway, we as much as say that we don't believe him. Fortunately, this is unnecessary in this or in any other UI case. Is there a LA? Of course. South HAS bid his hand, and even if passing is arguably unlikely to yield a good score, it is certain that some players would seriously consider a pass here, and likely that at least a few actually would pass. Does the hesitation demonstrably suggest 5S over Pass? IMO, nothing suggests 5S in any case, but the hesitation clearly does suggest that 5D might not be right, and therefore suggests action (any action) over inaction. In other words, the considerations about whether South's bid is tainted are, as a matter of law, limited to relatively objective judgements based on bridge logic, with no evaluation of subjective motivations. South can provide a cogent and 100% credible rationale as to why he acted as he did, and still get an adverse ruling. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 04:13:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:13:15 +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 EAA24599 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:13:09 +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 MAA16457 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02256; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:13:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:13:11 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712021713.MAA02256@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> South West North East > >> 1S Pass 2D Pass > >> 3S Pass 3NT Pass > >> 4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation > >> 5S Pass 6D Pass > >> Pass Pass South has AQJT93 A42 K86 3 > >1) Logical alternatives: in a strong matchpoint game, I can't imagine > >anyone passing 5D. Give North AQ-sixth of diamonds and out, and > >6D is hardly worse than the spade finesse. Having bypassed 3NT, > >it cannot be right to stop in 5D with this hand. > From: David Stevenson > Really? Why should he have AQ-sixth? Why not Ace-fifth? He did not > pull 3NT - you did! If pd has a void spade then no game might make > except 5D. > When considering LAs consider the hands that do not support the action > taken rather than those that do. Of course AQ-sixth supports it: try > poor diamond holdings. With poor diamonds, wouldn't North have said 4NT or 4S and not 5D? I'm afraid I can't construct a hand consistent with the bidding where 5D is the best contract. 5S seems always at least as likely to make and scores more. > IMO 5D is discouraging, Thus a slow 5D is not quite so discouraging! > Are you sure that is not the BL argument? 5D is discouraging: any > think suggests that pd is better, surely? This is perhaps the crux of our disagreement. I'd think 4S and 4NT would be discouraging, while 5D is intermediate, and a cue or 6D is strong. No doubt an AC (if not a TD) would wish to find out what it is for this partnership. > From: Dany Haimovici > 1)North didn't show any slam interest - he signed off 3 NT. Yes. > 2)The moment south bid 4D - he/she shows a better hand > (maybe distribution ?, mild extra values ?..) inviting > for slam if north thinks he/she has some interesting > values/fit/distribution ; from this moment on NORTH must > decide : Why must North decide? South's 4D is forcing and unlimited. And this time South is nowhere near minimum for the bid. North is the limited hand. > a) either asking for south extras (distr. or values > or specific cards or whatever their system is ) > b) or deciding that his hand can't contribute to slam > even south has some mild extras, as he/she showed. As noted above, I think South has showed decent values -- and at least good diamonds -- by bidding 5D rather than 4S or 4NT. Perhaps that's not how the partnership in question plays, but I'd have bid 4S (or possibly 4NT) with something like - Kxx Axxxx Kxxxx, assuming I had been so bold as to bid 2D in the first place). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 04:17:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:17:41 +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 EAA24659 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:17:32 +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 MAA16553 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02264; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:17:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:17:33 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712021717.MAA02264@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > it is certain that some players > would seriously consider a pass here, and likely that at least a few > actually would pass. The above refers to the ACBL rule, but this hand was played under EBU rules. In order to deem pass a LA, we must believe that roughly 30% of the player's peers would pass. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 04:40:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:40:34 +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 EAA24768 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:39:56 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:38:41 GMT Date: Tue, 2 Dec 97 17:38:40 GMT Message-Id: <10920.9712021738@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Insufficient bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David > >[4] He corrected it to 1H. > > The first word of L27A "Any ..." is so clear that I am sure that the > next player must be given the option of accepting 1H as well as > accepting 1D. Note this is not allowing him to accept it under L25B > *not* under L27A. Since the 1H bid is not an option under any of L27B > he must be offered the chance to change it under the first sentence of > L27B1 [not under L10C1, as explained earlier]. > > I think lead penalties are fairly obvious in all cases. L26 makes it > clear that it applies to withdrawn calls, whether another law points to > it or not. In this case ("correction" by another insufficient bid), how does L27B1 apply. Does it apply to both 1D and 1H, and so it impossible to make the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination as there are two "same denomination". Offender can not correct (simultaneously) to 2D/2H. However, there are cases of "correction" by another insufficient bid where L27B1 could apply. North: "2NT" East: "1D", "(oh dear), 2D" If 1D/2D/3D are all not conventional, presumably East can correct to 3D and L27B1 applies. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 04:53:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:53:42 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24809 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:53:36 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12439 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:53:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA23748; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:54:32 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:54:32 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199712021754.JAA23748@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: |Bd: 19 |Dlr: S |Vul: E-W | | S-KQT | H-752 | D-QT9 | C-JT32 | N |S-86 S-973 |H-A W E H-KQJ8643 |D-J75 D-842 |C-AQ98765 S C- | | S-AJ542 | H-T9 | D-AK63 | C-K4 | |The auction: |West North East South | - - - 1S | 2C 2S 3H Dbl (not Alerted) | 4C Dbl 4H P | P Dbl All pass | |Down 500, for 6 matchpoints out of 64. |This looks to me like a Type II double implying "cards" and a side diamond |suit, not penalty or penaltyish (North would have pulled to 3S, or maybe even |would have bid 4S in view of the diamond fit), which makes it Alertable. |South could hardly double 3H for penalty, looking at the finessable club king |and weak heart doubleton. It was a "maximal overcall double," an artificial game try in spades. At least, that's what South probably thought it was. North probably thought it was penalty. |Comments, please. The correct ruling depends on the actual N/S agreements. If double was penalty, you are out of luck. If double was artificial, you'd get an adjusted score, -140. At the table, the ruling should probably have started with "what did double mean?" Most likely, South would say, "I thought it was a maximal double." At this point, North would probably interject, "those only apply if the last bid was a raise or a response to a takeout double." "Oh." If that happened, result stands. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 04:56:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:56:29 +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 EAA24836 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 04:56:23 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa18667; 2 Dec 97 9:55 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Dec 1997 12:13:11 PST." <199712021713.MAA02256@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 09:55:41 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9712020955.aa18667@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > South West North East > 1S Pass 2D Pass > 3S Pass 3NT Pass > 4D Pass 5D* Pass * Agreed hesitation > 5S Pass 6D Pass > Pass Pass > > South has AQJT93 A42 K86 3 You know, we still haven't gotten an answer to Ed's questions about what system they were playing, and I think an answer is necessary now that we're having some good theoretical discussions about whether passing 5D is a LA. In particular, does 3S show a good suit? If 2D is 2/1 GF or almost 2/1 GF, the way it's usually played in America, 3S should show a good suit, which would bolster Steve's argument that 5D shows good diamonds---since North could have bid 4S even with a small singleton (or maybe a void!). But if 2D doesn't promise a rebid and therefore 2S by South would not have been forcing (is this how Acolites play? I'm not familiar with the system . . .), then 3S could show a weaker 6-card suit, which means that North may not have a good alternative to 5D with a weaker suit, and it's reasonable for North to assume that South really wants to play in diamonds on this sequence. North wouldn't necessarily rebid 4NT with weak diamonds since one of his side-suit stoppers may be suspect; this wouldn't stop him from bidding 3NT, since he's out of bidding room and may feel compelled to bid 3NT on anything that looks like it might make, but 4NT opposite a partner who has shown a distributional hand and a diamond fit would be too much. Give North x Qxx A10xxx KJxx, for example; 5D might be the best call here if South isn't guaranteeing a great spade suit. I'm rambling. Anyway, my point is that it's very hard for me to evaluate the arguments being made with the insufficient information we have. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 05:30:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:30:12 +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 FAA24941 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:30:06 +1100 Received: from mike (ip61.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.244.61]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA22825 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:29:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971202132853.006b8ef4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 13:28:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) In-Reply-To: <971202015337_1745533684@mrin51.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:53 AM 12/2/97 -0500, Marv wrote: Neither your nor your partner's motivations are on trial here. If the TD and AC are doing their jobs correctly, the challenges to your integrity or credibility never arise. When your comments are characterized as "self-serving", that is a simple statement of fact: these comments are intended to advance and protect your interests. As such, they are not necessarily either true or false, but unless you can document your pertinent agreements at the time of either the TD's decision or the AC's review, they are to be given little, if any, weight in the decision-making process. To do otherwise leaves us with two unpalatable alternatives. Either we take everyone at their word when they swear that "that's the way I would have bid anyway", leaving us at the mercy of the unethical minority, or we turn the directing/appeals procedure into an exercise in evaluating credibility. In the latter case, an adverse ruling really would mean "we think you're lying." This would make it much more difficult for AC's to do their job, and would further enmesh all decisions in questions of politics and personality. As to the substance of the decision, it seems relatively cut-and-dried. If your agreement is that this is a penalty double, you certainly have a LA in passing, unless you are prepared to document your claim that you never leave in a penalty double when short in the opponents' suit. It is an odd agreement, to say the least, since the very hands where partner is most apt to have a legitimate penalty double are those where she holds length (and therefore you're short). I doubt that even S.J. would endorse this approach in an era of such aggressive competitive bidding. But you're certainly entitled to play this way. Despite your years of playing and directing, however (and despite your honorable participation in this forum), you are not entitled to be taken at your word when offering "self-serving" statements to a TD or AC. BTW, I agree that the gratuitous speculation about how quickly the double would come out if the pointed suits were reversed, or (implicitly) how you would handle a "stand-on-her-chair" style of double, was completely uncalled-for. Comments like these undermine the ability of AC's to do their work, since they contribute to the misapprehension of the AC as essentially a criminal, rather than civil, undertaking. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 05:31:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:31:19 +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 FAA24960 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:31:07 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ag1020250; 2 Dec 97 18:20 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFF47.704C9800@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:26:35 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Insufficient bids Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:26:34 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 31 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson's last posting on this thread agrees entirely with my last posted view except for one issue on which I made no comment. DWS wrote: BIG SNIP > >>[4] He corrected it to 1H. > > The first word of L27A "Any ..." is so clear that I am sure that the >next player must be given the option of accepting 1H as well as >accepting 1D. Note this is not allowing him to accept it under L25B >*not* under L27A. Since the 1H bid is not an option under any of L27B >he must be offered the chance to change it under the first sentence of >L27B1 [not under L10C1, as explained earlier]. > The first word of L27A is indeed 'Any' and I understand why you interpret it as you do, however, it does seem be directly contradicted by the first sentence of L27B which says: 'If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it *must* be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass.' It does not go on to say '....... or another insufficient bid which is accepted.' Taken on its own, the first sentence of L27B suggests to me that the second insufficient bid should be cancelled, the player given all of his options and lead penalties applied if relevant. These two sectoins of L27 seem to be contradictory and I can see no reason to prefer 'Any' which is quite strong over 'must' which is >extremely strong, ie. the Laws strongest term. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 05:40:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:40:09 +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 FAA25018 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:39:59 +1100 Received: from cph9.ppp.dknet.dk (cph9.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.9]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA19525 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:39:00 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: L25A: LHO's call Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 19:38:56 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34845049.169373@pipmail.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk S happens to put the wrong calling card on the table. LHO (W) calls. Now S realizes that it was the wrong card, and changes it (legally, L25A). What about W's call? Well, obviously the only sensible ruling is that it can be changed without penalty (AI for E, UI for NS). But what law actually allows W to change his call? The closest I can find is L21B1, interpreting a wrong calling card as an extreme case of misinformation. But it seems to me (and to the person who asked me) that L25 ought to specifically allow W to change his call - or there should be a general law covering this case just like L47D covers the corresponding situation during play. Is there such a law that I've overlooked or is it missing? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 05:44:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:44:20 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA25059 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:44:14 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA17269 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:44:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA23843; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:45:10 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:45:10 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199712021845.KAA23843@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It just occurred to me that the ruling was wrong in an ACBL event, as far as I know. Didn't the jump overcall have a note that said, "no skip bid warning?" If so, then as far as I understand it, the ACBL has ruled that there cannot be any ruling against the next player due to tempo. I think this is a stupid rule, but it is, as far as I know, still on the books, and should have been invoked in this case. On the other hand, it was such a silly rule that I think it really should always be ignored, in which case, the ruling boils down to bridge judgment. --Jeff PS: I looked around at the ACBL web site, but didn't find said rule. I'm nearly certain that it existed at some point in 1997. Does anyone know its current status? # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 06:07:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:07:07 +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 GAA25149 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:06:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1000334; 2 Dec 97 18:59 GMT Message-ID: <148eKtA76Eh0Ewkk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:08:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971202115319.006b64ec@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >What South has to say in his own defense is virtually irrelevant, whether >the decision is being made by the TD or reviewed by an AC. The only >relevant information that South can provide pertains to specific >partnership understandings, and in this case, only a documented agreement >that this partnership never declares 5m contracts at pairs, unless >sacrificially, would sway me. Seems a bit vicious. If I cannot provide a documented agreement you will automatically assume that I am *never* playing the system I claim? I don't like this one little bit. In my view you should listen to all the evidence and then make a decision, using your judgement. -- 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 Dec 3 07:10:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:10:58 +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 HAA25590 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:10:51 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1007493; 2 Dec 97 19:34 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFF55.C2E03D70@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:09:06 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Demonstrably Diamonds? Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:09:05 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 59 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam 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 >> >> South has AQJT93 A42 K86 3 > >You know, we still haven't gotten an answer to Ed's questions about >what system they were playing, and I think an answer is necessary now >that we're having some good theoretical discussions about whether >passing 5D is a LA. In particular, does 3S show a good suit? If 2D >is 2/1 GF or almost 2/1 GF, the way it's usually played in America, 3S >should show a good suit, which would bolster Steve's argument that 5D >shows good diamonds---since North could have bid 4S even with a small >singleton (or maybe a void!). But if 2D doesn't promise a rebid and >therefore 2S by South would not have been forcing (is this how >Acolites play? I'm not familiar with the system . . .), then 3S could >show a weaker 6-card suit, which means that North may not have a good >alternative to 5D with a weaker suit, and it's reasonable for North to >assume that South really wants to play in diamonds on this sequence. >North wouldn't necessarily rebid 4NT with weak diamonds since one of >his side-suit stoppers may be suspect; this wouldn't stop him from >bidding 3NT, since he's out of bidding room and may feel compelled to >bid 3NT on anything that looks like it might make, but 4NT opposite a >partner who has shown a distributional hand and a diamond fit would be >too much. Give North x Qxx A10xxx KJxx, for example; 5D might be the >best call here if South isn't guaranteeing a great spade suit. > >I'm rambling. Anyway, my point is that it's very hard for me to >evaluate the arguments being made with the insufficient information we >have. > > -- Adam Sorry about the absence of a reply. This is because I appear to have hit the wrong button and sent the reply to Ed only. I have included the reply below: The pair concerned were playing ACOL. 3S showed 7 playing tricks and a good 6 card suit. The 2D response showed 8+ HCPs with spade tolerance or 10+ HCPs without spade tolerance. The partnership was relatively new and one player thought that 4NT would natural/to play but the other was >not sure. Ed also asked: Somewhat irrelevant, but... isn't 3S the systemic rebid with xxxxxx/AKQ/AKQ/x ? This has some bearing on the case in hand, in that South has more playing strength than he might have. I think that many players would bid 4 spades with this hand. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 07:46:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:46:34 +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 HAA25712 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:46:21 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ae1018078; 2 Dec 97 20:35 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFF5E.B8C97370@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:13:15 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Disagreement over tricks won Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:13:14 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 52 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog writes: >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 :-) ) Bad luck. He should be more careful next time. Meanwhile the benefit of any doubt in this instance goes to his opponent. >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) What matters here is how many tricks were made and not the score of 620. If everyone agrees that 11 tricks were made then clearly you can correct to 650. However, by disputing the score of 620 both sides are in reality disagreeing over the number of tricks made. As 98% is clearly not 100%, there is some, albeit small, doubt. To rule in favour of an offender, you would need to be sure that in an AC of 3 people, not one would argue against you. You probably cannot therefore make the necessary finding of fact that 11 tricks were made especially as the opponents, by asserting that 620 was agreed, are not acquiesing to the suggested adjustment. If they cannot remember the play to this hand then they might well be weak players and you should therfore be extra careful to protect them, ie. be wary of allowing a good player who has totally misplayed the hand to get away with hoodwinking the weaker pair into believing that he took the correct line. > >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) Yes but only if your finding of fact is that 11 tricks were made. > >Am I allowed to award 650/-620 (in order to keep harmony in a commercial >club?) There is no basis in Law for such a ruling and therfore it is illegal. Whilst it might be 'practical', it sets a dangerous precedent which might lead to other players involved in adverse rulings complaining until their side gets a favourable score. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 07:50:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:50:34 +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 HAA25731 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 07:50:28 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac1018078; 2 Dec 97 20:35 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFF59.E6603C10@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:38:44 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'Bridge Laws List'" Subject: RE: L25A: LHO's call Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:38:43 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 8 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrirtes: >SNIP >The closest I can find is L21B1, interpreting a wrong calling >card as an extreme case of misinformation. > This is the Law that I understand should be used to retract a >non-offender's call in such cases. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 08:06:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:06:27 +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 IAA25768 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:06:15 +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 QAA09091; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:06:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:06:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712022106.QAA22429@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199712021845.KAA23843@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> (jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV) Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > It just occurred to me that the ruling was wrong in > an ACBL event, as far as I know. Didn't the jump > overcall have a note that said, "no skip bid warning?" > If so, then as far as I understand it, the ACBL has > ruled that there cannot be any ruling against the > next player due to tempo. I found the ACBL's regulations on skip-bid warnings: http://www.acbl.org/~acbl/regulations/skipbid.htm I don't see this policy, and the analogous principle in the alert policy suggests that this shouldn't apply. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. This is intended to prevent failure-to-alert problems on common auctions such as 1H-X-2NT; an experienced player will know that 2NT is likely to be a limit raise and ask if he is considering a bid. Experienced players should understand the same principle over skip-bid warnings, and hesitate for everyone's protection. I don't think they should be penalized for forgetting to hesitate in an auction in which few people either use or honor the warning. (When is the last time either one happened after P-1NT-P-3NT? I give a warning on that auction, but nobody ever waits.) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 08:07:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:07:16 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25782 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:07:05 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1018078; 2 Dec 97 20:35 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFF59.8E9FF0B0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:36:16 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" , "'E.Angad-Gaur'" Subject: RE: pass or six. Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:36:15 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 46 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Evert wrote: >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. SNIP In matches played privately (ie. with no non-playing TD) in England, we have regulations that require players to inform their opponents that they wish to have a ruling following an alleged infraction before they call on the next deal or the round ends. This request for a ruling can be cancelled later but if it not made at the time then they are in the same position as a player who fails to call the TD at the time when attention is drawn to an irregularity. If there is a non-playing TD present then there is no excuse for failing to call him when attention has been drawn to an irregularity. Unless new information has come to light that was not available at the time of the infraction then the TD should do the minimum possible following such a late request. Also, the TD should be loathe to consider such an issue as an alleged hesitation without all players being present. In your particular case then if 3H agrees Spades or at least shows Spade tolerance then it seems to me that pass is an evident action, ie. that more than 70% of players would pass in this situation and, therefore, in England at least, there should be no score adjustment and 5S should stand. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 08:10:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:10:30 +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 IAA25796 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:10:24 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ad1018078; 2 Dec 97 20:35 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFF5A.C33B1560@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:44:54 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:44:54 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 14 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg wrote: SNIP >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. > IMO, the knowledge that declarer banned the lead of a given suit as a penalty for any infraction, not just an exposed penalty card, is UI and >cannot be used. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 08:34:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:34:29 +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 IAA25894 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:34:19 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS3-189.star.net.il [195.8.208.189]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA27458 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:34:35 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <34847F2D.7E2C50A6@star.net.il> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 23:35:41 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: "Herman's normality restoring enhanced principle" - Nexus broken - Lesson 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Preface ------- As I promised some days ago I put on paper/screen my lessons from "nexus" broken" and a lot of subjects we discussed last weeks , including "claim and revoke" and last "David Stevenson's troubles" as he asked in "insufficient bids". Lesson 1 presents the problem of "irregularities' chain". Definition ---------- An "irregularities' chain" is a series of infractions occurring during one board's bid or/and play period. The irregularities may occur instantaneously or subsequently , sometimes an event embedded into another. We had a lot of examples for almost every basic combination but I am sure that always there will be a new outstanding case. My proposal - Problem A - Instantaneous infractions . ------------ I suggest to consider them subsequently , by the order of the regular rotation of bid and play. For example : if Est revokes and South claims the same second I consider that Est revoked first and then South Claimed . If Est claims and South revokes the same second : I consider Est claimed first and then what South did is irrelevant , because applying the Laws relevant for Claim the play ceased. My Proposal - Problem B - Subsequent irregularities ---------- I suggest to rule subsequent irregularities one by one in the order they happened , based on the main scope of Laws (read first page before Definitions) : ".....not as Punishment for irregularities but rather as REDRESS FOR DAMAGE". Then use "Herman's normality restoring enhanced principle": a) rule first infraction and restore normality , keeping in mind the provisions and penalties allowed by the laws dealing with that irregularity. b) rule the second infraction from the stage the first one has been solved and Normality/Equity restored. Consider the provisions and penalties and constraints included in the laws dealing with this irregularity and move to next irregularity.... c) rule the third irregularity from the virtual restored normality point and so on until ...the doomsday !!!!!LOL I mean the end of the chain. For example : the "nexus broken" case - there were two irregularities (let agree for this case that the 5S bid was infraction). The ruling must be,according to my approach, 1) decide what should be the decision for the first infraction: either let the *CONTRACT* 6H or 5S-Dbl or 4H or whatever the TD will decide. 2) decide what will be the number of tricks won by the declarer playing the contract you decided for 1) above ; if the TD decides that 5S player is declarer , then the revoke will be irrelevant. Please think about these proposal and express yours opinions, trying to be "The Devil's Advocate" and find a case where the explicit laws show a different approach. Thank you all Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 11:26:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:26:22 +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 LAA26518 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:26:15 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2028551; 3 Dec 97 0:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 00:00:05 +0000 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: <199712021717.MAA02264@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199712021717.MAA02264@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> it is certain that some players >> would seriously consider a pass here, and likely that at least a few >> actually would pass. > >The above refers to the ACBL rule, but this hand was played under EBU >rules. In order to deem pass a LA, we must believe that roughly 30% of >the player's peers would pass. And at the Young Chelsea that is inconceivable. Having watched this thread for a few days I stick with 6D. -- 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 Dec 3 13:25:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA26694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:25:30 +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 NAA26689 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:25:24 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017802; 3 Dec 97 2:22 GMT Message-ID: <5pyNu+ACyFh0Ew0F@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:07:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25A: LHO's call In-Reply-To: <34845049.169373@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >S happens to put the wrong calling card on the table. LHO (W) >calls. Now S realizes that it was the wrong card, and changes it >(legally, L25A). > >What about W's call? Well, obviously the only sensible ruling is >that it can be changed without penalty (AI for E, UI for NS). > >But what law actually allows W to change his call? > >The closest I can find is L21B1, interpreting a wrong calling >card as an extreme case of misinformation. > >But it seems to me (and to the person who asked me) that L25 >ought to specifically allow W to change his call - or there >should be a general law covering this case just like L47D covers >the corresponding situation during play. Is there such a law >that I've overlooked or is it missing? L21B1 is the conclusion we came to last time. -- 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 Dec 3 15:55:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:55:25 +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 PAA27021 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:55:17 +1100 Received: from mike (ip118.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.118]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA13310 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:55:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971202235202.006bebb4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 23:52:02 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: <148eKtA76Eh0Ewkk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19971202115319.006b64ec@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:08 PM 12/2/97 +0000, David wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>What South has to say in his own defense is virtually irrelevant, whether >>the decision is being made by the TD or reviewed by an AC. The only >>relevant information that South can provide pertains to specific >>partnership understandings, and in this case, only a documented agreement >>that this partnership never declares 5m contracts at pairs, unless >>sacrificially, would sway me. > > Seems a bit vicious. If I cannot provide a documented agreement you >will automatically assume that I am *never* playing the system I claim? > Sorry, my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don't expect that anyone actually has such an agreement. My point is that if you claim to have a particular partnership agreement which is highly unusual and fits this particular situation like a glove, then you'd better be prepared to back it up with some documentation. Otherwise, it gets filed in the "but I always bid this way in these situations" stack, i.e., maybe so, but not germane. > I don't like this one little bit. In my view you should listen to all >the evidence and then make a decision, using your judgement. > Your platitudes about listening to all the evidence beg the question: what is the relevant evidence in a UI case? It is my contention that as a deliberate and specific matter of law, the reported beliefs, thoughts, and judgements made by the recipient of UI are irrelevant to the determination. UI cases do not and should not turn on whether we judge that a particular outcome WAS tainted by UI, but rather on whether it is reasonable to believe, as a matter of objective bridge logic, that it might have been. Statements such as "I would have bid that way anyway", or " I always double in these situations," are simply irrelevant, because the determination is not to be based on whether this player did or did not use UI in making a decision, but on what we judge other players of similar ability and methods might have done. Beyond helping to determine the class of player and methods, such "evidence" is simply useless. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 15:55:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:55:28 +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 PAA27023 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:55:19 +1100 Received: from mike (ip118.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.118]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA29471 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 23:55:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971202235523.006c4ca8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 23:55:23 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: <199712021717.MAA02264@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:17 PM 12/2/97 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> it is certain that some players >> would seriously consider a pass here, and likely that at least a few >> actually would pass. > >The above refers to the ACBL rule, but this hand was played under EBU >rules. In order to deem pass a LA, we must believe that roughly 30% of >the player's peers would pass. > Sorry, you're right. I was replying to a reply, and not the original poster, and so got my venues mixed up. I think in that case the LA decision is much closer. It's hard to imagine 30% in a strong game passing 5D here, so I would probably be inclined to let the table result stand. Mike From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 17:23:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:23:01 +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 RAA27213 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:22:57 +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 RAA27368; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:22:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port8.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.58]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA18104; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:22:36 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:22:36 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199712030622.RAA18104@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" From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:52 PM 02/12/1997 -0500, you wrote: >At 06:08 PM 12/2/97 +0000, David wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >>>What South has to say in his own defense is virtually irrelevant, whether hack, hack hack ..... and continues >judgements made by the recipient of UI are irrelevant to the determination. >UI cases do not and should not turn on whether we judge that a particular >outcome WAS tainted by UI, but rather on whether it is reasonable to >believe, as a matter of objective bridge logic, that it might have been. >Statements such as "I would have bid that way anyway", or " I always double >in these situations," are simply irrelevant, because the determination is >not to be based on whether this player did or did not use UI in making a >decision, but on what we judge other players of similar ability and methods >might have done. Beyond helping to determine the class of player and >methods, such "evidence" is simply useless. > >Mike Dennis Indeed, the Australian National Authority has ruled that " ..if 75% of players of the appropriate standard would have made the bid without the unauthorised information, then there is no logical alternative to the bid. For the purpose of this direction, the expression 'players of appropriate standard' is to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the event. The calibre of the individual player is not to be the criterion." Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 18:27:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:27:12 +1100 Received: from mrin51.mail.aol.com (mrin51.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA27314 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:27:06 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin51.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id CAA13600; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:26:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:26:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971203022618_1814590515@mrin51.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 - No Skip Bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > It just occurred to me that the ruling was wrong in > an ACBL event, as far as I know. Didn't the jump > overcall have a note that said, "no skip bid warning?" > If so, then as far as I understand it, the ACBL has > ruled that there cannot be any ruling against the > next player due to tempo. I think this is a stupid > rule, but it is, as far as I know, still on the books, > and should have been invoked in this case. On the > other hand, it was such a silly rule that I think it > really should always be ignored, in which case, the > ruling boils down to bridge judgment. > --Jeff > PS: I looked around at the ACBL web site, but didn't > find said rule. I'm nearly certain that it existed > at some point in 1997. Does anyone know its current > status? The regulation for Skip Bid Warnings on the ACBL web site fails to address the failure to warn. The Bidding Box Regulations imply that the warning is optional: "As with verbal bidding, either you should always make a skip bid warning when a skip bid comes up or you should never use the warning." A TD told me that opponents are still entitled to their 10 seconds in the absence of a warning. If it's optional, and I see that many top players are not using the STOP card anymore, why not do away with it? Hardly anyone pays attention to it anyway, since TDs are not enforcing the requirement to pause after a skip bid. That is, they allow a pause with or without the warning, if always taken, but they never penalize a fast pass. In the ACBL's Guidelines for Club Directors, under part C. ACBL REGULATIONS, there is the following paragraph: WHEN A PLAYER MAKES A SKIP BID BUT DOESN'T USE THE WARNING If a player fails to use the warning, the player who is next to call is still permitted to break the tempo of the auction before calling without putting constraints on his partner's ethics. However, when a player takes a considerably longer time, his opponents may become entitled to redress... Alice's break was longer than normal for a skip bid (but not 10 seconds, which is a long time!) and I did not base my appeal on this point. Her break indeed gave me UI, but I am allowed to make a call suggested by the UI if there if there is no logical alternative. My system (and Goren's too for those who think I'm non-standard) REQUIRES that I pull a double of an overcall with a singleton in the suit, 6-4 distribution, and 10 HCP. It even requires a pull if the singleton had been a doubleton, or if I had 12 HCP, or if I were 4-4-4-1, but I would be loath to pull with such hands after partner's break in tempo. In this case I had no problem, the pull was automatic. Some have said I should label my penalty doubles as optional, so ACs won't be confused. I think the right word is cooperative, not optional. Optional doubles (e.g., doubles of three-level preempts) are often pulled, cooperative doubles are not. So, I'll change my card to read "penalty doubles (cooperative)" to keep TDs and ACs happy. Now, will those who play negative doubles or takeout doubles, which are sometimes not taken out, also qualify them with some similar adjective? To say "Your partner doubled for penalties, you are supposed to pass," as the AC said, is like saying "Your partner doubled for takeout, you are supposed to bid" when someone passes a double. Anyway, the nomenclature problem did not injure the opponents in anyway, for East would certainly not have bid 4D, vul vs non-vul, if told that the double was cooperative and not a command. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 18:45:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:45:07 +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 SAA27341 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:45:01 +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 CAA16580; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:43:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:43:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971203024355_2062309067@mrin44.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: baresch@sprynet.com Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch answered my question: > >(... Why do we not get > >to look at write-ups until they appear in the Daily Bulletin?) > > Probably because they're putting the Bulletins out on the fly and, from a > practical standpoint, don't have time or personpower to hunt down both > parties to each appeal and get their signoff. Sorry, that won't do. Appeal No.2 was published on November 24th, the AC met late on November 21. There are two days available for interested parties to come down to the Bulletin office for a look at the text on the computer screen, and they should be invited to do so. Or, the handwritten writeup could be copied and distributed to those interested in plenty of time for errors to be corrected. At least, there should be some mechanism for correcting errors before they become part of the official record published on the ACBL web site and given to case book reviewers. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 20:28:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 20:28:21 +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 UAA27555 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 20:28:10 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-58.star.net.il [195.8.208.58]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA28426 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:28:26 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <3485267A.D8B3391A@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 11:29:30 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: "Irritating Infraction as Causality" - Nexus broken - Lesson 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Irritating Infraction as Causality" Preface ------- As I promised some days ago I put on paper/screen my lessons from "nexus" broken" and a lot of subjects we discussed last weeks , including "claim and revoke" and last "David Stevenson's troubles" as he asked in "insufficient bids". Lesson 3 , which I learnt from these cases and my experience presents the problem of "irritating infractions". Definition ---------- An "irritating infraction " is : either an egregious or unpolite infraction/mannerism/"public UI" or a very "dirty" discussion or conduct upon non-agreed facts. Analysis -------- 1) An "irritating infraction" produces different reactions and effects to different kinds of people and to different level of players. 2) Very experienced players or pros are known as not to be influenced by any event occuring at the table. But most "regular" players - as much as I met them during the last 10 years - become from very upset to "black out" . 3) IMHO these situations produce damage to the non-offending side for about 80% of the events. 4) I believe that all high level TD use "Kaplan's causality principle" in order to decide to adjust score or not. The Question ------------ If a) we agree that the "irritated" non-offending side's play is affected (badly) and he/she may make mistakes because that infractory "Irritation" and b) we are using the "Causality principle" and c) assuming there was a damge produced by a bad play of the irritated non-offending side X) do we decide that there is the neccessary linkage between the damage and the infraction ????????? My thoughts ------------ I read a lot of examples here and the last one - in spite of the fact that is not directly related to this item - was a split decision , just to keep "lovely atmosphere" in the club. No doubt it is a very important issue , not the most , but when there is no very precious trophee to win I accept that should manage things that way. And more - it is a sport/entertainment - the moment the "natural enjoy" and "sportive" vanish , the game becomes...... We must also remember that the TD is suposed to do the most to let the game "flow" as much as possible. My suggestions -------------- When an "irritating irregularity" occurrs we are allowed : 1. To let play continue and if the non-offending irritated side made a clear damging mistake consider it as a result of the irritation. OR 2. To stop play and decide for an assigned score , in order to avoid embarrasing situation like written in 1. above or "inevitable double shot" as in lesson 2 ..... REMARKS ------- Please Remember the scope of Laws. Please send your opinions and again "The Devil's Advocate" messages will be very important. Thank you all Dany From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 21:15:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:15:28 +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 VAA27651 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:15:19 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:13:56 GMT Date: Wed, 3 Dec 97 10:13:55 GMT Message-Id: <10999.9712031013@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L25A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I gave my first ruling under the new Law25A. I think this has been discussed before, but I wish to recap. N E S 1S - 2H - P; (bidding boxes) E: oh I didn't mean 2H, the cards stuck together. So I allowed E to correct her bid (to 2D), under L25A. And I allowed S to change his pass -- under which law?? My best bet was L21B1: "call based on misinformation", S has certainly been misinformed as to Easts call at that turn. Robin P.S. >At my company I manage 10-12 NT servers that all have perl installed on I saw this on another list, thought my mail program had mis-filed it! Do all servers play a mini no-trump? Or just those with perl installed? 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 Dec 3 21:34:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:34:19 +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 VAA27696 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:34:06 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:33:25 GMT Date: Wed, 3 Dec 97 10:33:25 GMT Message-Id: <11011.9712031033@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L25A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [I wrote] > N E S > 1S - 2H - P; (bidding boxes) > > E: oh I didn't mean 2H, the cards stuck together. > So I allowed E to correct her bid (to 2D), under L25A. > And I allowed S to change his pass -- under which law?? I have now seen Jesper's post on the same subject and the replies. L21B1 it is. 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 Dec 3 22:14:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:14:03 +1100 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA27855 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:13:55 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id LAA07545 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:13:44 GMT Date: Wed, 3 Dec 97 11:11 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? 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: <3.0.1.32.19971202235202.006bebb4@pop.mindspring.com> Mike Dennis wrote: > Sorry, my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don't expect that anyone > actually has such an agreement. My point is that if you claim to have a > particular partnership agreement which is highly unusual and fits this > particular situation like a glove, then you'd better be prepared to > back it > up with some documentation. Otherwise, it gets filed in the "but I > always > bid this way in these situations" stack, i.e., maybe so, but not > germane. Two points lead me to believe that this argument is wrong. 1. When considering LAs the TD/AC is obliged to consider only those of your peers who are using similar methods. 2. It is neither required, nor indeed possible, to document every single shared understanding of methods/treatments/etc on complex auctions in the system notes of any partnership. If a particular situation seems suspicious to the TD/AC it is perfectly proper to attempt to establish the actual methods by asking how other hands would be handled and considering the responses in the light of the documented parts of the system. This allows a TD/AC to determine whether any explanations have been subconsciously influenced by the circumstances at the table (a pretty common occurrence and no reflection on the ethics of those concerned) and rule accordingly. However if the influence is conscious and deliberate then the player concerned is cheating and a UI adjustment is not adequate punishment. Thus I see determining the methods in use as part of "establishing the facts" whereas "I always bid this way/I was going to bid it anyway" are candidates for comparison with peer actions based on the same methods and allow a ruling without attaching any opprobrium to the outcome. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 3 23:16:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:16:15 +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 XAA28019 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:16:08 +1100 From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Message-Id: <199712031216.XAA28019@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4886; Wed, 03 Dec 97 07:16:02 EST Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 07:16:01 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Irritating Mail Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just got yet another encoded mail without readable text (see below) 1) Can you please stop sending your mails this way ? 2) Could somebody resend a decoded version of this mail ? Thanks, Jac Fuchs =============================================================================== > Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 11:29:30 +0200 > From: Dany Haimovici > To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" > Subject: "Irritating Infraction as Causality" - Nexus broken - Lesson 3 > > This mail item was sent in SMTP/MIME format, and may have > contained encoded binary body parts. Any such body parts > have been extracted and sent to you as individual items. > > > << Extracted and sent as PART0001 PLAINBIN A5 >> > > > ---- End of mail text From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 00:42:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:42:51 +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 AAA00678 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:42:45 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1014254; 3 Dec 97 13:34 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BCFFEF.D50BFAD0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:31:59 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Irritating Mail Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:31:58 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 13 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac writes: > >I just got yet another encoded mail without readable text (see below) >1) Can you please stop sending your mails this way ? >2) Could somebody resend a decoded version of this mail ? > >Thanks, > Jac Fuchs It would also be helpful if people could avoid including the E-mail address of the poster in their replies as well as bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au otherwise the original poster of a thread >receives two copies of all replies. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 02:19:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:19:36 +1100 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01162 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:19:30 +1100 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA284092272; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:17:52 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA155222359; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:19:19 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:18:59 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: LAW 17D Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="openmail-part-05163b0a-00000001" Apparently-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --openmail-part-05163b0a-00000001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Law 17D D. Cards from Wrong Board =20 If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call, the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90 for penalty) when offender's substituted call differs in any significant way from his cancelled call. If offender subsequently repeats the cancelled call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards, the Director may allow that board to be= played normally, but the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90) when offender's call differs in any way from his original cancelled call. =20 Not easy to read...I divided the text to make it more readable. 1)If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled. =20 2)If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call, the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90 for penalty) when =20 offender's substituted call differs in any significant way from his= cancelled call. =20 3)If offender subsequently repeats the cancelled call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90) when offender's call differs in any way from his original cancelled call. =20 Seems clearer (even for a french speaker...) Suppose we have boards 1 and 2 on the table. North sits pick up cards from 2, when others play board 1, and bid 1S. My interpretation. First part refers to board 1. The call is cancelled. N picks cards from board 1 and bid anything. Part 2 refers also to board 1. The new law tries to avoid artificial scores when E as already bid after the wrong bid (1S). Board 1 will be played normally if N bids 1S again with wright cards (board 1). Artificial if not. I think part 3 refers to board 2. If N has the chance to repeat 1S when bidding this board, it will be played. Artificial score if not. =20 On board 1, N is dealer. On board 2, he is fourth seat. Does this board will be played if N bid 1S as responder to an opening, an overcall or a X by S or on any other auction? If yes, what about Law 16C? Please tell me if my basic interpretation of this text is correct and add any clarification or comment. Ce qui ce con=E7oit bien s'=E9nonce clairement...and words to say come easily said Boileau. May be law writers had never read Boileau. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City --openmail-part-05163b0a-00000001 --openmail-part-05163b0a-00000001-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 03:04:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:04:49 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA01255 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 03:04:42 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1021609; 3 Dec 97 15:53 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD0003.355F93C0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:50:41 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: LAW 17D Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:50:39 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 22 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: BIG SNIP I agree with your interpretation. > >On board 1, N is dealer. On board 2, he is fourth seat. Does this board >will be played if N bid 1S as responder to an opening, an overcall or a >X >by S or on any other auction? If yes, what about Law 16C? The bid (1S in this case) must be repeated with exactly the same meaning because the Law says 'when offender's call *differs in any way* from his original cancelled call. > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 04:04:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:04:31 +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 EAA01726 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:04:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2025733; 3 Dec 97 17:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:57:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 - No Skip Bid In-Reply-To: <971203022618_1814590515@mrin51.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: >Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > >> It just occurred to me that the ruling was wrong in >> an ACBL event, as far as I know. Didn't the jump >> overcall have a note that said, "no skip bid warning?" >> If so, then as far as I understand it, the ACBL has >> ruled that there cannot be any ruling against the >> next player due to tempo. I think this is a stupid >> rule, but it is, as far as I know, still on the books, >> and should have been invoked in this case. On the >> other hand, it was such a silly rule that I think it >> really should always be ignored, in which case, the >> ruling boils down to bridge judgment. >> --Jeff >> PS: I looked around at the ACBL web site, but didn't >> find said rule. I'm nearly certain that it existed >> at some point in 1997. Does anyone know its current >> status? > >The regulation for Skip Bid Warnings on the ACBL web site fails to address >the failure to warn. The Bidding Box Regulations imply that the warning is >optional: "As with verbal bidding, either you should always make a skip bid >warning when a skip bid comes up or you should never use the warning." A TD >told me that opponents are still entitled to their 10 seconds in the absence >of a warning. > >If it's optional, and I see that many top players are not using the STOP card >anymore, why not do away with it? Hardly anyone pays attention to it anyway, >since TDs are not enforcing the requirement to pause after a skip bid. That >is, they allow a pause with or without the warning, if always taken, but they >never penalize a fast pass. This seems a crazy approach by the ACBL. Here, we are *required* to issue a warning before a jump, most people do [perhaps not 'most' but 'some' at club level]. We are required to pause for a time, again most people do, perhaps not quite so many. If there is no warning, then a TD usually rules there is no UI from any pause unless it is excessively protracted. If there is a warning but no pause, that gives UI to partner and rulings are nearly automatic on this basis [though fairly rare]. If a TD is aware of players not following either requirement he will issue a PP [warning then warning then fine then bigger fine then shoot him]. The moment you make things optional, you are destroying most of the point of the regulations. On another thread DG asked when was the last time that anyone paused after 1NT - 3NT: my answer is the last time the sequence occurred at my table. [s] >Some have said I should label my penalty doubles as optional, so ACs won't be >confused. I think the right word is cooperative, not optional. Optional >doubles (e.g., doubles of three-level preempts) are often pulled, cooperative >doubles are not. So, I'll change my card to read "penalty doubles >(cooperative)" to keep TDs and ACs happy. Now, will those who play negative >doubles or takeout doubles, which are sometimes not taken out, also qualify >them with some similar adjective? To say "Your partner doubled for penalties, >you are supposed to pass," as the AC said, is like saying "Your partner >doubled for takeout, you are supposed to bid" when someone passes a double. Takeout doubles are made with the *expectation* that partner will take them out [even though he sometimes does not]. Penalty doubles are made with the *expectation* that partner will leave them in [even though he sometimes does not]. As you now have realised you are playing co- operative doubles which are made with the expectation that partner will leave them in *with a suitable hand*. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 04:29:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:29:01 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA01860 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:28:54 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1011200; 3 Dec 97 17:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:35:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971202235202.006bebb4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 06:08 PM 12/2/97 +0000, David wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> I don't like this one little bit. In my view you should listen to all >>the evidence and then make a decision, using your judgement. >Your platitudes about listening to all the evidence beg the question: what >is the relevant evidence in a UI case? It is my contention that as a >deliberate and specific matter of law, the reported beliefs, thoughts, and >judgements made by the recipient of UI are irrelevant to the determination. >UI cases do not and should not turn on whether we judge that a particular >outcome WAS tainted by UI, but rather on whether it is reasonable to >believe, as a matter of objective bridge logic, that it might have been. >Statements such as "I would have bid that way anyway", or " I always double >in these situations," are simply irrelevant, because the determination is >not to be based on whether this player did or did not use UI in making a >decision, but on what we judge other players of similar ability and methods >might have done. Beyond helping to determine the class of player and >methods, such "evidence" is simply useless. You are saying it is useless except when it is useful? You seem to have answered your own question: you need to find out the class of player and the methods. -- 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 Dec 4 04:36:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:36:56 +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 EAA01944 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:36:50 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025734; 3 Dec 97 17:00 GMT Message-ID: <8pmMuXAT9Vh0EwUj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:32:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? In-Reply-To: <199712030622.RAA18104@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >Indeed, the Australian National Authority has ruled that " ..if 75% of >players of the appropriate standard would have made the bid without the >unauthorised information, then there is no logical alternative to the bid. > > For the purpose of this direction, the expression 'players of >appropriate standard' is to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the >event. The calibre of the individual player is not to be the criterion." Don't they have to be players playing the same system? Is double an LA on KQJx x xxxxx Jxx after 1C from partner, and 1S overcall? I believe it makes a difference whether double is for penalties or for takeout. In which case it is *not* irrelevant when people tell you what their system is. You cannot say it makes no difference when a player says "I would always double on a hand with 8+HCP" because he is telling you [a] his system [b] his style and [c] his judgement. [a] is important, [b] has mild importance and [c] no importance. A TD or AC makes his/their own judgement about what people would do. How much weight do you place in what people tell you when it is undocumented? That is a judgement matter for the TD/AC, but I do not believe it to be zero. It also depends on the type of event. If you are directing in a place where there are no convention cards, no written system agreements, and *everyone* trusts everyone else then you attach a lot of weight to such comments. If they have complete system notes [the 3-volume book is with the printers now] and there is a noticeable absence about the one particular sequence then you take very little notice of what the player says. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 04:38:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:38:14 +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 EAA01960 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:38:06 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21088; 3 Dec 97 9:37 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 - No Skip Bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 13:57:31 PST." Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 09:37:28 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9712030937.aa21088@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > [Marv French:] > >The regulation for Skip Bid Warnings on the ACBL web site fails to > >address the failure to warn. The Bidding Box Regulations imply that > >the warning is optional: "As with verbal bidding, either you should > >always make a skip bid warning when a skip bid comes up or you > >should never use the warning." A TD told me that opponents are > >still entitled to their 10 seconds in the absence of a warning. > > > >If it's optional, and I see that many top players are not using the > >STOP card anymore, why not do away with it? Hardly anyone pays > >attention to it anyway, since TDs are not enforcing the requirement > >to pause after a skip bid. That is, they allow a pause with or > >without the warning, if always taken, but they never penalize a > >fast pass. > > This seems a crazy approach by the ACBL. Here, we are *required* to > issue a warning before a jump, most people do [perhaps not 'most' but > 'some' at club level]. We are required to pause for a time, again most > people do, perhaps not quite so many. Well, I was going to write and say that this isn't the ACBL approach, that ACBL also has the same requirement. I'm basing this on what I read, or seem to remember reading, in a Bulletin from sometime in the last couple years. However, the ACBL's website doesn't back me up. The Skip Bid Regulations page just says "Players *should* protect their rights ... by announcing ..." [emphasis mine]. It also says, "When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval", which doesn't seem entirely correct either, since the same Bulletin said players are required to wait after all skip bids regardless of whether they're announced. So I think this web page may contain outdated information. Unless things have changed recently, I believe the real ACBL rules are (someone please correct me if I'm wrong): (1) Players are required to use a skip bid warning. (2) Players are required to pause about 10 seconds after a skip bid, whether a warning is given or not. Not only is neither rule enforced, Stu Goodgold posted on r.g.b an incident in which a director ruled that a 10-second pause after a skip bid was UI, since "most players" don't pause in that auction despite the rule requiring them to. So at least one director believes that you're in violation of the rules if you don't violate the rules. > On another thread DG asked when was the last time that anyone paused > after 1NT - 3NT: my answer is the last time the sequence occurred at my > table. Same here (at least when my LHO is the notrump opener). I believe I'm in a small minority, though. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 05:00:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:00:39 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02020 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:00:32 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA22533 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:00:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA25072; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:01:31 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:01:31 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199712031801.KAA25072@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 - No Skip Bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: |Marv wrote: |>The regulation for Skip Bid Warnings on the ACBL web site fails to address |>the failure to warn. The Bidding Box Regulations imply that the warning is |>optional: "As with verbal bidding, either you should always make a skip bid |>warning when a skip bid comes up or you should never use the warning." A TD |>told me that opponents are still entitled to their 10 seconds in the absence |>of a warning. |> |>If it's optional, and I see that many top players are not using the STOP card |>anymore, why not do away with it? Hardly anyone pays attention to it anyway, |>since TDs are not enforcing the requirement to pause after a skip bid. That |>is, they allow a pause with or without the warning, if always taken, but they |>never penalize a fast pass. | | This seems a crazy approach by the ACBL. Here, we are *required* to |issue a warning before a jump, most people do [perhaps not 'most' but |'some' at club level]. We are required to pause for a time, again most |people do, perhaps not quite so many. | If there is no warning, then a TD usually rules there is no UI from |any pause unless it is excessively protracted. If there is a warning |but no pause, that gives UI to partner and rulings are nearly automatic |on this basis [though fairly rare]. If a TD is aware of players not |following either requirement he will issue a PP [warning then warning |then fine then bigger fine then shoot him]. These two paragraphs are contradictory. The ACBL's rule is that skip bid warnings are mandatory. If one is not used, then the next player may break tempo without giving the skip bidding side opportunity for redress. On the other hand, "protracted hesitations may still provide UI...." That's exactly your guys' rules, too. Isn't this, however, illegal? How can you take away my rights to redress for failing to make a skip bid warning? Yes, if the skip bid was a major surprise or a strange bid that somehow "drew the opposition offsides," then OK, the infraction (failure to skip bid) might have led to the out of tempo call, but in an expert game that seems very unlikely. If the first infraction, which is simply procedural, really has little to do with the second infraction (failing to pause, which is still mandatory), I don't see how it is legal to reduce the first offenders' rights. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 05:29:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:29:22 +1100 Received: from mrin43.mail.aol.com (mrin43.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.153]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02129 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:29:17 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin43.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA01449; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:28:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:28:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971203132843_78888441@mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 - No Skip Bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, >>>> It just occurred to me that the ruling was wrong in >> an ACBL event, as far as I know. Didn't the jump >> overcall have a note that said, "no skip bid warning?" >> If so, then as far as I understand it, the ACBL has >> ruled that there cannot be any ruling against the >> next player due to tempo. I think this is a stupid >> rule, but it is, as far as I know, still on the books, >> and should have been invoked in this case. On the >> other hand, it was such a silly rule that I think it >> really should always be ignored, in which case, the >> ruling boils down to bridge judgment. >> --Jeff >> PS: I looked around at the ACBL web site, but didn't >> find said rule. I'm nearly certain that it existed >> at some point in 1997. Does anyone know its current >> status? To the best of my knowledge there is no such edict at ACBL nor have I ever heard of one. However, that said, a failure to use a skip bid warning does give a player who is next to call the equivalent amount of time to make his decision. There are a number of players, some of them quite expert, who seem to try to gain some advantage by jamming the auction without warnings. They will gain virtually nothing if they then seek to take their opponents to committee so long as a hesitation is not longer than about fifteen seconds, nor are they likely to gain anything by bringing an opponent to committee for taking an unduly quick action. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 05:54:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:54:39 +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 FAA02315 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:54:30 +1100 Received: from default (client8347.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.71]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA17483; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:55:58 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Martin" , Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:45:25 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd001b$9e1a90a0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L188DJ -----Original Message----- From: David Martin To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Date: 02 December 1997 22:24 Subject: RE: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) >Reg wrote: > >SNIP >>> >IMO, the knowledge that declarer banned the lead of a given suit as a >penalty for any infraction, not just an exposed penalty card, is UI and >>cannot be used. ++++ I would think we should ask ourselves "Would this knowledge have been available had there been no infraction?" If the answer is 'no' then the information derives from the infraction.++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 05:54:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:54:38 +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 FAA02314 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:54:30 +1100 Received: from default (client8347.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.71]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA17467; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:55:56 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Martin" , Subject: Re: Insufficient bids Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:36:33 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd001a$6175c620$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool -----Original Message----- From: David Martin To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Date: 02 December 1997 19:53 Subject: RE: Insufficient bids >David Stevenson's last posting on this thread agrees entirely with my >last posted view except for one issue on which I made no comment. > >DWS wrote: > >BIG SNIP > >These two sectoins of L27 seem to be contradictory and I can see no >reason to prefer 'Any' which is quite strong over 'must' which is >>extremely strong, ie. the Laws strongest term. \\\\\\and more snips///// ++++I would add here that the 1H bid is a premature action contravening 9B2 and my view is that the auction has already stopped and the 1H is not exposed to opponent; I agree that 'rectification' of an insufficient bid by another insufficient bid is not an option open to the offender. The principle, in my view, is that players of both sides can only exercise their options after the Director has explained what they are and that the 1H bid is not therefore an exercise of offender's options. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 09:09:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:09:30 +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 JAA03240 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:09:07 +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 RAA01501 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:08:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:08:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712032208.RAA01311@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The Stop card and jeopardizing rights Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There was a discussion on BLML about a player forfeiting his rights to an adjustment by failing to use the Stop card. There was a case at St. Louis (case 17; in the text version of the bulletin only) which raised this issue. The auction was P-P-4S-P-P-5C; 4S was bid with no Stop card, and the pause was approximately fifteen seconds. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the failure to use the Stop Card was the critical factor. The hesitation, estimated by the various players as ten to fifteen seconds (South), about fifteen seconds (West and North), and fifteen to twenty seconds (East) was about the time which would be provided by the Stop Card. E/W could not force South to bid in less time by not using the Stop Card. Any "unauthorized" information had become "authorized" by East's failure to follow proper procedure. The Committee determined that even had South's hesitation been considered unauthorized information, it would not have suggested bidding over other actions such as pass or double. In a split decision the Committee decided to allow the 5C bid and changed the contract to 5S down one, plus 50 for N/S. My comments: It doesn't appear that the failure to use the Stop card was the main issue; two dissenters argued for an adjustment because they disagreed with the claim that the hesitation suggested bidding over passing or doubling. Should the failure to use the Stop card really prevent UI problems from a long pause? I don't think a 15-second delay should be an unauthorized hesitation either with or without the Stop card; the difference between 10 and 15 seconds is hard to estimate without creating serious UI by looking at a watch. Certainly, if there would be no UI with the stop card, there should be no UI without it, but that's not what the committee ruled. I think an failure to use the Stop card should eliminate the UI problem only for too short a pause (assuming that the short pauser's side wouldn't be expected to protect themselves). -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 09:11:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:11:17 +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 JAA03272 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:11:12 +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 OAA28824; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:11:08 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:10:53 -0800 (PST) From: Barbara and Richard Odlin To: Adam Beneschan cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 - No Skip Bid In-Reply-To: <9712030937.aa21088@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Well, I was going to write and say that this isn't the ACBL approach, > that ACBL also has the same requirement. I'm basing this on what I > read, or seem to remember reading, in a Bulletin from sometime in the > last couple years. However, the ACBL's website doesn't back me up. > The Skip Bid Regulations page just says "Players *should* protect > their rights ... by announcing ..." [emphasis mine]. It also says, > "When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip > bidder must wait for a suitable interval", which doesn't seem entirely > correct either, since the same Bulletin said players are required to > wait after all skip bids regardless of whether they're announced. So > I think this web page may contain outdated information. I believe you are right. I recall the article and it said words to the effect that experienced players are expected to take approximatly ten seconds, and study their hand in earnest, before acting EVEN AFTER an unannounced preempt, and it said that it need not apply at the club level. The web site has not been updated. I am sorry but I had this reg in a pine file until I erased it last week to make some more room on the server's disk, otherwise I could quote it verbatim. I believe it was Chyah who posted it originally to the group here. Perhaps she is reading this, still has it pigeonholed and could send it out to the group. > Not only is neither rule enforced, Stu Goodgold posted on r.g.b an > incident in which a director ruled that a 10-second pause after a skip > bid was UI, since "most players" don't pause in that auction despite > the rule requiring them to. So at least one director believes that > you're in violation of the rules if you don't violate the rules. THAT director can be replaced! > > On another thread DG asked when was the last time that anyone paused > > after 1NT - 3NT: my answer is the last time the sequence occurred at my > > table. > > Same here (at least when my LHO is the notrump opener). I believe I'm > in a small minority, though. Me too. I read the new reg carefully, and try to follow it every time. Even after 1N-P-3N-, and the opponents look at me as if I were a sap! At least MY poor partner can never know if I have anything or not. That is the way the game is supposed to played isn't it? Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 10:39:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:39:12 +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 KAA03638 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:39:04 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20954; 3 Dec 97 15:38 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: The Stop card and jeopardizing rights In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 17:08:51 PST." <199712032208.RAA01311@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 15:38:27 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9712031538.aa20954@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > There was a discussion on BLML about a player forfeiting his rights to > an adjustment by failing to use the Stop card. There was a case at > St. Louis (case 17; in the text version of the bulletin only) which > raised this issue. > > The auction was P-P-4S-P-P-5C; 4S was bid with no Stop card, and the > pause was approximately fifteen seconds. To clarify: opener's partner took a 5S save. At the table, the director had adjusted to 4S making. > The Committee Decision: > > The Committee decided that the failure to use the Stop Card was the > critical factor. > > The hesitation, estimated by the various players as ten to fifteen > seconds (South), about fifteen seconds (West and North), and fifteen > to twenty seconds (East) was about the time which would be provided > by the Stop Card. > > E/W could not force South to bid in less time by not using the Stop > Card. > > Any "unauthorized" information had become "authorized" by East's > failure to follow proper procedure. What bothers me is that the appeal report made no mention of whether the hesitation was considered to be close enough to the time expected for a mandatory pause. If the hesitation were considered to be close enough, then there would be no "unauthorized" information REGARDLESS OF WHETHER EAST FOLLOWED PROPER PROCEDURE. In a case like this, shouldn't that be one of the first facts ascertained? That is, shouldn't the committee determine (and state in the report) that either the hesitation was so much longer than the length of a mandatory hesitation that it definitely transmitted UI---or it didn't? In Marv's case, everyone agreed that the pause was too long (about 30 seconds). But did the committee think it was too long in this case? The dissenters, in particular, should have addressed this issue. They said "We believe that the agreed upon hesitation by South made it much easier for North to find an equal vulnerability 5C bid." However, did everyone agree that the hesitation was long enough to transmit UI? This wasn't addressed. > The Committee determined that even had South's hesitation been > considered unauthorized information, it would not have suggested > bidding over other actions such as pass or double. I don't understand this statement at all, but I could be taking it out of context. If South hesitates (long enough to be considered UI) and passes, it certainly does transmit the information that South has something interesting and not a flat 9-count or so. If the Committee meant that passing with North's actual hand would not have been a LA, then their statement makes sense, although it's hard for me to imagine this being the case when North didn't open. (North had 7 72 K953 AQJT64.) > In a split decision the Committee decided to allow the 5C bid and > changed the contract to 5S down one, plus 50 for N/S. > > My comments: > > It doesn't appear that the failure to use the Stop card was the main > issue; two dissenters argued for an adjustment because they disagreed > with the claim that the hesitation suggested bidding over passing or > doubling. Actually, they disagreed with the majority's claim that the hesitation *didn't* suggest bidding. The dissenters thought it did. > Should the failure to use the Stop card really prevent UI problems from > a long pause? I don't think a 15-second delay should be an unauthorized > hesitation either with or without the Stop card; the difference between > 10 and 15 seconds is hard to estimate without creating serious UI by > looking at a watch. I agree here. > Certainly, if there would be no UI with the stop > card, there should be no UI without it, but that's not what the > committee ruled. I agree with you; I'm confused about just what the committee ruled. They didn't say whether the pause would have been considered UI if the stop card had been used. > I think an failure to use the Stop card should > eliminate the UI problem only for too short a pause (assuming that the > short pauser's side wouldn't be expected to protect themselves). If someone opens 3C without using the Stop card, and the next hand passes after 1 second, I would think there is UI. However, if the passer isn't experienced enough to know better, I'd find it hard to rule against them, since the 3C opener created the problem. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 11:32:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:32:19 +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 LAA03811 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:32:10 +1100 Received: from default (hdn89-216.hil.compuserve.com [206.175.98.216]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA08755 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:37:26 -0800 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19971204003116.006ba8d4@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:31:16 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Sorry, that won't do. Appeal No.2 was published on November 24th, the AC met >late on November 21. There are two days available for interested parties to >come down to the Bulletin office for a look at the text on the computer >screen, and they should be invited to do so. I'll bet the overworked staff at the Bulletin would beg to differ. (One reality of daily publication, I know from experience, is that there's not nearly as much time to do the work as it appears from the outside.) I suspect the Bulletin prints exactly what the committees give it, as soon as they can. If that's the case, any mistakes come from the committee and should probably be taken up with them. >Or, the handwritten writeup >could be copied and distributed to those interested in plenty of time for >errors to be corrected. At least, there should be some mechanism for >correcting errors before they become part of the official record published on >the ACBL web site and given to case book reviewers. That sounds like a good suggestion. Can some folks more familiar with ACs say whether it might be workable? Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 12:44:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:44:18 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA03957 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:44:12 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id TAA11772; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:43:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca1-09.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.41) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011685; Wed Dec 3 19:42:58 1997 Message-ID: <34860A5D.1AD1@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 17:41:49 -0800 From: B&S <#jonbriss@ix5.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: #jonbriss@ix5.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Baresch CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) References: <2.2.32.19971204003116.006ba8d4@m3.sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote, in response to an earlier posting: > > >Sorry, that won't do. Appeal No.2 was published on November 24th, the AC met > >late on November 21. There are two days available for interested parties to > >come down to the Bulletin office for a look at the text on the computer > >screen, and they should be invited to do so. > > I'll bet the overworked staff at the Bulletin would beg to differ. (One > reality of daily publication, I know from experience, is that there's not > nearly as much time to do the work as it appears from the outside.) I > suspect the Bulletin prints exactly what the committees give it, as soon as > they can. If that's the case, any mistakes come from the committee and > should probably be taken up with them. > > >Or, the handwritten writeup > >could be copied and distributed to those interested in plenty of time for > >errors to be corrected. At least, there should be some mechanism for > >correcting errors before they become part of the official record published on > >the ACBL web site and given to case book reviewers. > > That sounds like a good suggestion. Can some folks more familiar with ACs > say whether it might be workable? As co-chair of the NABC AC, I'll respond. It won't work. The AC chair needs to write the report, and it goes to Linda Weinstein for editing and typing. Linda then takes the report to the Daily Bulletin staff, and the staff runs it as soon as it's received. Any time delay is not caused by the Daily Bulleting staff, and seldom by Linda - usually the committee chair needs some time to write the report. Furthermore, we do not wish to give editorial approval rights to participants who have appeared before an AC. The reports are often critical of the actions of one or both parties involved, and that critical tone is intended. At St. Louis, we had one irate participant who threatened us with a lawsuit if the report was critical of him; we did provide him with a copy of the article at the same time it was presented to the Daily Bulleting staff, but we made it clear that the article was being published regardless of his pleasure or distaste with its content. When specifically requested, we will try to accomodate players with a copy of the article a when it is submitted, but we do not wish the practice to become routine. The articles are checked and double-checked for accuracy before submission; we don't want additional input from litigants. Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 12:56:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:56:38 +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 MAA03992 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:56:32 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1021013; 4 Dec 97 1:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:10:37 +0000 To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: LAW 17D In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Martin writes >Laval wrote: > > >BIG SNIP > >I agree with your interpretation. >> >>On board 1, N is dealer. On board 2, he is fourth seat. Does this board >>will be played if N bid 1S as responder to an opening, an overcall or a >>X >>by S or on any other auction? If yes, what about Law 16C? > >The bid (1S in this case) must be repeated with exactly the same meaning >because the Law says 'when offender's call *differs in any way* from his >original cancelled call. > >> Even to the extent that they play 5-9 weak 2's NV and 6-10 V ?? >> >> >> >> >> -- 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 Dec 4 13:16:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:16:54 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA04058 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:16:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1024210; 4 Dec 97 2:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:07:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 - No Skip Bid In-Reply-To: <199712031801.KAA25072@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >These two paragraphs are contradictory. The ACBL's rule is >that skip bid warnings are mandatory. If one is not used, >then the next player may break tempo without giving the >skip bidding side opportunity for redress. On the other hand, >"protracted hesitations may still provide UI...." That's >exactly your guys' rules, too. > >Isn't this, however, illegal? How can you take away my >rights to redress for failing to make a skip bid warning? >Yes, if the skip bid was a major surprise or a strange >bid that somehow "drew the opposition offsides," then >OK, the infraction (failure to skip bid) might have led >to the out of tempo call, but in an expert game that seems >very unlikely. If the first infraction, which is simply >procedural, really has little to do with the second infraction >(failing to pause, which is still mandatory), I don't see >how it is legal to reduce the first offenders' rights. What do you mean, simply procedural? The skip bid was introduced to solve an ethical problem - it is not simply procedural. People who cannot be bothered with it should not be protected by 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 Dec 4 18:34:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:34:42 +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 SAA05667 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:34:35 +1100 From: lobo@ac.net Received: from ptp76.ac.net (ptp76.ac.net [205.138.54.178]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id CAA03559 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:34:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <348654CB.2671@ac.net> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 01:59:23 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) References: <2.2.32.19971204003116.006ba8d4@m3.sprynet.com> <34860A5D.1AD1@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > As co-chair of the NABC AC, I'll respond. It won't work. The AC chair > needs to write the report, and it goes to Linda Weinstein for editing > and typing. Linda then takes the report to the Daily Bulletin staff, > and the staff runs it as soon as it's received. Any time delay is not > caused by the Daily Bulleting staff, and seldom by Linda - usually the > committee chair needs some time to write the report. Just to add a little, after I get the report, edit and type it, it is then returned to the Committee Chairman for corrections, additions, etc. After I fix that version, it goes to Rich Colker who has final editorial say. If Rich has some serious comments, they are reviewed again with the Chairman in case something was missed before it is finally delivered to the Bulletin for printing. So, now, with 44 appeals going on you expect me to track down another 160+ people? Please.... get real... Not to mention Jon's policy expressed below, which I heartily endorse.... As to what was on the appeal form: there was no mention of any Alert that occured when West doubled. Appeals Administration relys on Director's to mark Alerts on the appeals form; since 99% of them do, no mention of an alert, to us, means no Alert. Also, the Appeals form contains the following section "TO BE READ AND SIGNED BY THE APPELLANT: I have read and verified the information contained on this form. etc, etc, " The appropriate signature is there. Surprise, Surprise, not many players are terribly diligent about this.... Also, just because a particular Director's name appears on an appeals form does not mean the table ruling was made by that Director. Director rulings are a staff effort made after consultation with others. The table Director is just the coordinator for a team ruling. > Furthermore, we do not wish to give editorial approval rights to > participants who have appeared before an AC. The reports are often > critical of the actions of one or both parties involved, and that > critical tone is intended. At St. Louis, we had one irate participant > who threatened us with a lawsuit if the report was critical of him; we > did provide him with a copy of the article at the same time it was > presented to the Daily Bulleting staff, but we made it clear that the > article was being published regardless of his pleasure or distaste with > its content. When specifically requested, we will try to accomodate > players with a copy of the article a when it is submitted, but we do not > wish the practice to become routine. > > The articles are checked and double-checked for accuracy before > submission; we don't want additional input from litigants. > > Jon C. Brissman We do the best we can - there are a lot of selfless folks giving their time for the cause - at lot of it at 2 a.m. when we would rather be doing other things. I think everyone does a thankless task pretty darn well. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 20:11:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 20:11:16 +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 UAA06285 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 20:11:09 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA08449; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:08:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma008269; Thu, 4 Dec 97 01:08:26 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA16251 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:20:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712040920.BAA16251@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 4 Dec 97 09:00:51 GMT Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > Reg Busch wrote > >>IMO, the knowledge that declarer banned the lead of a given suit as a >>penalty for any infraction, not just an exposed penalty card, is UI and >>cannot be used. > >++++ I would think we should ask ourselves "Would >this knowledge have been available had there been no >infraction?" If the answer is 'no' then the information >derives from the infraction.++++ Actually the words in L16C2 are "arising from its own withdrawn action" not "derives from its own infraction", not that I would necessarily argue anything turns on that. I think Grattan's view goes too far. The following examples may help to explain why I think so. Example 1 Suppose you are in fourth position with a hand suitable for pre-emptive overcall. LHO opens, partner makes an insufficient bid second in hand, and L27B2 applies to prevent you making your pre-emptive overcall. Because of the additional space in their auction, you learn more about their hands than you would have done had you pre-empted. You thereby defeat the contract when you might not or would not have done so after a pre-empt. Applying Grattan's test, the information used to defeat the contract would not have been available had there been no infraction. Thus on his test the score should be adjusted. I don't think the wording of L16C2 justifies this. Example 2 Suppose you are in fourth position with a hand suitable for pre-emptive overcall. LHO opens, partner makes an insufficient bid second in hand, and L27B2 applies to prevent you making your pre-emptive overcall. The opponents' bidding sequence differs from the one which would have followed a pre-emptive overcall by you. At the end of the hand you agree with partner what a double of one of their calls (which would not have been made had you pre-empted) would mean. The sequence crops up later in the same session. Partner doubles, thus giving you information which enables you to defeat a contract which would not otherwise have been beaten. Applying Grattan's test, the information used to defeat the contract would not have been available had there been no infraction. Thus on his test the score should be adjusted. I don't think the wording of L16C2 justifies this. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 4 22:04:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:04:28 +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 WAA06957 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:03:52 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-81.innet.be [194.7.10.81]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA10512 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:03:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34868DA6.60F622B@innet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:01:58 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Two revokes in same suit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last week a player asked me to comment on a ruling one of my colleagues made. I don't like this, but when the ruling turned out to be correct, I was glad to be of help. This is what happened : One defender ruffs. Since this means the other must have eight in the suit, declarer suspects a revoke but says nothing. Three tricks later, the same defender ruffs the same suit. Declarer again says nothing, but at the end he calls the director. Of course there were two revokes. Declarer makes nine tricks and duly gets eleven. The second revoke, being in the same suit as the first, is not penalized, but of course equity should be restored. Without any revoke, declarer would always make eleven tricks, so no restoration is needed. Now I have been taught by "those that ought to know" (at the EBL course in Amsterdam) that indeed equity must be considered at the start of the hand and not somewhere between two infractions, so that this ruling seems correct. But of course, if declarer would ask at the second revoke about it, that one would have to be corrected, he would not lose a second trick, and he would still get two penalty tricks on top of his (now) 10 actual tricks, making twelve. A lesson for all : do not ask about a first revoke, but do ask if the same player doesn't follow suit a second time ! So is the ruling correct after all ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 01:07:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:07:25 +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 BAA10472 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:07:17 +1100 Received: from default (client85de.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.222]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA28077 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:08:46 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:03:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd00bd$6e762f60$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 04 December 1997 10:09 Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> Reg Busch wrote >> >>>IMO, the knowledge that declarer banned the lead of a given suit as a >>>penalty for any infraction, not just an exposed penalty card, is UI and >>>cannot be used. >> >>++++ I would think we should ask ourselves "Would >>this knowledge have been available had there been no >>infraction?" If the answer is 'no' then the information >>derives from the infraction.++++ > >Actually the words in L16C2 are "arising from its own withdrawn action" not >"derives from its own infraction", not that I would necessarily argue anything turns on that. > >I think Grattan's view goes too far. The following examples may help to >explain why I think so. > >Example 1 > >Suppose you are in fourth position with a hand suitable for pre-emptive >overcall. LHO opens, partner makes an insufficient bid second in hand, and >L27B2 applies to prevent you making your pre-emptive overcall. Because of the additional space in their auction, you learn more about their hands than you >would have done had you pre-empted. You thereby defeat the contract when you >might not or would not have done so after a pre-empt. > >Applying Grattan's test, the information used to defeat the contract would not have been available had there been no infraction> >I don't think the wording of L16C2 justifies this. > > >Example 2 > >Suppose you are in fourth position with a hand suitable for pre-emptive >overcall. LHO opens, partner makes an insufficient bid second in hand, and >L27B2 applies to prevent you making your pre-emptive overcall. The opponents' bidding sequence differs from the one which would have followed a pre-emptive overcall by you. At the end of the hand you agree with partner what a double of one of their calls (which would not have been made had you pre-empted) would mean. The sequence crops up later in the same session. Partner doubles, thus giving you information which enables you to defeat a contract which would not otherwise have been beaten. > >Applying Grattan's test, the information used to defeat the contract would not have been available had there been no infraction. Thus on his test the score should be adjusted. > >I don't think the wording of L16C2 justifies this. > ++++When The Player ('TP') has agreed the meaning of possible action(s) in such a sequence, has a hand suitable for use of the agreement, and makes an insufficient bid, my incredulity would cause me to look with some affection upon the reference to Law 23 in 27B2 if TP's partner were thereby silenced. This aside, in my view the meaning of the double in your second example is only what it is in consequence of the withdrawn action of TP; it is dependent upon it for its change of meaning. ++++ Grattan. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 03:16:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:16:36 +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 DAA11558 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:16:27 +1100 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3.carleton.ca [134.117.136.23]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA07414 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:13:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA27333; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:13:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:13:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712041613.LAA27333@freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The Stop card and jeopardizing rights Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >If someone opens 3C without using the Stop card, and the next hand >passes after 1 second, I would think there is UI. However, if the >passer isn't experienced enough to know better, I'd find it hard to >rule against them, since the 3C opener created the problem. > > -- Adam I don't mean to quibble (well, ok, I do mean to quibble) but I find it hard to believe that the 3C opener created the problem when he was following the regulations promulgated by the ACBL. As long as he never uses the Stop card, he has done nothing wrong. Therefore, I find that the fault lies in 3 places: firstly, by the player who failed to hesitate after a skip bid, as required by the regulations; secondly, by those who fail to enforce the regulations, which means most of us in NA; and thirdly, the regulators, who said that players could have a choice, rather than mandating the use of the Stop card (or not!). Tony (aka ac342) ps. I admit I have a vested interest. I never use the Stop card, not because I don't agree with the concept, but because I frequently forget. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 03:23:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:23:08 +1100 Received: from pimaia2y.prodigy.com (pimaia2y.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11618 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:23:01 +1100 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA87940 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:22:50 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id LAA86638 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:22:36 -0500 Message-Id: <199712041622.LAA86638@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:22:36, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: skip bid warning Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I put a call into ACBL headquarters, so I want to make sure you guys realize I am not quoting from printed material in front of me. Gary was out of the office, but I spoke to Butch Campbell. The current ACBL "regulation" is that no matter whether your right hand opponent uses the stop card or not, you are required to wait 10 seconds. Butch felt that the absence of a skip card might cause a director to allow a 15 second pause, rather than a 10 second pause simply because your brain has to process the fact that it was a skip bid. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 03:33:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:33:15 +1100 Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com (pimaia4w.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11693 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:33:08 +1100 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA19878 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:33:03 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id LAA39392 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:33:02 -0500 Message-Id: <199712041633.LAA39392@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:33:02, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Daily Bulletins at Nationals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch said: I'll bet the overworked staff at the Bulletin would beg to differ. (One reality of daily publication, I know from experience, is that there's not nearly as much time to do the work as it appears from the outside.) I suspect the Bulletin prints exactly what the committees give it, as soon as they can. If that's the case, any mistakes come from the committee and should probably be taken up with them. ================= This is pretty much the truth of the matter. Everyone is constantly on the go during the nationals. It is thought that when an article is submitted that it is ready for publication. Henry and Brent will fix minor errors, but they pretty much print what people have written. I find Henry Francis and Brent Manley to be amongst the easiest going people in the world. If an appeal is done at night, it isn't going to go in that morning's bulletin, it will go in the bulletin the day after. So, if someone really cares, they could probably ask for a printout and speak to Henry if they disagree with the write up. Then next step would be to find Rich Colker, who seems to be easily found and voice your complaint. But if you get to 10pm the next day without doing anything, the appeal is likely to go in. The next question is to wonder why an appeal that was on the 21st didn't get in till the 24th. Every night, Henry looks at the amount of material that is submitted and decides how many pages the bulletin is going to be. Then they figure out how to fit the various articles into those pages. This means that an appeal, a hand, a story, an announcement of a new lifemaster... etc.... might get delayed a day. In fact, on the December 1st, Monday morning bulletin, there was an appeal and a hand left over that never got used. I asked Henry's permission to use it in the text version, but it never got into the postscript or pdf version. There wasn't room in the final bulletin. The point at which to correct an article is on the way to Henry and Brent because by the time it gets to Kent and me, our basic job is formatting and throwing the information up on the web as fast as possible. We get postscript and PDF (Adobe Acrobat) up the earliest, then HTML. Text comes later in the day and only gets done after these other tasks are done. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 03:44:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:44:41 +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 DAA11775 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:44:30 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS3-173.star.net.il [195.8.208.173]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA01052; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:44:23 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <3486DE27.3FB8201D@star.net.il> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:45:28 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient bids References: <01bd001a$6175c620$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Sir As much as I understood Law 9B2 it applies in case : ..B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity...(the header) .. B1. Summoning the Director.....(9B1) .. B2. Further Bids or Plays.......until the Director has explainedall matters......(9B2) ..C. .......Any premature correction of irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further penalty (see lead penalties of Law 26) I believe that what I call "The Endicott principle of Stand alone" for all laws should apply to Law 9C . In spite of the fact that the paranthesis remind only Law 26 I think that all the matters concerning the non-offender's choise "in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty " (law 9B2) apply. I suggest that Law 9B2 applies from the moment we were able to stop "any further Bids or Plays" as written in law 9B2. The "matters" that the TD will explain should include all the "irregularities and/or sincere accidents" , in the order they occurred (as I suggested to act by "Herman's normality restoring enhanced principle). I will be very thankful if you"ll rectify my opinion. Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > > gester@globalnet.co.uk > Grattan Endicott > Liverpool > -----Original Message----- > From: David Martin > To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Date: 02 December 1997 19:53 > Subject: RE: Insufficient bids > > >David Stevenson's last posting on this thread agrees entirely with my > >last posted view except for one issue on which I made no comment. > > > >DWS wrote: > > > >BIG SNIP > > > >These two sectoins of L27 seem to be contradictory and I can see no > >reason to prefer 'Any' which is quite strong over 'must' which is > >>extremely strong, ie. the Laws strongest term. > > \\\\\\and more snips///// > > ++++I would add here that the 1H bid is a premature action contravening 9B2 > and my view is that the auction has already stopped and the 1H is not > exposed to opponent; I agree that 'rectification' of an insufficient bid by > another insufficient bid is not an > option open to the offender. The principle, in my view, is that players of > both sides can only exercise their options after the Director has explained > what they are > and that the 1H bid is not therefore an exercise of > offender's options. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 04:30:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 04:30:16 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12190 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 04:30:09 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA28602; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:29:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from 253.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.253) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028588; Thu Dec 4 11:29:08 1997 Received: by 253.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD00B0.240E4140@253.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:28:35 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD00B0.240E4140@253.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Mlfrench@aol.com'" Subject: RE: Alert Ruling in St. Louis Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:28:33 -0500 Encoding: 122 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't know if I agree that the double was not "penaltyish" in the sense of a cooperative double...leave in if you have defensive values pard but pull if you don't. But the key point here appears to be that you had to forego an appeal based on economic considerations and not the relative merit of your bridge argument. It is sad to think that a wealthier player could resolve what may be a close decision in AC while those of us of more modest means must forego committee even when we believe we have a good point. Wasting the time of a committee just to be argumentative or obstructive (David S. has a favourite, more colourful adjective that might apply) is of course totally unacceptable. But not carrying an appeal to committee which may have true merit for fear of losing the deposit seems wrong. Does this mean there are two sets of laws...one for the well-heeled players and another for those who cannot afford appeal? We are all aware of decisions in which the TD properly should rule in favour of the NOS while advising the other pair of the right to appeal. But it would seem for many, that right may be an empty promise, even when they may believe there is merit to looking further, because an AC might disagree about that merit and retain the fee...or because they just can't come up with the money in the first place. There are some of us who still find $50 to be a significant amount. I have read a number of posts elsewhere about folks who will not renew OKB because of a $20 increase. That does not make our appeals less worthy of consideration. Do any of you have suggestions on how to ensure that meritorious appeals are carried forward without bogging the game down needlessly? Could matchpoint/IMP penalties possibly be assessed for bringing a nuisance appeal instead of substantial monetary penalties? Would there be other proceduaral/disciplinary measures that could prevent appeals with no merit while not denying one with value from being heard? Craig Senior From the first qualifying session of the Life Master Pairs in St. Louis: Bd: 19 Dlr: S Vul: E-W S-KQT H-752 D-QT9 C-JT32 N S-86 S-973 H-A W E H-KQJ8643 D-J75 D-842 C-AQ98765 S C- S-AJ542 H-T9 D-AK63 C-K4 The auction: West North East South - - - 1S 2C 2S 3H Dbl (not Alerted) 4C Dbl 4H P P Dbl All pass Down 500, for 6 matchpoints out of 64. I was East. Partner West was an inexperienced player who thought she had to rescue me from a bad situation. As she said later, she would not have bid 4C if she had known that the double was not a penalty double and only showed a desire to compete further. I called TD Sol Weinstein, who ruled, after going away to consult the Alert Procedure, that the double of 3H was not Alertable. I wonder what he read. My copy of the ACBL reg says that Type II doubles must be Alerted if not penalty or penaltyish. Type II doubles are defined as "those made when partner has made any call other than a PASS." This looks to me like a Type II double implying "cards" and a side diamond suit, not penalty or penaltyish (North would have pulled to 3S, or maybe even would have bid 4S in view of the diamond fit), which makes it Alertable. South could hardly double 3H for penalty, looking at the finessable club king and weak heart doubleton. I did not appeal this decision because I couldn't afford to lose $50 and the AC might have ruled that partner's bad 4C bid, bad even if the double was for penalty, caused the damage. Another point of view is that there was a failure to Alert, an irregularity, so the NOs should be granted the benefit of doubt. The TD might ask North what she would do if the double had been explained, and if she says pass then the TD should assign an adjusted score of +140 for N-S. Comments, please. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 05:02:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:02:03 +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 FAA12493 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:01:56 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22231; 4 Dec 97 10:01 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: The Stop card and jeopardizing rights In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 Dec 1997 11:13:50 PST." <199712041613.LAA27333@freenet3.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 10:01:22 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9712041001.aa22231@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >If someone opens 3C without using the Stop card, and the next hand > >passes after 1 second, I would think there is UI. However, if the > >passer isn't experienced enough to know better, I'd find it hard to > >rule against them, since the 3C opener created the problem. > > > > -- Adam > I don't mean to quibble (well, ok, I do mean to quibble) > but I find it hard to believe that the 3C opener created > the problem when he was following the regulations > promulgated by the ACBL. As long as he never uses the > Stop card, he has done nothing wrong. I think the regulation (as of one or two years ago) is that you are supposed to use the Stop card; I don't think the idea that "it's OK if you always use it, or if you never use it" is in force any more. That's what I based my position on. If, however, I've gotten the rule wrong, or if the rule has been changed again recently, I'll retract that part of my post. > Therefore, I find > that the fault lies in 3 places: firstly, by the player > who failed to hesitate after a skip bid, as required by > the regulations; Agreed. But, depending on the player, the fault could lie with the organization for not making it clear what is expected of players. It just occurred to me that when the new skip bid regulations were passed, they appeared in the Bulletin, but I don't recall seeing any notice of them anywhere else. It seems to me that it wouldn't be too bothersome, or expensive, to hand someone a flyer describing changes in regulations that they need to know about when they purchase a tournament entry. But I don't even recall seeing a notice taped to the wall about the new rules. > secondly, by those who fail to enforce > the regulations, which means most of us in NA; Yup. > and thirdly, > the regulators, who said that players could have a > choice, rather than mandating the use of the Stop card > (or not!). Again, I don't think this is currently the case; but I do agree that mandating it one way or the other is better. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 05:24:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:24:12 +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 FAA12676 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:24:05 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa24283; 4 Dec 97 10:23 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Alert Ruling in St. Louis In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:28:33 PST." <01BD00B0.240E4140@253.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 10:23:29 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9712041023.aa24283@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I don't know if I agree that the double was not "penaltyish" in the sense > of a cooperative double...leave in if you have defensive values pard but > pull if you don't. > > But the key point here appears to be that you had to forego an appeal based > on economic considerations and not the relative merit of your bridge > argument. It is sad to think that a wealthier player could resolve what may > be a close decision in AC while those of us of more modest means must > forego committee even when we believe we have a good point. > > Wasting the time of a committee just to be argumentative or obstructive > (David S. has a favourite, more colourful adjective that might apply) is of > course totally unacceptable. But not carrying an appeal to committee which > may have true merit for fear of losing the deposit seems wrong. Does this > mean there are two sets of laws...one for the well-heeled players and > another for those who cannot afford appeal? > > We are all aware of decisions in which the TD properly should rule in > favour of the NOS while advising the other pair of the right to appeal. But > it would seem for many, that right may be an empty promise, even when they > may believe there is merit to looking further, because an AC might disagree > about that merit and retain the fee...or because they just can't come up > with the money in the first place. > > There are some of us who still find $50 to be a significant amount. I have > read a number of posts elsewhere about folks who will not renew OKB because > of a $20 increase. That does not make our appeals less worthy of > consideration. > > Do any of you have suggestions on how to ensure that meritorious appeals > are carried forward without bogging the game down needlessly? Could > matchpoint/IMP penalties possibly be assessed for bringing a nuisance > appeal instead of substantial monetary penalties? Would there be other > proceduaral/disciplinary measures that could prevent appeals with no merit > while not denying one with value from being heard? If I'm not mistaken, isn't that what "appeals screening" is for? [Or is it "appeals screaming" now? All I remember is that in Albuquerque, there was a room for this process, and there was a big sign out front that used to say APPEALS SCREENING until someone changed a couple letters . . .] By the way, I find it hard to believe that this particular appeal would be considered frivolous, given the general confusion about which calls are Alertable in general and doubles in particular. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 05:40:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:40:56 +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 FAA12811 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 05:40:46 +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 NAA15910; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:40:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:40:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712041840.NAA07773@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199712040920.BAA16251@cactus.tc.pw.com> (Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com) Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen Barnfield writes: > Grattan Endicott wrote: >> Reg Busch wrote >>> IMO, the knowledge that declarer banned the lead of a given suit as a >>> penalty for any infraction, not just an exposed penalty card, is UI and >>> cannot be used. >> ++++ I would think we should ask ourselves "Would >> this knowledge have been available had there been no >> infraction?" If the answer is 'no' then the information >> derives from the infraction.++++ > Actually the words in L16C2 are "arising from its own withdrawn > action" not "derives from its own infraction", not that I would > necessarily argue anything turns on that. > I think Grattan's view goes too far. The following examples may help to > explain why I think so. (two examples deleted) The old Law books had a principle of direct versus indirect consequences; I think that this principle should apply here. Example of direct consequence: North has AKQxxx of clubs, and East revokes with Jxx, causing 3NT to go down three (down one after the penalty) rather than making. Clearly, East gained directly from the revoke, and the score should be adjusted to restore equity. Example of indirect consequence: East bid diamonds out of turn, and declarer requires West to make an opening diamond lead. West doesn't lead a diamond, thus allowing East to lead a diamond to West's known void later, beating a contract which would have made with no infraction. There is no adjustment. I would also read the Law accordingly. If East leads the SA out of turn and declarer bases his line of play on the knowledge that East has the SA and thus chooses to forbid a spade lead, declarer's choice of penalty is an indirect consequence of East's infraction. East's holding the SA is known to West as a direct consequence of the infraction, and thus it is UI to West. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 06:12:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:12:29 +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 GAA13048 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:12:24 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id af2008528; 4 Dec 97 18:45 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD00E4.07BBE5E0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:40:01 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: LAW 17D Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:08:50 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 27 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: >In message ise.demon.co.uk>, David Martin writes >>Laval wrote: >> >> >>BIG SNIP >> >>I agree with your interpretation. >>> >>>On board 1, N is dealer. On board 2, he is fourth seat. Does this board >>>will be played if N bid 1S as responder to an opening, an overcall or a >>>X >>>by S or on any other auction? If yes, what about Law 16C? >> >>The bid (1S in this case) must be repeated with exactly the same meaning >>because the Law says 'when offender's call *differs in any way* from his >>original cancelled call. >> >>> > Even to the extent that they play 5-9 weak 2's NV and 6-10 V ?? Yes, even to this extent. Afterall, the hand now cannot have exactly 5 or 10 HCPs and is therefore 6-9 which is UI if partner has a marginal decision at either end of the range. The Law does say 'differs in *any* way' and does not say 'differs in any *significant* way'. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 06:37:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:37:28 +1100 Received: from imo08.mail.aol.com (imo08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13167 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:37:21 +1100 From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <66fb99d.34870319@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:23:03 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 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 Jon Brissman wrote, > As to what was on the appeal form: there was no mention of any Alert > that occured when West doubled. Appeals Administration relys on > Director's to mark Alerts on the appeals form; since 99% of them do, no > mention of an alert, to us, means no Alert. Also, the Appeals form > contains the following section > When I saw in the Daily Bulletin that I supposedly had not Alerted Alice's negative double, I went to Rich Colker to find out why this mistake was made. He looked up his edited copy of the AC report, and saw that the words "not Alerted" were added by himself when editiing it. Then he looked up the original report received from the TD and noted that an asterisk was appended to the double. He said, "It looks like the double was Alerted. I wrote in "not Alerted" because someone on the AC told me that, I can't remember who." He said he would ask the Bulletin office to change the official record accordingly. Jon Brissman was a witness to this conversation, did not contradict Rich's remarks, and seemed to acquiesce in the change. His only comment was "I didn't think this was a factor in the case." I agreed, but said that it was embarrassing to me to see the official record showing that I failed to Alert. After working diligently for weeks to summarize the ACBL regulations in a readable and consistent form, and criticizing those regs for their complications, inconsistencies, errors, ambiguities, and imcompleteness, which made the task very difficult, it is obviously incumbent upon me to be careful about Alerting properly, and I do. During the AC meeting, no one mentioned any failure to Alert. Just because a TD doesn't note an Alert clearly, understandable here because it was not a factor in the case, does not mean that someone should say I did not Alert. The most they can say is that it is not known whether a call was Alerted or not. The accusation by the opponents did not mention any failure to Alert, as they would certainly have done to build up their case. The change never got made. I don't know if Rich forgot, or what.There it is on the Internet, for all to see. Also included is Jon Brissman's remark about what Alice would probably do if her spades and diamonds were exchanged (double fast, which she has never done in her life). He withdrew this outrageous statement during the meeting, then put it into the record. I do not understand why an AC report cannot be reviewed by those involved. Just print a copy, put it in a basket, and let those who are interested come down and take a look. Then it's up to them to run down anyone responsible for an error and have him/her get it corrected. No extra work for you, Linda. Anyone wanting a copy of my Alert Procedure summary and/or the critique of the Alert regs, just ask for either or both from me by e-mail. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 06:42:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:42:00 +1100 Received: from imo04.mail.aol.com (imo04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.106]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13209 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 06:41:55 +1100 From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <47ee631d.348704f0@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:30:54 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: skip bid warning 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 Chyah Burghard wrote > Gary was out of the office, but I spoke to Butch Campbell. > > The current ACBL "regulation" is that no matter whether > your right hand opponent uses the stop card or not, > you are required to wait 10 seconds. >Butch felt that the absence of a skip card might cause >a director to allow a 15 second pause, rather than a >10 second pause simply because your brain has to >process the fact that it was a skip bid. Sounds good to me, and maybe should have been applied by the TD in the case of St. Louis Appeal No. 2. If this is indeed a regulation, then maybe Gary Blaiss should see to it that it becomes enforced. Hardly anyone is hesitating over a skip bid, with or without the warning, and TDs are ruling that 10 second pauses over a skip bid constitute UI. Maybe Butch could inform us as to the place in the BoD minutes that shows where this regulation was passed. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 07:59:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:59:08 +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 HAA13546 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:59:02 +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 PAA09692 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:59:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03548; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:59:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:59:12 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712042059.PAA03548@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Also included is Jon Brissman's remark about > what Alice would probably do if her spades and diamonds were exchanged (double > fast, which she has never done in her life). He withdrew this outrageous > statement during the meeting, then put it into the record. This sort of remark should be more embarrassing for Jon than for Alice. I understand how it can happen, though. It is very hard to exercise good judgment and even harder to write clearly when very tired. (Just look at a sample of Usenet postings for examples!) Sitting on AC's is an enormous burden on those who do it, and we cannot expect perfection. On the other hand, it seems to me that the responsibility for an accurate, official AC report rests with the AC, not the parties to the appeal. There are several ways for that responsibility to be carried out, among them letting interested parties review and comment upon a preliminary draft, but others as well. Alternatively, written reports could be discontinued or simply labelled unofficial (with the implication that they are not necessarily accurate), but that isn't really desirable if there is a practical alternative. Even if the Daily Bulletin reports are preliminary (and so labelled), final, corrected reports could be prepared for the book and ideally would be on the web site. In fact, publishing a "preliminary" report in the DB with notice of how corrections can be _suggested_ (e.g. in writing to the AC chair) is not at all a bad way to work things. An alternative would be to have a knowledgeable editor who could check writeups with the AC chair when something looks odd or even rewrite all reports in a uniform style. (Newspapers have people who do both jobs.) Of course any of this is extra work for somebody, but it might make things easier for the AC chair. Checking for accuracy really does take a lot of work, but it's wrong to imply that the work has been done if it hasn't been. There are other cases (not terribly numerous) where the decision makes little sense on the basis of the written report. I assume that the reports of these cases were garbled somehow or just badly written. That's easy to understand, but it would be nice if there were a mechanism to improve things. Given the constraints of volunteer labor, maybe it isn't possible. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 08:28:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:28:50 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13767 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:28:45 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA24167 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:28:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA26906; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:29:39 -0800 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:29:39 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199712042129.NAA26906@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 - No Skip Bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > What do you mean, simply procedural? The skip bid was introduced to > solve an ethical problem - it is not simply procedural. People who > cannot be bothered with it should not be protected by it! The act of giving the warning is a procedure; failing to perform that act correctly or at all is a procedural error. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 08:34:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:34:56 +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 IAA13835 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:34:26 +1100 Received: from ptp208.ac.net (ptp208.ac.net [205.138.55.117]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA09521; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:34:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34874B76.3EC8@ac.net> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 16:31:50 -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, Mlfrench Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 References: <66fb99d.34870319@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench wrote: > When I saw in the Daily Bulletin that I supposedly had not Alerted Alice's > negative double, I went to Rich Colker to find out why this mistake was made. > He looked up his edited copy of the AC report, and saw that the words "not > Alerted" were added by himself when editiing it. Then he looked up the > original report received from the TD and noted that an asterisk was appended > to the double. We have learned to make no assumptions about small annotations in auctions, asterisks don't mean much. Directors are instructed on the form to annotate any Alerts, this is what we go by. There were other errors at this Nationals in both directions (calls that weren't alerted and marked as such; calls that were alerted and not marked; we try to catch them all) Responsibility: Director first, Committee second. They are both supposed to get this info. Second biggest gripe: they don't annotate when the Director is called; things are getting better, we will probably never be perfect. Casebook expert commentators like to have all this info and we try to provide it. He said, "It looks like the double was Alerted. I wrote in "not > Alerted" because someone on the AC told me that, I can't remember who." He > said he would ask the Bulletin office to change the official record > accordingly. Jon Brissman was a witness to this conversation, did not > contradict Rich's remarks, and seemed to acquiesce in the change. His only > comment was "I didn't think this was a factor in the case." I agreed, but said > that it was embarrassing to me to see the official record showing that I > failed to Alert. > > > > The change never got made. I don't know if Rich forgot, or what.There it is on > the Internet, for all to see. Also included is Jon Brissman's remark about > what Alice would probably do if her spades and diamonds were exchanged (double > fast, which she has never done in her life). He withdrew this outrageous > statement during the meeting, then put it into the record. I was there, I personally took the change to Kent B. the next day, he said he could do it in two of the formats, not necessarily the Acrobat format. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 10:37:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:37:12 +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 KAA14451 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:37:04 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008546; 4 Dec 97 23:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:11:38 +0000 To: David Martin Cc: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: LAW 17D In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Martin writes >Maddog wrote: > >>In message >ise.demon.co.uk>, David Martin writes >>>Laval wrote: >>> >>> >>>BIG SNIP >>> >>>I agree with your interpretation. >>>> >>>>On board 1, N is dealer. On board 2, he is fourth seat. Does this board >>>>will be played if N bid 1S as responder to an opening, an overcall or a >>>>X >>>>by S or on any other auction? If yes, what about Law 16C? >>> >>>The bid (1S in this case) must be repeated with exactly the same meaning >>>because the Law says 'when offender's call *differs in any way* from his >>>original cancelled call. >>> >>>> >> Even to the extent that they play 5-9 weak 2's NV and 6-10 V ?? > >Yes, even to this extent. Afterall, the hand now cannot have exactly 5 >or 10 HCPs and is therefore 6-9 which is UI if partner has a marginal >decision at either end of the range. The Law does say 'differs in *any* >way' and does not say 'differs in any *significant* way'. I think I' going to cancel the board unless both dealer and vul are the same :-) -- 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 Dec 5 10:41:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:41:54 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14503 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:41:48 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009435; 4 Dec 97 23:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:20:45 +0000 To: Robin Barker Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 Laws: are they that much more difficult? In-Reply-To: <8258.9711261034@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <8258.9711261034@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >> From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com >> [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] >> Robin says >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 > "Yet ah! why should they know their fate? Since sorrow never comes too late, And happiness too swiftly flies. Thought would destroy their Paradise. No more; where ignorance is bliss 'Tis folly to be wise." Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 10:42:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:42:20 +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 KAA14518 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:42:09 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012335; 4 Dec 97 23:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:50:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: skip bid warning In-Reply-To: <199712041622.LAA86638@mime2.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: >I put a call into ACBL headquarters, so I want to make >sure you guys realize I am not quoting from printed >material in front of me. > >Gary was out of the office, but I spoke to Butch Campbell. > >The current ACBL "regulation" is that no matter whether >your right hand opponent uses the stop card or not, >you are required to wait 10 seconds. > >Butch felt that the absence of a skip card might cause >a director to allow a 15 second pause, rather than a >10 second pause simply because your brain has to >process the fact that it was a skip bid. The intersting question, Chyah, is whether the use of the skip bid is required. -- 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 Dec 5 10:46:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:46:53 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14559 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:46:46 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017176; 4 Dec 97 23:36 GMT Message-ID: <$TdsQtA$wvh0EwW$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:53:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 17D In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Even to the extent that they play 5-9 weak 2's NV and 6-10 V ?? That is a matter of judgement for the TD. -- 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 Dec 5 11:00:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:00:13 +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 LAA14593 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:00:03 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012712; 4 Dec 97 23:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:37:11 +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: > The first word of L27A is indeed 'Any' and I understand why you >interpret it as you do, however, it does seem be directly contradicted >by the first sentence of L27B which says: > >'If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it *must* be >corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid or a pass.' > >It does not go on to say '....... or another insufficient bid which is >accepted.' Taken on its own, the first sentence of L27B suggests to me >that the second insufficient bid should be cancelled, the player given >all of his options and lead penalties applied if relevant. > >These two sectoins of L27 seem to be contradictory and I can see no >reason to prefer 'Any' which is quite strong over 'must' which is >>extremely strong, ie. the Laws strongest term. They do seem contradictory, don't they? What would you think if you were a player and you knew it said "Any..." and you were not allowed to accept it? I appreciate what you say about must but it sits more easily with my feeling for this Law that we accept that "If an insuf..." really means that "If neither insuf..." in the very special circumstance we are looking at. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 11:16:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:16:26 +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 LAA14634 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:16:19 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017688; 4 Dec 97 23:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:37:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <01bd001a$6175c620$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >++++I would add here that the 1H bid is a premature action contravening 9B2 >and my view is that the auction has already stopped and the 1H is not >exposed to opponent; I agree that 'rectification' of an insufficient bid by >another insufficient bid is not an >option open to the offender. The principle, in my view, is that players of >both sides can only exercise their options after the Director has explained >what they are >and that the 1H bid is not therefore an exercise of >offender's options. ++++ This seems at variance with L9C. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 11:21:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:21:35 +1100 Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com (pimaia4w.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14658 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:21:29 +1100 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA12930 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:21:25 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA86756 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:21:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199712050021.TAA86756@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:21:23, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Alert/Skip regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Full credit should be given to Butch Campbell who went in search of it. Although this summary was taken from the Board of Director's meeting notes, the bits and pieces can be found in the "ACBL Alert Procedure." I just saw the new printed version in St. Louis and brought it home with me. =================================================== (Board of Directors - November, 1995) HOW TO ALERT USING SPOKEN BIDDING, the partner of the player making an Alertable call says "Alert". USING BIDDING BOXES, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say "Alert". IF THE BIDDING IS TAKING PLACE BEHIND SCREENS, no verbal Alerts should be made. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- HOW TO ANNOUNCE WHEN BID BOXES ARE NOT IN USE, the partner simply makes the required spoken statement. WHEN BID BOXES ARE BEING USED, the Alert strip is tapped and the appropriate spoken statement is made. In the event that cards are available with a printed statement, the Alert strip would be tapped and the appropriate printed card displayed to the opponents. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ALERTER TO ENSURE THAT THE OPPONENTS ARE AWARE THAT AN ALERT HAS BEEN MADE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ACBL REGULATIONS ON SKIP BID WARNINGS 1. How and When Made Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding: a. When bidding orally by saying, "I am about to make a skip bid. Please wait!" b. When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box. 2. Skip Bidder The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply. 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder a. All Players When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most improper. b. Experienced Players Experienced players are expected to maintain proper tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. 4. Questioning After a skip bid, players may ask questions but must still pause an appropriate amount of time for study. 5. Failure to Pause When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty (Law 90). 6. Where Used The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage it's use and require no mandated pause. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 11:26:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:26:25 +1100 Received: from pimaia2y.prodigy.com (pimaia2y.prodigy.com [198.83.18.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14686 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:26:18 +1100 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia2y.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA62860 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:26:08 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA55732 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:26:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199712050026.TAA55732@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:26:06, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Alert/Skip regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Full credit should be given to Butch Campbell who went in search of it. Although this summary was taken from the Board of Director's meeting notes, the bits and pieces can be found in the "ACBL Alert Procedure." I just saw the new printed version in St. Louis and brought it home with me. =================================================== (Board of Directors - November, 1995) HOW TO ALERT USING SPOKEN BIDDING, the partner of the player making an Alertable call says "Alert". USING BIDDING BOXES, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say "Alert". IF THE BIDDING IS TAKING PLACE BEHIND SCREENS, no verbal Alerts should be made. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- HOW TO ANNOUNCE WHEN BID BOXES ARE NOT IN USE, the partner simply makes the required spoken statement. WHEN BID BOXES ARE BEING USED, the Alert strip is tapped and the appropriate spoken statement is made. In the event that cards are available with a printed statement, the Alert strip would be tapped and the appropriate printed card displayed to the opponents. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ALERTER TO ENSURE THAT THE OPPONENTS ARE AWARE THAT AN ALERT HAS BEEN MADE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ACBL REGULATIONS ON SKIP BID WARNINGS 1. How and When Made Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding: a. When bidding orally by saying, "I am about to make a skip bid. Please wait!" b. When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box. 2. Skip Bidder The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply. 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder a. All Players When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most improper. b. Experienced Players Experienced players are expected to maintain proper tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. 4. Questioning After a skip bid, players may ask questions but must still pause an appropriate amount of time for study. 5. Failure to Pause When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty (Law 90). 6. Where Used The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage it's use and require no mandated pause. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 11:47:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:47:44 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14805 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:47:38 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA26387; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:46:56 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca1-05.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.37) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026327; Thu Dec 4 18:46:25 1997 Message-ID: <34874E9A.5B06@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 16:45:14 -0800 From: B&S <#jonbriss@ix17.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: #jonbriss@ix17.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 References: <199712042059.PAA03548@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > > > Also included is Jon Brissman's remark about > > what Alice would probably do if her spades and diamonds were exchanged (double > > fast, which she has never done in her life). He withdrew this outrageous > > statement during the meeting, then put it into the record. In response, Steve Willner wrote: > This sort of remark should be more embarrassing for Jon than for Alice. > I understand how it can happen, though. It is very hard to exercise > good judgment and even harder to write clearly when very tired. (Just > look at a sample of Usenet postings for examples!) Sitting on AC's is > an enormous burden on those who do it, and we cannot expect perfection. > Please allow me to set the record straight regarding my comment. I said that it was unlikely that Alice would have had a tempo problem if her diamonds and spades were reversed. After all, she would likely have bid in tempo upon consideration of a penalty double with a hand that clearly justified a penalty double. The tempo problem was created, in the opinion of the AC, by the fact that the penalty double she was considering did not fit her hand pattern or partnership style. I did not and do not consider my comment, made during the AC decision disclosure, to be outrageous or embarrassing; rather, it accurately reflected the AC's judgment. Mr. French took umbrage at the notion that the AC felt his partner would vary her tempo in order to communicate information about her hand, and I apologized in case he or she misconstrued my disclosure to be an accusation. I did not apologize because my statement was inaccurate. The AC deemed the break in tempo negligent - it did not impute intent. Marvin's "double fast" comment is his editorial input; my statement was "in tempo." The comment was included in the AC report article because it was the finding of the committee. I thought it correct at the time, and nothing has intervened to disabuse me or cause me to reconsider. The plain fact is that no tempo problem would have arisen had North's pointed suits been transposed, and the break in tempo could have conveyed UI that North did not have the classic penalty double or trump stack-type hand. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 12:01:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:01:32 +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 MAA14861 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:01:20 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa25864; 4 Dec 97 17:00 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Alert/Skip regulations In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 Dec 1997 19:21:23." <199712050021.TAA86756@mime2.prodigy.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 17:00:23 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9712041700.aa25864@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for the info, Chyah. I guess this means that Tony was right and I was wrong, so I'll retract my previous comment about a 3C opener causing a problem by not using a warning. I thought I had read in an ACBL Bulletin that the skip bid warning (or STOP card) was now required. Unfortunately, I've done some housecleaning and have thrown out all my Bulletins over about a year old, so I probably can't go back to the last Bulletin that published anything about skip bid regulations. So I'll just trust Chyah. I do have a question: > 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder > > a. All Players > > When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player > following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable > interval (about 10 seconds). > > In waiting the player's manner must be one that > suggests he is an active participant in the auction > (the hand should be studied during the pause). > > Any obvious display of disinterest is most improper. > > b. Experienced Players > Experienced players are expected to maintain > proper tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. In part (b), what's the definition of a "proper tempo"? Is it just the same as what's described in part (a), or is something different meant by it? I've been assuming that "proper tempo" means pausing about 10 seconds. (Also, Chyah, part (b) is missing from the Skip Bid Warnings page on the web site. I'm assuming this is not your fault but rather the fault of your operating system. Thanks much for all the other info you sent me, by the way.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 12:52:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:52:39 +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 MAA15030 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:52:24 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2000514; 5 Dec 97 1:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:39:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 17D In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >Maddog wrote: >> Even to the extent that they play 5-9 weak 2's NV and 6-10 V ?? >Yes, even to this extent. Afterall, the hand now cannot have exactly 5 >or 10 HCPs and is therefore 6-9 which is UI if partner has a marginal >decision at either end of the range. The Law does say 'differs in *any* >way' and does not say 'differs in any *significant* way'. In your local club? I believe this is a judgement matter for the TD. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 13:45:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:45:05 +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 NAA15157 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:44:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012122; 5 Dec 97 2:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:07:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert/Skip regulations In-Reply-To: <199712050026.TAA55732@mime2.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: > ACBL REGULATIONS ON SKIP BID WARNINGS > >1. How and When Made > >Players should protect their rights and the opponent's >by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid >that skips one or more levels of bidding: Should? I believe the ACBL must [: I nearly typed should!] change this to 'must'. In England/Wales players are *required* to place the Stop card on the table: wait 7-10 seconds: remove it: now the next player may bid. It is such an improvement over previous arrangements! >6. Where Used > >The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. >For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to >discourage it's use and require no mandated pause. How on earth do you expect players to learn the rules of the game if you don't apply the rules in clubs? -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 15:25:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA15428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:25:42 +1100 Received: from znet.groupz.net (znet.groupz.net [204.116.90.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA15423 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:25:36 +1100 Received: from stevenat (ags-5200-2-p8.groupz.net) by znet.groupz.net with SMTP (1.37.109.24/16.2) id AA277835185; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:13:06 -0500 From: "Steve Nathan" To: "blml" Subject: SkipBid Warning Out of Turn Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:25:51 -0500 Message-Id: <01bd0135$df023440$40428ad0@stevenat> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01BD010B.F62C2C40" X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BD010B.F62C2C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The other night at our local club (USA), North pulled the "STOP" card = when it was East's turn (as dealer) to bid. Attention was called to the = irregularity before an actual call was made. I was called on to make the ruling because our club director was not = feeling well that evening. I could not find a pertinent section at the moment.=20 My ruling was that it was tantamount to a call out of rotation and the = applicable penalties (partner barred from the auction) applied since = East chose not to condone the call. I further ruled no lead penalties = since a suit had not been mentioned. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks, Steve Nathan, Augusta, GA ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BD010B.F62C2C40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The other night at our = local club=20 (USA), North pulled the "STOP" card when it was East's turn = (as=20 dealer) to bid.  Attention was called to the irregularity before an = actual=20 call was made.
 
I was called on to make = the ruling=20 because our club director was not feeling well that = evening.
 
I could not find a pertinent section at = the=20 moment. 
 
My ruling was that it was tantamount to = a call out=20 of rotation and the applicable penalties (partner barred from the = auction)=20 applied since East chose not to condone the call.  I further ruled = no lead=20 penalties since a suit had not been mentioned.
 
I would appreciate your thoughts on=20 this.
 
Thanks,
 
Steve Nathan,
Augusta, GA
------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BD010B.F62C2C40-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 17:04:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:04:00 +1100 Received: from imo16.mail.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA15720 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:03:55 +1100 From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <149712f0.348793a2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 00:39:16 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Daily Bulletins at Nationals Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chyah Burghard wrote, in re Appeal write-ups in the NABC Bulletin and ACBL web site: > The point at which to correct an article is on the way to > Henry and Brent because by the time it gets to Kent and > me, our basic job is formatting and throwing the information > up on the web as fast as possible. > There is no way for anyone to see what the AC gives to Henry and Brent. You don't know what they wrote until you see it in the Bulletin. I don't know how it should be done, but Rich Colker's final editing for submittal to Henry and Brent should somehow be made available for perusal before it gets cast in conrete (uh, in print, I mean). I have said before that I think it would be good enough to throw a copy into a basket, and let those who wish examine them. Then those people can run around and get it corrected, if necessary, perhaps delaying its printing in the Bulletin for one day. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 17:11:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:11:41 +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 RAA15742 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:11:32 +1100 Received: from freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet2.carleton.ca [134.117.136.22]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA10165 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id BAA23099; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:09:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:09:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712050609.BAA23099@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alert/Skip regulations Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Should? I believe the ACBL must [: I nearly typed should!] change >this to 'must'. > > In England/Wales players are *required* to place the Stop card on the >table: wait 7-10 seconds: remove it: now the next player may bid. It is >such an improvement over previous arrangements! > >>6. Where Used >> > > How on earth do you expect players to learn the rules of the game if >you don't apply the rules in clubs? > >-- The clubs granted sanctions by the ACBL are quite autonomous. As far as I know ( I manage one club, and direct at a couple of others) the only time we have to follow ACBL regulations is when we hold ACBL sponsored games, for example unit wide charities, STACs, Olympiad Fund games, ect.. Otherwise, we run the clubs as we like: gcc or not, SBW or not, alert procedure or not... In other words, the ACBL can't (yet!) make us toe the party line. Would you please describe the relationship between the EBU and the clubs they sanction? Thanks. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 5 19:55:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA16223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:55:35 +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 TAA16217 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:55:19 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id AAA16048; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 00:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma015917; Fri, 5 Dec 97 00:53:08 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA27775 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:04:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712050904.BAA27775@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 5 Dec 97 08:29:20 GMT Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Stephen Barnfield wrote: >> all snipped out >> > ++++When The Player ('TP') has agreed the meaning of possible >action(s) in such a sequence, has a hand suitable for use of the >agreement, and makes an insufficient bid, You are of course right to express incredulity! I meant, as I should have made clear, the same sequence, or a similar one, without the insufficient bid. >my incredulity would cause > me to look with some affection upon the reference to Law 23 in 27B2 > if TP's partner were thereby silenced. This aside, in my >view the meaning of the double in your second example is only what >it is in consequence of the withdrawn action of TP; it is dependent >upon it for its change of meaning. ++++ Grattan. I infer you think the score should be adjusted in both examples. Considering example 2 does this extend to the second instance being: 1) against different opponents? 2) next week? 3) next year? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 6 01:03:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:03:19 +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 BAA19609 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:02:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2016772; 5 Dec 97 13:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:26:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: SkipBid Warning Out of Turn In-Reply-To: <01bd0135$df023440$40428ad0@stevenat> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Nathan wrote: >The other night at our local club (USA), North pulled the "STOP" card when it >was East's turn (as dealer) to bid. Attention was called to the irregularity >before an actual call was made. > >I was called on to make the ruling because our club director was not feeling >well that evening. > >I could not find a pertinent section at the moment. > >My ruling was that it was tantamount to a call out of rotation and the >applicable penalties (partner barred from the auction) applied since East chose >not to condone the call. I further ruled no lead penalties since a suit had not >been mentioned. > >I would appreciate your thoughts on this. I am always sympathetic to someone who has had to take over in an emergency. Unfortunately on this occasion you have not quite got it right. The call is made when the bidding cards are taken from the bidding box apparently intentionally but this refers to the bid itself and not the Stop card. In fact the correct ruling is for the bidding to revert to the correct dealer, and the Stop card is treated as unauthorised information for partner, but authorised information for opponents. You cannot force someone to complete a partial designation. The equivalent using spoken bidding is if someone says "Stop: oh!!! It's not my turn, is it?" that is not a call: in fact even "Stop: three...: oh!!! It's not my turn, is it?" is not. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 6 01:44:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:44:34 +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 BAA19721 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 01:44:27 +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 JAA93714 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:44:16 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA74440 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:44:15 -0500 Message-Id: <199712051444.JAA74440@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:44:15, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alert/Skip regulations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 07:53:18 -0600 From: Butch Campbell To: DMFV47B@prodigy.com Subject: skip procedure follow up question -Reply Adam wrote: > b. Experienced Players > Experienced players are expected to maintain > proper tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. In part (b), what's the definition of a "proper tempo"? Is it just the same as what's described in part (a), or is something different meant by it? I've been assuming that "proper tempo" means pausing about 10 seconds. ============================================== >From Butch Campbell: The proper interval is still about 10 seconds for experienced players with no skip bid warning. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 6 03:37:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:37:25 +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 DAA20326 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:37:16 +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 LAA29903; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:37:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04070; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:37:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:37:22 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712051637.LAA04070@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: #jonbriss@ix17.ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: B&S <#jonbriss@ix17.ix.netcom.com> > Please allow me to set the record straight regarding my comment. I said > that it was unlikely that Alice would have had a tempo problem if her > diamonds and spades were reversed. I apologize for not looking up the exact statement before commenting. See my remarks about the difficulty of exercising good judgment in all cases. The entire text of the AC decision was (as taken from the text version of the Daily Bulletin on the ACBL web site): The Committee believed that if North's spade and diamond suits had been interchanged, the hesitation was not likely to have occurred. The hesitation thus conveyed the information to South that the penalty double was not based on length and strength in trump. While South did not have an ideal hand for defense, his hand was within the range that his partner could have anticipated when she chose the penalty double. The unauthorized information suggested that bidding 3S was more likely to be successful than passing so South was not allowed to select that action. Since E/W would most probably win ten tricks, the contract was changed to 3D doubled made four, plus 870 for both sides. The first sentence seems to be intended to justify the AC's finding that the slow double suggested pulling. Was that in dispute? Even if so, it would have been better to avoid such a speculative and accusatory statement or at least put it in proper context. Switching the order of the first two sentences would be a good start. Even better would be to stress that the matter is one of the AC's judgment. How about: The Committee believed that the hesitation conveyed the information to South that the penalty double was based on less than average length and strength in trump. For example, if North's spade and diamond suits had been interchanged, many players would have doubled in tempo. This avoids, I think, the sort of personal accusation that the 1975 Laws changes intended to avoid. If "suggested over another" is not an issue, the second sentence may not be needed at all. As the report was written, it does seem to go out of its way to accuse North of improper conduct. Let me repeat that I have enormous respect and appreciation for the work of the AC members. What's missing is some editorial oversight in the production of the reports. (An editor also would have asked the committee to state explicitly its finding about the length of the hesitation and perhaps asked for a bit more on whether or not pass was a LA, which I had understood to be the key point in the appeal. And the facts about alerts and whose CC was looked at should, ideally, have been checked.) Let me repeat also that I am expressing no opinion on the outcome of this particular case. And finally, everyone should remember that perfection is impossible in the real world. The best we can do is try to learn from our mistakes and improve what we can within practical constraints. We should be grateful that there are dedicated AC members willing to serve and produce reports at all, even if we think that better procedures might be possible. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 6 04:29:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 04:29:10 +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 EAA20618 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 04:28:50 +1100 Received: from default (client82f9.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.249]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA07366; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:30:07 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael S. Dennis" , "Tony Musgrove" Cc: Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:04:20 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd00c5$e6a56c00$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Tony Musgrove To: Michael S. Dennis Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 December 1997 07:14 Subject: Re: Demonstrably Diamonds? >At 11:52 PM 02/12/1997 -0500, you wrote: >>At 06:08 PM 12/2/97 +0000, David wrote: >>>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>> >>>>What South has to say in his own defense is virtually irrelevant, whether > > hack, hack hack > >..... and continues>>Statements such as "I would have bid that way anyway", or " I always double >>in these situations," are simply irrelevant, because the determination is >>not to be based on whether this player did or did not use UI in making a >>decision, but on what we judge other players of similar ability and methods >>might have done>> > > ++++ I suggest 'similar ability and *identical* system' would be a happier statement. One of the most difficult things to get across to players with set views on what is right and wrong in the auction, and particularly the case with strong players, is that when judging an appeal they must give themselves the same tools as the player whose action they must judge and make a fresh judgement - they are wrong if they merely say 'I would bid 'x' every time', referring to their own views on how the game "must" be played and basing the decision on their own methods. ++++ Grattan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 6 07:38:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 07:38:53 +1100 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA21509 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 07:38:46 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp41.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.41]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id PAA17935 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:32:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971205154050.006b913c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 15:40:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) In-Reply-To: <199712021845.KAA23843@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:45 AM 12/2/97 -0800, Jeff wrote: >It just occurred to me that the ruling was wrong in >an ACBL event, as far as I know. Didn't the jump >overcall have a note that said, "no skip bid warning?" >If so, then as far as I understand it, the ACBL has >ruled that there cannot be any ruling against the >next player due to tempo. I think this is a stupid >rule, but it is, as far as I know, still on the books, >and should have been invoked in this case. On the >other hand, it was such a silly rule that I think it >really should always be ignored, in which case, the >ruling boils down to bridge judgment. > --Jeff >PS: I looked around at the ACBL web site, but didn't >find said rule. I'm nearly certain that it existed >at some point in 1997. Does anyone know its current >status? The ACBL has made a lot of pronouncements about skip bids and skip bid warnings, and they have not been entirely consistent. But I don't think they've ever said that in the absence of a skip-bid warning there cannot be ANY ruling against the next player due to tempo. What they have said, and what seems to be generally accepted (at least in this area), is that in the absence of the warning TDs/ACs should, barring exceptional circumstances, not rule against the next player for bidding too quickly. If he huddles for a minute and a half, that is potentially actionable UI whether there was a warning or not. I don't think you'll find any one official pronouncement, but, putting the various official statements together, the policy (and general practice), at least around here, seems to be: - Players are encouraged to warn whenever they skip. - It is legal, although discouraged, to not use warnings. - It is, however, improper, to warn for some skip bids but not others. You must either give a skip bid warning every time you skip the bidding or not give skip bid warnings at all. - After a skip bid, the next player to call should wait approximately 10 seconds before calling. This is true whether or not there was a skip bid warning. - Failure to wait after a skip bid preceded by a warning is presumed to have conveyed UI prima facie. If there was no preceding warning, however, UI should not be presumed absent other indications. In other words, without the warning, if you bid quickly, but not so quickly that you would have been out of tempo after a non-skip bid, we just assume that you forgot that you were supposed to wait. In other other words, the penalty for failing to give a skip bid warning is that you adversely prejudice your right to redress if the next player bids more quickly than he should. - An obvious long tank after a skip bid is treated as any obvious long tank would be, regardless of whether there was a warning or not. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 6 10:39:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA22082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:39:38 +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 KAA22077 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:39:32 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025212; 5 Dec 97 23:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:58:53 +0000 To: Steve Nathan Cc: blml From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: SkipBid Warning Out of Turn In-Reply-To: <01bd0135$df023440$40428ad0@stevenat> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bd0135$df023440$40428ad0@stevenat>, Steve Nathan writes >The other night at our local club (USA), North pulled the "STOP" card when it >was East's turn (as dealer) to bid. Attention was called to the irregularity >before an actual call was made. > >I was called on to make the ruling because our club director was not feeling >well that evening. > >I could not find a pertinent section at the moment. > >My ruling was that it was tantamount to a call out of rotation and the >applicable penalties (partner barred from the auction) applied since East chose >not to condone the call. I further ruled no lead penalties since a suit had not >been mentioned. > >I would appreciate your thoughts on this. > >Thanks, > >Steve Nathan, >Augusta, GA No call, no infraction, just a spot of UI. -- 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 Dec 7 01:37:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 01:37:16 +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 BAA25972 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 01:37:00 +1100 Received: from cph18.ppp.dknet.dk (cph18.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.18]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA21860 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:36:33 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 15:36:32 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <348960f7.1816381@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <66fb99d.34870319@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <66fb99d.34870319@aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:23:03 EST, Mlfrench wrote: >When I saw in the Daily Bulletin that I supposedly had not Alerted = Alice's >negative double, I went to Rich Colker to find out why this mistake was = made. Why are appeals published with the player's names? It seems to me that the purpose of officially publishing appeals would be served just as well if the players were anonymous. If the players were anonymous, if would not be a problem if an alert that was not a factor in the case were forgotten, since the bulletin account of the case would then be a story about the "factors in the case" rather than about specific players. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 7 01:53:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 01:53:37 +1100 Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com (pimaia4w.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA26018 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 01:53:32 +1100 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA10242 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:53:27 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA50558 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:53:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199712061453.JAA50558@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:53:26, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why are appeals published with the player's names? It seems to me that the purpose of officially publishing appeals would be served just as well if the players were anonymous. If the players were anonymous, if would not be a problem if an alert that was not a factor in the case were forgotten, since the bulletin account of the case would then be a story about the "factors in the case" rather than about specific players. =============== Whether the names appear depends on what events you are playing in and what your rating is as a player. If you play in anything below flight A, your name does not appear. I must admit, I don't know how this rule applies to stratified events. I think the idea was to slow down the number of appeals. That if people knew their names would be published, they would make sure they had a good case. If you are playing in a national event, you must put down a $50 deposit. This $50 is only kept if they think your case is without merit. They do have directors screening cases and making recommendations on whether they think you have a case. -Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 7 17:41:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA28438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:41:12 +1100 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA28433 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:41:07 +1100 From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <71a83614.348a44c1@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 01:39:59 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote, replying to a comment by Jeff, > he ACBL has made a lot of pronouncements about skip bids and skip bid > warnings, and they have not been entirely consistent. But I don't think > they've ever said that in the absence of a skip-bid warning there cannot be > ANY ruling against the next player due to tempo. What they have said, and > what seems to be generally accepted (at least in this area), is that in the > absence of the warning TDs/ACs should, barring exceptional circumstances, > not rule against the next player for bidding too quickly. If he huddles > for a minute and a half, that is potentially actionable UI whether there > was a warning or not. Since this subject is being discussed under the subject of my Appeal No. 2, let me interject that Alice's break in tempo was no more than 10 seconds, but more than her usual 5-6 seconds (which IMO is long enough, 10 seconds is a LONG time). She always looks at the opponents' card when they preempt, even with a bust, and that took up some of the time. She never doubles fast, even with a trump stack, not for ethical reasons, although she is very ethical, but because she is worried about doing something wrong. Of course there was no way for the AC to know that, and any remark I made to that effect would have been immediately labled "self-serving." Strange that corroborating statements by appellants that cannot be proven are labeled "self-serving," while unproved statements by the AC are fully accepted. The AC gave no weight to the opponent's failure to put out the STOP card, chairman Jon Brissman assuring me when I brought it up that skip bid warnings are entirely optional. I did not press the point because Alice dithered a little more than usual, which is indeed UI. Still, now that I've read so many comments on the subject, I think the AC could have tilted the scale in our favor on this basis. Incidentally, I think it would be a good idea if people would pause a few seconds before calling when using the STOP card. I also think the STOP card should be mandatory in pair and BAM events, omissible with opponents' permission in Swiss and knockouts. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 7 18:11:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA28493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 18:11:12 +1100 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA28488 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 18:11:08 +1100 From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <4beeac6c.348a4be8@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 02:10:30 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chyah wrote, in answer to Jesper's question of why players' names are shown on the Appeal reports: > Whether the names appear depends on what events > you are playing in and what your rating is as a player. > > If you play in anything below flight A, your name does > not appear. I must admit, I don't know how this rule > applies to stratified events. I had the impression that names are shown only for those participating in NABC-level events, with no regard to player rating. I would like to know why the TD gets to be anonymous. Even the casebooks don't include TD names. We want to know who the TDs are who make those good rulings. (snip) > If you are playing in a national event, you must put > down a $50 deposit. This $50 is only kept if they > think your case is without merit. They do have > directors screening cases and making recommendations > on whether they think you have a case. But the recommendations are not binding on the AC. If the Screener (assuming it's a knowledgeable person, as in my case--Brian Moran) opines that an appeal is justified, the $50 should not be in jeopardy. Of course the AC must not know the Screener's opinion until their own opinion is arrived at. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 7 23:10:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:10:39 +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 XAA28961 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:10:33 +1100 Received: from ptp196.ac.net (ptp196.ac.net [205.138.55.105]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id HAA14085 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 07:10:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <348ABBC9.6330@ac.net> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 07:07:53 -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: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 References: <199712061453.JAA50558@mime2.prodigy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Why are appeals published with the player's names? It seems to > me that the purpose of officially publishing appeals would be > served just as well if the players were anonymous. > That was the great debate. If you think about it you will work out why so many like the names. > > If you play in anything below flight A, your name does > not appear. I must admit, I don't know how this rule > applies to stratified events. > Not quite, but close! Names are used in all NABC events and SEPARATE FLight A Events... (this was decided by the Board of Directors). Therefore, no names in stratified games or bracketed knockouts. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 7 23:15:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:15:39 +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 XAA28977 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:15:34 +1100 Received: from ptp196.ac.net (ptp196.ac.net [205.138.55.105]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id HAA14162 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 07:15:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <348ABCF8.45FA@ac.net> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 07:12:56 -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: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 References: <4beeac6c.348a4be8@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench wrote: > > I would like to know why the TD gets to be anonymous. > Even the casebooks don't include TD names. We want to > know who the TDs are who make those good rulings. > I thought I answered this: a Director ruling is considered to be made by the Directing Staff, not a single Director. They usually consult with up to four or five Director's before a ruling is made. So, blame all of them :-) > > If you are playing in a national event, you must put > > down a $50 deposit. This $50 is only kept if they > > think your case is without merit. They do have > > directors screening cases and making recommendations > > on whether they think you have a case. > > But the recommendations are not binding on the AC. If > the Screener (assuming it's a knowledgeable person, > as in my case--Brian Moran) opines that an appeal is > justified, the $50 should not be in jeopardy. Of course > the AC must not know the Screener's opinion until > their own opinion is arrived at. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) And, no matter what the screener says, the player still has the right to appeal. Brian is quite careful in his screening and leaves the decision to appeal up to the player. Whether he thinks an appeal is justified or not is really irrelevent. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 00:28:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 00:28:02 +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 AAA01513 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 00:27:50 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-58.star.net.il [195.8.208.58]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA04166 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:28:06 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <348AA4A7.CBE66668@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 15:29:11 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: "Herman's normality restoring enhanced principle" - Nexus broken - Lesson 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Preface ------- As I promised some days ago I put on paper/screen my lessons from "nexus" broken" and a lot of subjects we discussed last weeks , including "claim and revoke" and last "David Stevenson's troubles" as he asked in "insufficient bids". Lesson 1 presents the problem of "irregularities' chain". Definition ---------- An "irregularities' chain" is a series of infractions occurring during one board's bid or/and play period. The irregularities may occur instantaneously or subsequently , sometimes an event embedded into another. We had a lot of examples for almost every basic combination but I am sure that always there will be a new outstanding case. My proposal - Problem A - Instantaneous infractions . ------------ I suggest to consider them subsequently , by the order of the regular rotation of bid and play. For example : if Est revokes and South claims the same second I consider that Est revoked first and then South Claimed . If Est claims and South revokes the same second : I consider Est claimed first and then what South did is irrelevant , because applying the Laws relevant for Claim the play ceased. My Proposal - Problem B - Subsequent irregularities ---------- I suggest to rule subsequent irregularities one by one in the order they happened , based on the main scope of Laws (read first page before Definitions) : ".....not as Punishment for irregularities but rather as REDRESS FOR DAMAGE". Then use "Herman's normality restoring enhanced principle": a) rule first infraction and restore normality , keeping in mind the provisions and penalties allowed by the laws dealing with that irregularity. b) rule the second infraction from the stage the first one has been solved and Normality/Equity restored. Consider the provisions and penalties and constraints included in the laws dealing with this irregularity and move to next irregularity.... c) rule the third irregularity from the virtual restored normality point and so on until ...the doomsday !!!!!LOL I mean the end of the chain. For example : the "nexus broken" case - there were two irregularities (let agree for this case that the 5S bid was infraction). The ruling must be,according to my approach, 1) decide what should be the decision for the first infraction: either let the *CONTRACT* 6H or 5S-Dbl or 4H or whatever the TD will decide. 2) decide what will be the number of tricks won by the declarer playing the contract you decided for 1) above ; if the TD decides that 5S player is declarer , then the revoke will be irrelevant. Please think about these proposal and express yours opinions, trying to be "The Devil's Advocate" and find a case where the explicit laws show a different approach. Thank you all Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 00:29:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 00:29:32 +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 AAA01531 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 00:29:22 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-58.star.net.il [195.8.208.58]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA04176 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:29:44 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <348AA50A.379EDA80@star.net.il> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 15:30:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: "Irritating Infraction as Causality" - Nexus broken - Lesson 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Irritating Infraction as Causality" Preface ------- As I promised some days ago I put on paper/screen my lessons from "nexus" broken" and a lot of subjects we discussed last weeks , including "claim and revoke" and last "David Stevenson's troubles" as he asked in "insufficient bids". Lesson 3 , which I learnt from these cases and my experience presents the problem of "irritating infractions". Definition ---------- An "irritating infraction " is : either an egregious or unpolite infraction/mannerism/"public UI" or a very "dirty" discussion or conduct upon non agreed facts. Analysis -------- 1) An "irritating infraction" produces different reactions and effects to different kinds of people and to different level of players. 2) Very experienced players or pros are known as not to be influenced by any event occurring at the table. But most "regular" players - as much as I met them during the last 10 years - become from very upset to "black out" . 3) IMHO these situations produce damage to the non-offending side for about 80% of the events. 4) I believe that all high level TD use "Kaplan's causality principle" in order to decide to adjust score or not. The Question ------------ If a) we agree that the "irritated" non-offending side's play is affected (badly) and he/she may make mistakes because that infractory "Irritation" and b) we are using the "Causality principle" and c) assuming there was a damage produced by a bad play of the irritated non offending side X) do we decide that there is the necessary linkage between the damage and the infraction ????????? My thoughts ------------ I read a lot of examples here and the last one - in spite of the fact that is not directly related to this item - was a split decision , just to keep "lovely atmosphere" in the club. No doubt it is a very important issue , not the most , but when there is no very precious trophy to win I accept that should manage things that way. And more - it is a sport/entertainment - the moment the "natural enjoy" and "sportive" vanish , the game becomes...... We must also remember that the TD is supposed to do the most to let the game "flow" as much as possible. My suggestions -------------- When an "irritating irregularity" occurs we are allowed : 1. To let play continue and if the non-offending irritated side made a clear damaging mistake consider it as a result of the irritation. OR 2. To stop play and decide for an assigned score , in order to avoid embarrassing situation like written in 1. above or "inevitable double shot" as in lesson 2 ..... REMARKS ------- Please Remember the scope of Laws. Please send your opinions and again "The Devil's Advocate" messages will be very important. Thank you all Dany From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 05:07:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 05:07:28 +1100 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02290 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 05:07:23 +1100 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id MAA08219 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:07:18 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GZEY00Z Sun, 07 Dec 97 12:05:22 Message-ID: <9712071205.0GZEY00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 07 Dec 97 12:05:22 Subject: What is irrational play To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This end position occurred in a club game and created a discussion that perhaps the group will settle. Declarer is a reasonable flight B player. DEAL # 23 VUL EW DEALER S S T74 H 4 D - C T7 S 8 S - H 86 H 9732 D K42 D A8 C - C - S QJ5 H - D T97 C - N E S W 2S X 4S 5H This is the position at trick 8 where declarer has regained the lead and claims stating that the defense receives a trump trick. A few seconds later declarer states that they did not remember seeing the jack of trumps played [dummy played it a trick 2]. When north says that they will take the trump four because declarer conceded it and it was possible to trump the next diamond, Declarer states that íof course, I will always play trump first’. Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not considered irrational to not pull the last trump? Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer? Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 06:56:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:56:45 +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 GAA02597 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 06:56:39 +1100 Received: from [130.132.145.68] ([130.132.145.68]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.0/64) id 3644600 ; Sun, 07 Dec 1997 14:58:12 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:56:01 -0500 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org From: bills@cshore.com (Bill Segraves) Subject: Re: What is irrational play Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-Id: <199712071958.3644600@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If you change the 4 of hearts into the Jack of hearts, there is nothing at all irrational about leaving it out while playing winners. In similar positions, it is not at all unusual for a claim to be stated "take your high trump whenever you want". Therefore, I see no reason to presume that declarer would have next played trumps without being alerted to the fact that the outstanding trump was, in fact, the 4. Cheers, Bill Segraves >This end position occurred in a club game and created a discussion that >perhaps the group will settle. Declarer is a reasonable flight B >player. > >DEAL # 23 > >VUL EW >DEALER S > S T74 > H 4 > D - > C T7 >S 8 S - >H 86 H 9732 >D K42 D A8 >C - C - > S QJ5 > H - > D T97 > C - >N E S W > > 2S X >4S 5H > > This is the position at trick 8 where declarer has regained the lead >and claims stating that the defense receives a trump trick. A few >seconds later declarer states that they did not remember seeing the >jack of trumps played [dummy played it a trick 2]. When north says >that they will take the trump four because declarer conceded it and it >was possible to trump the next diamond, Declarer states that =CCof >course, I will always play trump first=ED. > >Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not >considered irrational to not pull the last trump? > >Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer? > > > > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >___ >* UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 07:05:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:05:15 +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 HAA02623 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:05:05 +1100 Received: from default (client8353.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.83]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA03519; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 20:06:51 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Insufficient bids Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:54:41 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd0349$f4eb5000$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : \\\With ----- >>> > They do seem contradictory, don't they? What would you think if you >were a player and you knew it said "Any..." and you were not allowed to >accept it? >> ++++I would wish to know whether there were a specific law which was over-riding the general law. My other meditation is on the question whether the second insufficient 'bid' can be part of the legal auction since the first one has not been rectified as the laws require.++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 07:05:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:05:14 +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 HAA02622 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:05:05 +1100 Received: from default (client8353.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.83]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA03503; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 20:06:49 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Insufficient bids Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:29:38 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd0346$75451e60$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 05 December 1997 01:16 Subject: Re: Insufficient bids >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>++++I would add here that the 1H bid is a premature action contravening 9B2 >>and my view is that the auction has already stopped and the 1H is not >>exposed to opponent; I agree that 'rectification' of an insufficient bid by >>another insufficient bid is not an >>option open to the offender. The principle, in my view, is that players of >>both sides can only exercise their options after the Director has explained >>what they are >>and that the 1H bid is not therefore an exercise of >>offender's options. ++++ > > This seems at variance with L9C ++++ Interesting comment; must think carefully. One tends to assume this reference is to lead penalties by intention, and they would apply in the case of a premature call cancelled by the director of course. But since I am fond of pointing out that we must live according to the wording of the law I should not jump in too quickly to discount what you say. Have we perhaps created rather more than we realise here? ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 07:05:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:05:16 +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 HAA02621 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:05:05 +1100 Received: from default (client8353.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.83]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA03482; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 20:06:40 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 17:47:58 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd01a5$ecc66ae0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 05 December 1997 09:45 Subject: Re: UI from infraction or AI from penalty ? (was Re:Insufficient bid) >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>Stephen Barnfield wrote: > >>> >all snipped out >>> > \\\\\much more snip-ping///> >Considering example 2 does this extend to the second instance being: > >1) against different opponents? > >2) next week? > >3) next year? ++++ I think generalisation dangerous; my historic stance is that where judgement is needed in a specific case the TD and then the AC are there to provide it. If the signs are at all persuasive that TP could reasonably be thought to have recognised the situation and recalled the agreement, my view is that the TD should do the game a favour by ruling so and letting TP argue it before the AC. I also believe that the success of an obscure ploy through the apparent collusion of partners can be very persuasive of the existence of an understanding.++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 10:09:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:09:01 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA03154 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:08:50 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010526; 7 Dec 97 23:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 22:46:41 +0000 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: What is irrational play In-Reply-To: <9712071205.0GZEY00@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9712071205.0GZEY00@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > > > >This end position occurred in a club game and created a discussion that >perhaps the group will settle. Declarer is a reasonable flight B >player. > >DEAL # 23 > >VUL EW >DEALER S > S T74 > H 4 > D - > C T7 >S 8 S - >H 86 H 9732 >D K42 D A8 >C - C - > S QJ5 > H - > D T97 > C - >N E S W > > 2S X >4S 5H > > This is the position at trick 8 where declarer has regained the lead >and claims stating that the defense receives a trump trick. A few >seconds later declarer states that they did not remember seeing the >jack of trumps played [dummy played it a trick 2]. When north says >that they will take the trump four because declarer conceded it and it >was possible to trump the next diamond, Declarer states that of >course, I will always play trump first. > >Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not >considered irrational to not pull the last trump? > >Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer? > > > IMO declarer had been counting trumps but was unaware of the rank of the missing one. IMO it is irrational not to draw it as the rest are high and "surprise surprise" we have the beating of it. Rest of tricks to declarer and a quiet word in declarer's shell-like ear about not making bum claims. It would be irrational to have a high D ruffed. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >___ >* UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader -- 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 Dec 8 10:23:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:23:34 +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 KAA03192 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:22:56 +1100 Received: from cph39.ppp.dknet.dk (cph39.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.39]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA01118 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 00:22:39 +0100 (MET) From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 00:22:37 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <348d2bff.1617555@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199712061453.JAA50558@mime2.prodigy.com> <348ABBC9.6330@ac.net> In-Reply-To: <348ABBC9.6330@ac.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 07 Dec 1997 07:07:53 -0800, "L. Weinstein" wrote: >> Why are appeals published with the player's names? It seems to >> me that the purpose of officially publishing appeals would be >> served just as well if the players were anonymous. >>=20 >That was the great debate. If you think about it you will work out why >so many like the names. If the reason for publishing the names is a deliberate desire to penalize offenders by public humiliation in addition to the penalties given in the ruling itself, then it seems to me that it is extremely important to not accuse players incorrectly of even a small and insignificant procedural error. In fact, I would then consider it a very serious error if such an account incorrectly said that a player neglected to alert an obviously alertable call and the next issue of the bulletin did not carry a prominently placed correction and apology. It also seems to me that it would be better to impose large enough penalties using the means provided by the laws instead of using publication as an additional penalty. If, on the other hand, the purpose of publishing appeals is general education and information about the laws of the game and their correct application, then there is no reason to publish names. In Denmark, we publish the decisions of the National AC (which is also the NA) in anonymous form. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 10:53:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:53:37 +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 KAA03302 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:53:32 +1100 Received: from mike (ip202.baltimore6.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.182.202]) by brickbat8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA05108 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 18:53:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971207185332.006a624c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 18:53:32 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is irrational play In-Reply-To: <9712071205.0GZEY00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 12/7/97, Roger Pewick wrote: =20 > >This end position occurred in a club game and created a discussion that=20 >perhaps the group will settle. Declarer is a reasonable flight B=20 >player. > >DEAL # 23 =09 > >VUL EW =09 >DEALER S=09 > S T74 > H 4 > D - > C T7 >S 8 S - >H 86 H 9732 >D K42 D A8 >C - C - > S QJ5 > H - > D T97 > C - >N E S W > =20 > 2S X =20 >4S 5H > > This is the position at trick 8 where declarer has regained the lead=20 >and claims stating that the defense receives a trump trick. A few=20 >seconds later declarer states that they did not remember seeing the=20 >jack of trumps played [dummy played it a trick 2]. When north says=20 >that they will take the trump four because declarer conceded it and it=20 >was possible to trump the next diamond, Declarer states that =EDof=20 >course, I will always play trump first=92. =20 > >Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not=20 >considered irrational to not pull the last trump? > >Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer?=20 > =20 It would be irrational to pull the last trump if it were not the master, but if you believed the single outstanding trump to be high, there would be no particular reason to play the cards in any particular order. This is essentially analogous to a forgotten trump. Often declarer would have drawn the missing trump in the normal order of things, but the presumption is that such an oversight could well lead to a trump trick for the defense, unless this required some severely irrational line of play (e.g., undertrumping or discarding behind defender's trump "winner"). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 13:28:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:28:44 +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 NAA03544 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:28:38 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1001515; 8 Dec 97 2:28 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 02:09:56 +0000 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: What is irrational play In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971207185332.006a624c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19971207185332.006a624c@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 12:05 PM 12/7/97, Roger Pewick wrote: > >> >>Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not >>considered irrational to not pull the last trump? >> >>Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer? >> >It would be irrational to pull the last trump if it were not the master, >but if you believed the single outstanding trump to be high, there would be >no particular reason to play the cards in any particular order. This is >essentially analogous to a forgotten trump. Often declarer would have drawn >the missing trump in the normal order of things, but the presumption is >that such an oversight could well lead to a trump trick for the defense, >unless this required some severely irrational line of play (e.g., >undertrumping or discarding behind defender's trump "winner"). > >Mike Dennis > IMO it's "fancy" play to let declarer ruff a winner when you have a preponderance of trumps and winning cards. In general players will still draw the trump, even if its a winner for oppo. In this case declarer is clearly aware of the missing trump, and almost implies they will play trump by saying they concede it. - which is a trick they happen not to be able to lose. I'd be interested in DM or DWS views on this. -- 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 Dec 8 15:20:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:20:05 +1100 Received: from oznet14.ozemail.com.au (oznet14.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA04019 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:19:57 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.55.88.85]) by oznet14.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA11219; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:19:42 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:19:42 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199712080419.PAA11219@oznet14.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: lobo@ac.net From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:12 AM 07/12/1997 -0800, you wrote: >Mlfrench wrote: >> >> I would like to know why the TD gets to be anonymous. >> Even the casebooks don't include TD names. We want to >> know who the TDs are who make those good rulings. >> then L.Weinstein replied: >I thought I answered this: a Director ruling is considered to be made by >the Directing Staff, not a single Director. They usually consult with >up to four or five Director's before a ruling is made. So, blame all of >them :-) As an interested consumer of the ACBL appeals series, I think the publishing of names adds considerably to the interest, especially when the same name crops up more than once. No doubt this is one of the major reasons for publishing the names. It may well be that the giving of a director's ruling is considered to be a joint operation, and indeed some consulation may be usual on the trickier rulings, however, there should surely be someone who takes responsibility for actually delivering the consensus? verdict at the table. Perhaps, this is the person who is responsible for checking the facts that go to the AC, or for suggesting that an appeal go ahead. If so, I can't see any harm in publishing his or her name. Tony Musgrove ".. at the end of the day, the sun will still come up in the morning" - Oz politician From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 20:02:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:02:34 +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 UAA04469 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:02:28 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA13241; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 01:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma013216; Mon, 8 Dec 97 01:00:39 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA29149 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 01:12:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712080912.BAA29149@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 8 Dec 97 08:55:13 GMT Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk lobo @ ac.net wrote: >> me that the purpose of officially publishing appeals would be >> served just as well if the players were anonymous. >> >That was the great debate. If you think about it you will work out why >so many like the names. I'm quite interested in the subject of publication of AC decisions. I can think of a number of arguments either way. I wonder if someone could elaborate what the reason(s) referred to in the comment "If you think about it you will work out why so many like the names." are. Is it just natural human curiosity? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 20:48:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:48:09 +1100 Received: from bkinis.ms.com (firewall-user@bkinis.ms.com [204.254.196.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04562 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:48:04 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bkinis.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id EAA02196 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 04:47:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma002190; Mon, 8 Dec 97 04:47:37 -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 JAA19633 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:47:36 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id JAA01206 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:47:36 GMT Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:47:36 GMT Message-Id: <9712080947.ZM1204@ms.com> In-Reply-To: "L. Weinstein" "Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2" (Dec 7, 12:55pm) References: <4beeac6c.348a4be8@aol.com> <348ABCF8.45FA@ac.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Dec 7, 12:55pm, L. Weinstein wrote: > Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 [snip - sorry, lost the other attributions] > > > If you are playing in a national event, you must put > > > down a $50 deposit. This $50 is only kept if they > > > think your case is without merit. They do have > > > directors screening cases and making recommendations > > > on whether they think you have a case. > > > > But the recommendations are not binding on the AC. If > > the Screener (assuming it's a knowledgeable person, > > as in my case--Brian Moran) opines that an appeal is > > justified, the $50 should not be in jeopardy. Of course > > the AC must not know the Screener's opinion until > > their own opinion is arrived at. > > And, no matter what the screener says, the player still has the right to > appeal. Brian is quite careful in his screening and leaves the decision > to appeal up to the player. Whether he thinks an appeal is justified or > not is really irrelevent. The point of the deposit is to discourage frivolous appeals. If the appeals screener thinks that the case is worth pursuing, then it should not be necessary to require a deposit. If, as he has a right to do, a player appeals without consulting an appeals screener, or despite being advised not to appeal, then a deposit seems appropriate. I had understood that it was the practice in ACBL events to reduce players' scores in the case of a frivolous appeal. This seems more equitable than monetary fines. Perhaps masterpoint fines would have the greatest deterrent effect! Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 22:12:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:12:26 +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 WAA04756 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:12:18 +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 MAA09887 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:12:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <348BC1E9.A4342B79@innet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 10:46:17 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: new law book edition X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When visiting the VBL offices last friday, i foudnout they now stock the ACBL version of the new Law book. Of course I immediately bought one (got a good price too). I advised them they should have chosen the British version instead (being Europeans) but I wish to know now what the possible differences are between the two editions ? David ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 8 22:12:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:12:25 +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 WAA04755 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:12:14 +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 MAA09872 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:12:09 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <348BBC53.62DB05CF@innet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 10:22:27 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What is irrational play X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9712071205.0GZEY00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > > > This end position occurred in a club game and created a discussion that > perhaps the group will settle. Declarer is a reasonable flight B > player. > Since several players on the list think it is a possible play (I for one play like this - play high cards until they ruff with the high trump), it is clearly NOT an irrational play. Mind you : L70C does NOT apply (declarer knew there was an outstanding trump), so only L71C can be used : a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play. So indeed the question asked is the correct one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 03:13:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:13:37 +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 DAA07973 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:13:29 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025512; 8 Dec 97 16:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:53:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971205154050.006b913c@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >I don't think you'll find any one official pronouncement, but, putting the >various official statements together, the policy (and general practice), at >least around here, seems to be: > >- Players are encouraged to warn whenever they skip. > >- It is legal, although discouraged, to not use warnings. > >- It is, however, improper, to warn for some skip bids but not others. You >must either give a skip bid warning every time you skip the bidding or not >give skip bid warnings at all. Since the opponents have a right to know this, presumably there is a check box on the ACBL convention card? -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 03:14:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:14:18 +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 DAA07988 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:14:12 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011471; 8 Dec 97 16:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:11:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is irrational play In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >IMO it's "fancy" play to let declarer ruff a winner when you have a >preponderance of trumps and winning cards. In general players will still >draw the trump, even if its a winner for oppo. No, John, players don't! The only reason for drawing an outstanding high trump is if you have any doubts as to whether it is high, and only a really careful declarer does that. >In this case declarer is >clearly aware of the missing trump, and almost implies they will play >trump by saying they concede it. - which is a trick they happen not to >be able to lose. I'd be interested in DM or DWS views on this. Trick to the defence. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 03:17:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:17:25 +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 DAA08011 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:17:16 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011472; 8 Dec 97 16:11 GMT Message-ID: <9j+ssJA97$i0Ewss@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:06:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 In-Reply-To: <4beeac6c.348a4be8@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench wrote: >But the recommendations are not binding on the AC. If >the Screener (assuming it's a knowledgeable person, >as in my case--Brian Moran) opines that an appeal is >justified, the $50 should not be in jeopardy. This has been discussed at length in England, where players are invited to discuss with an Appeals Adviser before appealing. The view was reached that the deposit would remain in jeopardy because so often the story given by the appealing player differed from the story finally heard by the AC. Not all players are unintelligent. The moment you introduce a rule that the deposit is not in jeopardy if an Appeals Adviser or Screener has approved it then some players will concoct a tale for him, get his approval, and now, with the deposit not in jeopardy, argue an extremely dubious case to the AC without risk. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 03:18:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:18:07 +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 DAA08027 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:17:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025515; 8 Dec 97 16:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:24:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: new law book edition In-Reply-To: <348BC1E9.A4342B79@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >When visiting the VBL offices last friday, i foudnout they now stock the >ACBL version of the new Law book. > >Of course I immediately bought one (got a good price too). > >I advised them they should have chosen the British version instead >(being Europeans) but I wish to know now what the possible differences >are between the two editions ? > >David ? The English edition is written in English ! To be honest I cannot remember the differences between the American edition and the European edition, apart from spelling. There were a few because the American edition came out earlier I think L17D was changed, and you might check that both L25A and L25B have time limits. However Grattan or Niels would probably answer this question better. I do know, however, the differences between the European edition and the English edition. In L12C3 the European edition uses the term "to do equity" taken from 1987 L12C2 footnote but in the English edition it has become "to achieve equity". Furthermore L6D2 in 1987 said No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck, or if the deal had previously been played. which clearly banned any form of duplicate bridge! At least in 1997 the European edition says No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck, or if the deal had previously been played in a different session. However the word "deck" is not used anywhere else in the Laws, and has been corrected to "pack" in the English edition. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 03:25:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:25:45 +1100 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08062 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:25:37 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic235.cais.com [207.226.56.235]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id LAA01108 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:19:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971208111941.00692660@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:19:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19971205154050.006b913c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:53 PM 12/8/97 +0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>I don't think you'll find any one official pronouncement, but, putting the >>various official statements together, the policy (and general practice), at >>least around here, seems to be: >> >>- Players are encouraged to warn whenever they skip. >> >>- It is legal, although discouraged, to not use warnings. >> >>- It is, however, improper, to warn for some skip bids but not others. You >>must either give a skip bid warning every time you skip the bidding or not >>give skip bid warnings at all. > > Since the opponents have a right to know this, presumably there is a >check box on the ACBL convention card? No, although there probably ought to be. The ACBL isn't very strong when it comes to the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing. 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 Dec 9 03:30:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:30:07 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA08090 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:29:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011469; 8 Dec 97 16:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:58:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 In-Reply-To: <348ABBC9.6330@ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L. Weinstein wrote: >> >> Why are appeals published with the player's names? It seems to >> me that the purpose of officially publishing appeals would be >> served just as well if the players were anonymous. >> >That was the great debate. If you think about it you will work out why >so many like the names. Certainly - and the same reason is why the names should not be published. >> If you play in anything below flight A, your name does >> not appear. I must admit, I don't know how this rule >> applies to stratified events. >> >Not quite, but close! > >Names are used in all NABC events and SEPARATE FLight A Events... (this >was decided by the Board of Directors). Therefore, no names in >stratified games or bracketed knockouts. This is one thing I do dislike about what I have read here about NAmerican bridge: the idea of treating top events differently in so many ways. No doubt some are justified - all good TDs will give a little more leeway to the young lady in her first tournament than to Meckstroth - but the example here is a case in point - if you are going to publish the names of players in appeals then why not all players?. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 03:57:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:57:51 +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 DAA08248 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 03:57:46 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29244; 8 Dec 97 8:57 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: What is irrational play In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Dec 1997 02:09:56 PST." Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 08:57:05 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9712080857.aa29244@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > IMO it's "fancy" play to let declarer ruff a winner when you have a > preponderance of trumps and winning cards. In general players will still > draw the trump, even if its a winner for oppo. I'd have to disagree here. In general, if the opponents have only a master trump oustanding, I won't draw it. There are exceptions, the major one being if I have to run a long suit that I don't have any outside entries to, and rectifying the count would be another, but for me the "normal" play is definitely not to lead trumps myself. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 04:41:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 04:41:33 +1100 Received: from bkinis.ms.com (firewall-user@bkinis.ms.com [204.254.196.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA08535 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 04:41:27 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bkinis.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id MAA00725; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:41:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma000717; Mon, 8 Dec 97 12:40:51 -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 RAA12367; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 17:40:50 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id RAA01510; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 17:40:49 GMT Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 17:40:49 GMT Message-Id: <9712081740.ZM1508@ms.com> In-Reply-To: David Stevenson "Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long)" (Dec 8, 5:35pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Dec 8, 5:35pm, David Stevenson wrote: > Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) > Eric Landau wrote: > > >I don't think you'll find any one official pronouncement, but, putting the > >various official statements together, the policy (and general practice), at > >least around here, seems to be: > > > >- Players are encouraged to warn whenever they skip. > > > >- It is legal, although discouraged, to not use warnings. > > > >- It is, however, improper, to warn for some skip bids but not others. You > >must either give a skip bid warning every time you skip the bidding or not > >give skip bid warnings at all. > > Since the opponents have a right to know this, presumably there is a > check box on the ACBL convention card? The same way that the EBU card has a checkbox for whether you say Pass or No Bid? Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 04:50:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 04:50:19 +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 EAA08567 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 04:50:14 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008913; 8 Dec 97 17:45 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD0400.C6788460@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 17:43:21 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: What is irrational play Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 17:43:19 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 42 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: > >In message <3.0.1.32.19971207185332.006a624c@pop.mindspring.com>, >"Michael S. Dennis" writes >>At 12:05 PM 12/7/97, Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>> > > > >>>Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not >>>considered irrational to not pull the last trump? >>> >>>Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer? >>> >>It would be irrational to pull the last trump if it were not the master, >>but if you believed the single outstanding trump to be high, there would be >>no particular reason to play the cards in any particular order. This is >>essentially analogous to a forgotten trump. Often declarer would have drawn >>the missing trump in the normal order of things, but the presumption is >>that such an oversight could well lead to a trump trick for the defense, >>unless this required some severely irrational line of play (e.g., >>undertrumping or discarding behind defender's trump "winner"). >> >>Mike Dennis >> > >IMO it's "fancy" play to let declarer ruff a winner when you have a >preponderance of trumps and winning cards. In general players will still >draw the trump, even if its a winner for oppo. In this case declarer is >clearly aware of the missing trump, and almost implies they will play >trump by saying they concede it. - which is a trick they happen not to >be able to lose. I'd be interested in DM or DWS views on this. >-- Declarer has clearly forgotten the rank of the outstanding trump and thinks that it is a master. Reluctantly therefore, IMO, it would be careless (because careful players probably would clear the trump first to leave their masters) but it is not *irrational* to not draw trumps and lose one trick to the small trump. Hence, I rule one trick to the defenders. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 05:26:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:26:43 +1100 Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA08728 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:26:31 +1100 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Mon, 08 Dec 97 13:26:08 EST Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa18725; 8 Dec 97 13:24 EST Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA10382 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:24:06 -0500 (EST) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199712081824.NAA10382@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Alert/Skip regulations To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:24:06 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >6. Where Used > > > >The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. > >For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to > >discourage it's use and require no mandated pause. > > How on earth do you expect players to learn the rules of the game if > you don't apply the rules in clubs? This is my third attempt to reply to this; each time I start typing, I end up coming up with a harsh slam on a "typical duplicate club game," which as an ACBL club director I really should attempt to avoid. I believe that this provision is given so that a club game need not get mired in arguments about pauses after skip bids. At a "typical" club game, how knowledgeable of every intricacy of the law is the average player? I'm not trying to sound elitist, but think of all of the newer players, and think of all of the players who have played rubber bridge all of their life. They know how to *PLAY* bridge (i.e. how to bid, how to declare, how to defend), but they may not be aware of such intricacies as alerting, pausing, unauthorized information, and the like. At the club level in ACBLland, one of the key goals is to get more people involved with the game. Requiring no mandated pause is a way to keep people from getting scared away from all the "new rules." If it looks like a new player will end up playing in tournaments, then someone at the club after asking "are you going to the sectional" might point out some of these regulations so that they don't get fried at their first tournament. That or this pair will go to some "newplicate" or "future masters" limited section where they will stress such things and rule accordingly. I know, it might not make sense. Unfortunately, I think that's why it's happening. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | | finger kuch@wagner.ms.uky.edu to see when I last checked my mail | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 05:52:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:52:19 +1100 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08881 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:52:14 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic131.cais.com [207.226.56.131]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id NAA02551 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:45:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971208135343.006bcd20@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 13:53:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: What is irrational play In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:43 PM 12/8/97 -0000, David wrote: >Declarer has clearly forgotten the rank of the outstanding trump and >thinks that it is a master. Reluctantly therefore, IMO, it would be >careless (because careful players probably would clear the trump first >to leave their masters) but it is not *irrational* to not draw trumps >and lose one trick to the small trump. Hence, I rule one trick to the >defenders. Nobody has yet mentioned the obvious -- that there do exist positions with the master trump outstanding in which a player takes all but one if he leaves the trump out but loses an additional trick (or more) if he clears it. Clearly, the hand given is not such a position. But why would we assume that a player who mistakenly thinks that there's a high trump out against him would realize that? Indeed, as a novice (more years ago than I'll admit), one of the simple "rules" we were taught was "when there's only the high trump outstanding, let it rot." It's about as good a rule as "always play third hand high". 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 Dec 9 09:03:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:03:13 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA09812 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:03:07 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA21161 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:02:30 +0100 Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:02:30 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > This is one thing I do dislike about what I have read here about > NAmerican bridge: the idea of treating top events differently in so many > ways. No doubt some are justified - all good TDs will give a little > more leeway to the young lady in her first tournament than to Meckstroth > - but the example here is a case in point - if you are going to publish > the names of players in appeals then why not all players?. For the same reason as why you're giving the inexperienced player a slightly different treatement at the table. You don't expect that this player knows exactly what is and what isn't allowed, and thus you don't want to penalize her by publishing her name for an UI-related infraction or appeal with little merit. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 14:41:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:41:00 +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 OAA10823 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:40:54 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1020372; 9 Dec 97 3:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 02:57:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) In-Reply-To: <9712081740.ZM1508@ms.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edward Sheldon wrote: >On Dec 8, 5:35pm, David Stevenson wrote: >> Subject: Re: St. Louis Appeal No. 2 (long) >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >I don't think you'll find any one official pronouncement, but, putting the >> >various official statements together, the policy (and general practice), at >> >least around here, seems to be: >> > >> >- Players are encouraged to warn whenever they skip. >> > >> >- It is legal, although discouraged, to not use warnings. >> > >> >- It is, however, improper, to warn for some skip bids but not others. You >> >must either give a skip bid warning every time you skip the bidding or not >> >give skip bid warnings at all. >> >> Since the opponents have a right to know this, presumably there is a >> check box on the ACBL convention card? > >The same way that the EBU card has a checkbox for whether you say >Pass or No Bid? How does this affect your bidding? -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 19:12:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:12:41 +1100 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA11268 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 19:12:23 +1100 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA17539 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:11:44 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA21279; Tue, 9 Dec 97 08:11:42 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19971209091525.007c3d00@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:15:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: RE: Alert Ruling in St. Louis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:28 04/12/97 -0500, you wrote: >But the key point here appears to be that you had to forego an appeal based >on economic considerations and not the relative merit of your bridge >argument. It is sad to think that a wealthier player could resolve what may >be a close decision in AC while those of us of more modest means must >forego committee even when we believe we have a good point. > >Wasting the time of a committee just to be argumentative or obstructive >(David S. has a favourite, more colourful adjective that might apply) is of >course totally unacceptable. But not carrying an appeal to committee which >may have true merit for fear of losing the deposit seems wrong. Does this >mean there are two sets of laws...one for the well-heeled players and >another for those who cannot afford appeal? > >We are all aware of decisions in which the TD properly should rule in >favour of the NOS while advising the other pair of the right to appeal. But >it would seem for many, that right may be an empty promise, even when they >may believe there is merit to looking further, because an AC might disagree >about that merit and retain the fee...or because they just can't come up >with the money in the first place. > >There are some of us who still find $50 to be a significant amount. I have >read a number of posts elsewhere about folks who will not renew OKB because >of a $20 increase. That does not make our appeals less worthy of >consideration. > >Do any of you have suggestions on how to ensure that meritorious appeals >are carried forward without bogging the game down needlessly? Could >matchpoint/IMP penalties possibly be assessed for bringing a nuisance >appeal instead of substantial monetary penalties? Would there be other >proceduaral/disciplinary measures that could prevent appeals with no merit >while not denying one with value from being heard? > > >Comments, please. > I return to the initial question to give my personal opinion that I think inappropriate (and discriminatory in this case) to have bridge rulings dependent on factors which are not related to bridge (personal wealth, or others...). Penalties for bad behaviour (frivolous appeals for example) should only be measured in terms of bridge units : IMP, PV, MP.. or disciplinary measures which would get my preference like: playing ban for some time, obligation to attend TD stages, to direct a tournament or, even, to serve in an AC... or to sweep the room after the end of the late AC. JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 9 23:44:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:44:23 +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 XAA11819 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 23:44:16 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-17.innet.be [194.7.10.17]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03811 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:44:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <348D32A3.28E94D6A@innet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 12:59:31 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: new law book edition X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >David ? > > The English edition is written in English ! > David, you who were so contesting the rights of northern ireland are now telling me this is not a British but ann English Law Book ? Is there a Scottish one as well ? - do you direct with another version in Wales ???? > To be honest I cannot remember the differences between the American > edition and the European edition, apart from spelling. There were a few > because the American edition came out earlier I think L17D was changed, > and you might check that both L25A and L25B have time limits. However > Grattan or Niels would probably answer this question better. > > I do know, however, the differences between the European edition and > the English edition. In L12C3 the European edition uses the term "to do > equity" taken from 1987 L12C2 footnote but in the English edition it has > become "to achieve equity". > > Furthermore L6D2 in 1987 said > > No result may stand if the cards are dealt without > shuffle from a sorted deck, or if the deal had > previously been played. > > which clearly banned any form of duplicate bridge! At least in 1997 the > European edition says > > No result may stand if the cards are dealt without > shuffle from a sorted deck, or if the deal had > previously been played in a different session. > > However the word "deck" is not used anywhere else in the Laws, and has > been corrected to "pack" in the English edition. > So this means that now both the ACBL and the EBU have "translated" the WBF Laws into English ? How many sets of Laws are there actually ? I think it would be advisable for Grattan to tell us where to find a WBF version of the Laws, and for someone to clearly check these against the several English language "editions" so we can get on with things! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 00:09:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:09:39 +1100 Received: from julia.ultra.net (julia.ultra.net [199.232.56.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11855 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:09:34 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by julia.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14767) with SMTP id IAA15150 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Dec09.195900.1189.159623; Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:05:31 -0500 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Dec09.195900.1189.159623@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:05:31 -0500 Subject: Conventions versus Treatments Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Couple questions for the mailing list as a whole. First, I'm trying to get a better understanding of how a "convention" is different than a "treatment". The dividing line seems to be a nebulous one at best, (and even if it isn't, I'm apparently a bit hazy about where it lies). As a related question (possible more relevant to math than bridge law, but you'll get the point) Suppose the Conditions of Contest allow the use of opening bid "A". If there exists an opening bid "B" such that "B" is a subset of "A", does the license of bid "A" automatically permit the use of bid "B". (and since I believe the answer to this to be no, why not?) Richard Willey From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 02:07:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:07:54 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA14516 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:07:47 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA03826 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:07:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:07:43 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments In-Reply-To: <1997Dec09.195900.1189.159623@azure-tech.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > First, I'm trying to get a better understanding of how a "convention" is > different than a "treatment". The dividing line seems to be a nebulous > one at best, (and even if it isn't, I'm apparently a bit hazy about where > it lies). A treatment is a natural meaning of a call that may have more than one meaning, depending on partnership understanding. It expresses willingness to play in the last denomination named. It does not convey specific information about any other denomination other than by negative inference (eg 1H-2NT invitational has the negative inference that responder does not have 4 hearts. It is a treatment) Examples: Weak 2H or strong 2H 1H-3H invitational or 1H-3H forcing and natural or 1H-3H pre-emptive. 1H-3C strong and natural or 1H-3C weak. 1H-2NT balanced and game forcing. A convention conveys a meaning about some other denomination or does not convey a willingness to play in the last denomination named. Examples: 2C opening strong, artificial, forcing. (SAF) (1H)-dbl for takeout. 2C (SAF)-(2H)-pass (showing values) 2H showing 11-15, 5 hearts and 4 spades 1H-4D showing heart support, game going values, and 0-1 diamonds. To me, the distinction is quite clear, but I am sure you could give me an example where I would not be certain. Marv French will probably throw in an off-shape 1NT opening here :-) To me, it is clear that a Precision 2C opening (either 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs and a 4-card major) is a treatment, not a convention, but I would expect some argument. Incidentally, the ACBL agrees with me. Likewise, I would regard a weak 2H opening that by partnership agreement denies a 4-card side suit as a treatment, but one that promises some 4-card side suit to be a convention. I'm not sure that I can exlain why. > > As a related question (possible more relevant to math than bridge law, > but you'll get the point) > > Suppose the Conditions of Contest allow the use of opening bid "A". > If there exists an opening bid "B" such that "B" is a subset of "A", does > the license of bid "A" automatically > permit the use of bid "B". (and since I believe the answer to this to be > no, why not?) By my definitions, the subset of a natural bid could easily turn a natural bid into a convention. For instance, 2H = 6-10 points, 6 hearts and 4 diamonds is both conventional (2H promises something about diamonds) and a subset of the natural treatment 2H = 6-10 points, 6 hearts. -- Richard Lighton | Private .sig file. (lighton@idt.net) | Please do not read. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 02:08:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:08:22 +1100 Received: from dira.bris.ac.uk (dira.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA14523 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:08:16 +1100 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dira with SMTP-LOCAL (PP) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:08:00 +0000 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19 [137.222.80.59]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA14459 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:05:18 GMT From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments In-Reply-To: <1997Dec09.195900.1189.159623@azure-tech.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:04:07 +0000 (GMT) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:05:31 -0500 Richard Willey wrote: > > Couple questions for the mailing list as a whole. [snipped] > As a related question (possible more relevant to math than bridge law, > but you'll get the point) > > Suppose the Conditions of Contest allow the use of opening bid "A". > If there exists an opening bid "B" such that "B" is a subset of "A", does > the license of bid "A" automatically > permit the use of bid "B". (and since I believe the answer to this to be > no, why not?) Clearly not. As for why not ... The main reason for regulating bids is of course that complicated or unfamiliar bids can be hard to defend against. It is a fallacy to suppose that if a set A is familiar or simple, then every subset B of A is also familiar or simple: there are many weird and wonderful subsets of the set of real numbers, for example. This is also obvious in bridge examples. A 1C opening bid that is opened on *every* hand is (although an illegal convention in most places) rather easy to defend against. But if you take a subset of the set of all hands (e.g., the hands that are either a 6-9 point balanced hand or a sound preempt in hearts or a game-forcing opening with no aces or a 4414 distribution with 14-17 points) then a reasonable defence takes a bit more thought. Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 02:13:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:13:05 +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 CAA14547 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:12:59 +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 KAA01394 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:12:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:12:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712091512.KAA09460@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <1997Dec09.195900.1189.159623@azure-tech.com> (REW@azure-tech.com) Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey writes: > Suppose the Conditions of Contest allow the use of opening bid "A". > If there exists an opening bid "B" such that "B" is a subset of "A", does > the license of bid "A" automatically > permit the use of bid "B". (and since I believe the answer to this to be > no, why not?) The general definition of a convention is a bid which, by agreement, shows something unrelated to strength in the denomination named or a wilingness to play in the denomination named. Thus A may be a convention but B may not be. For example, the standard meaning of a 2H overcall over 1NT is non-conventional and cannot be restricted; it shows a club suit and willingness to play 2H over 1NT. The Brozel, Cappelletti, and DONT 2H bids over 1NT, showing hearts and spades, are conventions and can be restricted. This restriction likewise applies to one convention which is a subset of another; what is shown by the convention can be limited. For example, The ACBL allows a 2D bid over 1NT to show one but not two unknown suits. Therefore, Woolsey (2D shows either major) is legal, but CRASH (2D shows two suits of the same shape) is not. I have used defensive conventions rather than opening bids because this gives more natural examples, but the same principles would apply to opening bids. Flannery 2D and 2H, both showing four spades, can be forbidden even though a 2H opening showing five hearts and 11-15 points cannot be and a 2D opening showing the same could be permitted as a different convention. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 02:21:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:21:00 +1100 Received: from bkinis.ms.com (firewall-user@bkinis.ms.com [204.254.196.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA14576 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:20:55 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bkinis.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id KAA14214 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma014186; Tue, 9 Dec 97 10:20:33 -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 PAA10096 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:20:32 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id PAA02351 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:20:31 GMT Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:20:31 GMT Message-Id: <9712091520.ZM2349@ms.com> In-Reply-To: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) "Conventions versus Treatments" (Dec 9, 2:50pm) References: <1997Dec09.195900.1189.159623@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Dec 9, 2:50pm, Richard Willey wrote: > Subject: Conventions versus Treatments [snip] > Suppose the Conditions of Contest allow the use of opening bid "A". > If there exists an opening bid "B" such that "B" is a subset of "A", does > the license of bid "A" automatically > permit the use of bid "B". (and since I believe the answer to this to be > no, why not?) IIRC, the EBU Orange Book has an example claiming that treating a 1S opener by removing the spade one-suiters makes it conventional (and therefore not permitted). The EBU also has stipulations that the minimum strength of a Pass must be zero HCP in various positions (e.g. 1suit-(Dbl)-Pass or (1Cstrong)-Pass). I see the logic when A has a license as an exception, e.g. the multi 2D at EBU General and WBF Category 3, but otherwise it escapes me. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 02:21:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:21:49 +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 CAA14591 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:21:44 +1100 Received: from [192.168.3.23] ([192.168.3.23]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.0/64) id 3964000 ; Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:22:29 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) From: bills@cshore.com (Bill Segraves) Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:22:29 EST Message-Id: <199712091522.3964000@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Richard, >First, I'm trying to get a better understanding of how a "convention" is >different than a "treatment". The dividing line seems to be a nebulous >one at best, (and even if it isn't, I'm apparently a bit hazy about where >it lies). If you have the Encyclopedia, I'll agree with its definitions. Basically, if it carries information unrelated to the denomination of the bid, it's a convention. Example given: Limit Raise is treatment. Limit Raise showing a singleton on side is a convention. >As a related question (possible more relevant to math than bridge law, >but you'll get the point) > >Suppose the Conditions of Contest allow the use of opening bid "A". >If there exists an opening bid "B" such that "B" is a subset of "A", does >the license of bid "A" automatically >permit the use of bid "B". (and since I believe the answer to this to be >no, why not?) If it's truly a subset of a permitted set of bids, then it seems tautological that it should be permitted. If there's a problem, then perhaps it's as to whether it's truly a subset? Cheers, Bill From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 02:37:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:37:17 +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 CAA14650 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:37:11 +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 KAA149326 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:37:06 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id KAA39506 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:37:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199712091537.KAA39506@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:37:04, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: new law book edition Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman, Referring to discussion on the possible differences beween the North American and other new law books: I am looking at the book in front of me and attempting to figure out what the differences are. I would differ to Niels as the expert because he has been the one working with the Internet editions. On page iii It says "Preface to the North American Edition Laws oif Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997." The front page, "effective, May 27, 1997" will be different too. The back page has "Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors." Covering Law 12 C3, Law 16 A1, Law 18F, Law40DE, Law 41A, Law 45A, Law 61B, Law 93 B1. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 02:43:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:43:57 +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 CAA14685 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:43:50 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26689 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:42:48 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199712091542.JAA26689@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Without Substantial Merit? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:42:48 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The recent discussion of the $50 Appeals fee made the following case more interesting for me. From the December ACBL _Bulletin_, in the article "Appeals: My View" by Alan LeBendig... [Player has 14 points and a small doubleton in Spades.] Bidding: LHO Partner RHO Player 1C P 1S X XX 2S P P P 2S went down 4 for -200. Player appealed because the redouble showed 3 spades and was not alerted. The Director had ruled that the table result should stand because the player should have known 2S couldn't be natural even without the alert. The AC upheld the TD's ruling, since the player was experienced [3000 MP] and should have protected himself by asking about the XX. It held that if partner had really had spades he would have overcalled or passed the double. The AC also, however, gave the opponents average-minus because of the failure to alert. It then says "The committee also assessed a penalty against North-South for filing an appeal which the committee believed was substantially without merit. It was felt the case was so clear it was a waste of the committee's time to have to hear the appeal." Now I understand that in the context of a Bulletin article one cannot give all the details from the AC hearing. But a few questions stand out for me: A) Is this case so obviously without merit that it warrants a penalty [it does not say whether this is withholding a deposit or something else]? B) If it is obvious that the case is substantially without merit, how can it be right to penalize the opponents by reducing an excellent score to avg-minus? Particularly since there's no indication that this penalty would have been assessed if there was no appeal. This is one of those ruling that, _as presented_, would have left me profoundly unsatisfied if I had been any of the 4 players involved. {Again, maybe there's more to the case than was presented, but in that case I'm not sure the case should have been chosen for a Bulletin article.} Comments? -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 04:21:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:21:41 +1100 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA15079 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:21:34 +1100 From: AlLeBendig Message-ID: <742d1422.348d7ca7@aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:15:17 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Appeal Deposits Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I want everyone to recognize that the current ACBL policy of requiring a $50 deposit on appeals from NABC+ events was originated by the WBF and is still in place in WBF events. This was not "our" idea. In the last several years we have seen a definite decrease in "frivolous" appeals. We feel this is directly related to the deposit requirement as well as the fact that we started publishing the names of all players involved in an appeal. This has definitely seemed to serve as a deterrent to those looking for something for nothing. And I remain strongly in favor of continuing the policy of publishing the names. As to the deposits, that is another issue. They clearly affect players in a different fashion. I think it's time to tell you all about a new proposal to be made to the BoD in Reno. We are planning to institute a Point System. If an appeal is found to be "lacking substantial merit" (our phrase for frivolous), the players bringing the appeal will be assessed one point which will remain on their record. Once their point total has reached 3, they will go before a disciplinary committee for probable further sanctions. At that point they would have to establish why they should not be sanctioned. These points would only be assessed at NABCs in NABC+ events (maybe Flight A). Player's could also earn points for ethical infractions (such as taking blatant advantage of UI). Serious infractions could earn more than 1 point. If a player goes an entire year without earning additional points, 1 point will drop off their record. These points may be assessed by an AC or by the TD. If the TD assesses a point, it may be appealed. Such an appeal could earn another point if it is found to be "substantially without merit". This is only a proposal and has not been accepted yet by the BoD. Those of us involved in the Appeals Process feel it will be an improvement over the policy of requiring deposits since it will have the same effect on all players. We have not agreed on a name yet for these points. Some current proposals are: Dark Points. Alarm Points and Player Offense Points. Once we are satisfied with the last few details, we will post the entire proposal here. The BoD will consider it in Reno and we hope to put it in place then. Rich Colker gets most of the credit for this concept. We have been trying to iron out the details for over a year. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 04:22:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:22:51 +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 EAA15096 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:22:43 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011726; 9 Dec 97 17:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 16:42:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: new law book edition In-Reply-To: <348D32A3.28E94D6A@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: >> >David ? >> The English edition is written in English ! >David, you who were so contesting the rights of northern ireland are now >telling me this is not a British but ann English Law Book ? >Is there a Scottish one as well ? - do you direct with another version >in Wales ???? From the title page: English Edition Published and distributed by The English Bridge Union Ltd. Broadfields, Bicester Road, Aylesbury, Bucks HP19 3BG I call you Herman de Wael because that is your name. I call the English edition that because it is its name. Why it is its name is an interesting question but calling it the British edition is probably no nearer accurate. If you consider it is called such an edition because of the copyright *holders* then it clearly is an English edition: I am sure Wales would be happy to divorce themselves from the Portland Club! If you are asking where it should be used by your references to Wales, then I direct your attention to: The copyright to the Laws of Contract Bridge in the area of the British Commonwealth past and present (other than the Western Hemisphere), the Continent of Africa, India, Spain, Portugal and all English-speaking countries in the Eastern Hemisphere is vested in the Portland Club, to whom all rights to this edition are reserved. It seems easier to call it the English edition rather than the Eastern British Commonwealth/African/Indian/Spanish/Portuguese/Eastern English- speaking edition. >So this means that now both the ACBL and the EBU have "translated" the >WBF Laws into English ? Don't forget the Europeans. >How many sets of Laws are there actually ? Three, as in 1987: American, European and English. >I think it would be advisable for Grattan to tell us where to find a WBF >version of the Laws, and for someone to clearly check these against the >several English language "editions" so we can get on with things! There is no WBF version. There may be some argument as to which version most closely follows the WBF view, but the English edition has he advantage of being produced last. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 04:29:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:29:16 +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 EAA15131 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:29:11 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011690; 9 Dec 97 17:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 16:49:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments In-Reply-To: <1997Dec09.195900.1189.159623@azure-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > >Couple questions for the mailing list as a whole. > >First, I'm trying to get a better understanding of how a "convention" is >different than a "treatment". The dividing line seems to be a nebulous >one at best, (and even if it isn't, I'm apparently a bit hazy about where >it lies). Just to complicate life, I believe that the meaning of a treatment in NAmerica is not the same as its meaning in Europe. Just to simplify things I shall not tell you our definition since I believe you are interesed in the difference between a convention and a NAm treatment. >As a related question (possible more relevant to math than bridge law, >but you'll get the point) > >Suppose the Conditions of Contest allow the use of opening bid "A". >If there exists an opening bid "B" such that "B" is a subset of "A", does >the license of bid "A" automatically >permit the use of bid "B". (and since I believe the answer to this to be >no, why not?) No, it does not permit it. Why should it? -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 05:09:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 05:09:37 +1100 Received: from eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA15333 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 05:09:31 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-005.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA10658 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:09:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA02429; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:10:43 -0800 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:10:43 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199712091810.KAA02429@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal Deposits Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: > We have not agreed on a name yet for these points. Some current proposals > are: Dark Points. Alarm Points and Player Offense Points. Once we are > satisfied with the last few details, we will post the entire proposal here. > The BoD will consider it in Reno and we hope to put it in place then. These are obviously Monsterpoints. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 08:01:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:01:24 +1100 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16065 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:01:06 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id MAA13747; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:58:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma012331; Tue, 9 Dec 97 12:55:08 -0800 Received: (from notes@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id NAA17417 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:08:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199712092108.NAA17417@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 9 Dec 97 16:43:55 GMT Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling said: > The recent discussion of the $50 Appeals fee made the following >case more interesting for me. > From the December ACBL _Bulletin_, in the article "Appeals: My >View" by Alan LeBendig... > > [Player has 14 points and a small doubleton in Spades.] > Bidding: > LHO Partner RHO Player > 1C P 1S X > XX 2S P P > P > > 2S went down 4 for -200. > Player appealed because the redouble showed 3 spades and was not >alerted. The Director had ruled that the table result should stand >because the player should have known 2S couldn't be natural even without >the alert. > The AC upheld the TD's ruling, since the player was experienced >[3000 MP] and should have protected himself by asking about the XX. It >held that if partner had really had spades he would have overcalled or >passed the double. > The AC also, however, gave the opponents average-minus because of >the failure to alert. > It then says "The committee also assessed a penalty against >North-South for filing an appeal which the committee believed was >substantially without merit. It was felt the case was so clear it was a >waste of the committee's time to have to hear the appeal." > > Now I understand that in the context of a Bulletin article one >cannot give all the details from the AC hearing. But a few questions >stand out for me: > > A) Is this case so obviously without merit that it warrants a >penalty [it does not say whether this is withholding a deposit or >something else]? Of course, as Mr Stirling so accurately observes it is dangerous to speculate on the arguments made when one is only given part of the story. The rest of my comments should be read in that light. I think there is no merit in the appeal. The SO may have a problem with frivolous appeals so may have regulations permitting the penalty. But it would be helpful if they had quoted the Law or regulation under which the penalty was given. > B) If it is obvious that the case is substantially without merit, >how can it be right to penalize the opponents by reducing an excellent >score to avg-minus? Particularly since there's no indication that this >penalty would have been assessed if there was no appeal. I am surprised that an AC should regard an appeal as without merit when they amended the TD's decision. I cannot imagine doing that. Mind you I can't imagine why they awarded the "offenders" an AV- either. If one wanted to fine them, then I would have a standard-sized procedural penalty (in England 10% of a top) would be adequate. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning. > This is one of those ruling that, _as presented_, would have left >me profoundly unsatisfied if I had been any of the 4 players involved. >{Again, maybe there's more to the case than was presented, but in that >case I'm not sure the case should have been chosen for a Bulletin >article.} I agree. You don't say what point the author of the article was trying to make. I would be interested to know. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 09:35:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:35:37 +1100 Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA16355 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:35:32 +1100 From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <6bc57c1e.348dc30e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 17:15:40 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ralph Lighton writes; > A treatment is a natural meaning of a call that may have more than > one meaning, depending on partnership understanding. It expresses > willingness to play in the last denomination named. It does not > convey specific information about any other denomination other > than by negative inference (eg 1H-2NT invitational has the negative > inference that responder does not have 4 hearts. It is a treatment) > The current ACBL definition of treatment, at least the one on the ACBL web site under ACBL Conventions Regulations, defines a treatment as: "...calls that either indicate a desire to play in the denomination named, or promise or request values in the denomination named, but that also, by agreement, give or request information on which further action can be based. Forcing bids, for example, are treatments. Cue bids that show or ask about length or high cards in the suit named are treaments." My definition would be simpler: A treatment is any call that is not a convention, but whose meaning is the subject of a special partnership agreement (explicit or from partnership experience). Per L75C, we should be obliged to disclose the meaning of bids that are conventions or treatments, but not those whose meaning is derived "from general knowledge and experience." > A convention conveys a meaning about some other denomination > or does not convey a willingness to play in the last denomination named. I think we all would do better to stick by the definition of convention in the 1997 Laws, whether we like it or not: "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the last denomination named, or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." Conventional passes are also defined in L30C, a law whose full meaning is not discernible by me. "Last denomination named" really means what is says; if the conventional call names a denomination, then that is the last denomination named. I think everyone agreed a while ago that the meaning would be more clear if it had been "in the denomination named, or (in the case of a pass, double, or redouble) in the last denomination named." >To me, the distinction is quite clear, bu I'm sure you coule give me an example where I would not be certain. Marv French will probably throw in an off-shape 1NT opening here :-)> Sure. The Gambling 3NT opening, showing a solid suit and expressing a desire to play in the denomination named, is labeled a convention by the ACBL. This and other off-shape notrump openings (e.g., 4-4-4-1) are not "natural" according to the ACBL. Does that mean they come under the heading of "convention"? They explcitly say so only in the case of Gambling 3NT. Also, a three-card major suit opening, with the intent of following up with a canape' bid is (by implication, because not permitted) a convention per the ACBL. I don't think any of these calls is a convention, going by the definition in the Laws. They are all treatments. > > To me, it is clear that a Precision 2C opening (either 6+ clubs or > 5+ clubs and a 4-card major) is a treatment, not a convention, > but I would expect some argument. Incidentally, the ACBL agrees > with me. Likewise, I would regard a weak 2H opening that by partnership > agreement denies a 4-card side suit as a treatment, but one that > promises some 4-card side suit to be a convention. I'm not sure > that I can exlain why. Because, as I see it, the latter indicates a willingness to play in another denomination in addition to the one named, while the former indicates a willingness to play only in the denomination named. That's not exactly what the definition of convention says, and maybe it should be fixed to clarify this point. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 10:54:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:54:25 +1100 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA16607 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:54:19 +1100 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id RAA25481 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 17:54:10 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0N3FL024 Tue, 09 Dec 97 16:26:24 Message-ID: <9712091626.0N3FL02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 97 16:26:24 Subject: WHAT IS IRRATIONAL PL To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: John@probst.demon.co.uk To: R Pewick Orig: HALPC Subj: RE: WHAT IS IRRATIONAL PL Area: 90-internet_ema Date: 12/07/97 ============================================================================= From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sun Dec 7 17:48:52 1997 Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA22488 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:48:52 -0600 (CST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:09:01 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA03154 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:08:50 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010526; 7 Dec 97 23:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 22:46:41 +0000 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: What is irrational play In-Reply-To: <9712071205.0GZEY00@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message <9712071205.0GZEY00@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > > > >This end position occurred in a club game and created a discussion that >perhaps the group will settle. Declarer is a reasonable flight B >player. > >DEAL # 23 > >VUL EW >DEALER S > S T74 > H 4 > D - > C T7 >S 8 S - >H 86 H 9732 >D K42 D A8 >C - C - > S QJ5 > H - > D T97 > C - >N E S W > > 2S X >4S 5H > > This is the position at trick 8 where declarer has regained the lead >and claims stating that the defense receives a trump trick. A few >seconds later declarer states that they did not remember seeing the >jack of trumps played [dummy played it a trick 2]. When north says >that they will take the trump four because declarer conceded it and it >was possible to trump the next diamond, Declarer states that of >course, I will always play trump first. > >Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not >considered irrational to not pull the last trump? > >Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer? > > > IMO declarer had been counting trumps but was unaware of the rank of the missing one. IMO it is irrational not to draw it as the rest are high and "surprise surprise" we have the beating of it. Rest of tricks to declarer and a quiet word in declarer's shell-like ear about not making bum claims. It would be irrational to have a high D ruffed. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >___ >* UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader -- 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 Dec 10 13:17:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:17:19 +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 NAA16991 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:17:10 +1100 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac1000145; 10 Dec 97 2:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:57:12 +0000 To: John Probst Cc: "Michael S. Dennis" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: What is irrational play In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In message <3.0.1.32.19971207185332.006a624c@pop.mindspring.com>, >"Michael S. Dennis" writes >>At 12:05 PM 12/7/97, Roger Pewick wrote: >> >>> > > > >>>Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not >>>considered irrational to not pull the last trump? >>> >>>Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer? >>> >>It would be irrational to pull the last trump if it were not the master, >>but if you believed the single outstanding trump to be high, there would be >>no particular reason to play the cards in any particular order. This is >>essentially analogous to a forgotten trump. Often declarer would have drawn >>the missing trump in the normal order of things, but the presumption is >>that such an oversight could well lead to a trump trick for the defense, >>unless this required some severely irrational line of play (e.g., >>undertrumping or discarding behind defender's trump "winner"). >> >>Mike Dennis >> > >IMO it's "fancy" play to let declarer ruff a winner when you have a >preponderance of trumps and winning cards. It may be "fancy John - but it's not irrational >In general players will still >draw the trump, even if its a winner for oppo. In this case declarer is >clearly aware of the missing trump, and almost implies they will play >trump by saying they concede it. - which is a trick they happen not to >be able to lose. I'd be interested in DM or DWS views on this. Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 13:17:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:17:55 +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 NAA16998 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:17:21 +1100 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004721; 10 Dec 97 2:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:55:11 +0000 To: Bill Segraves Cc: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: What is irrational play In-Reply-To: <199712071958.3644600@cshore.com> 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 In message <199712071958.3644600@cshore.com>, Bill Segraves=20 writes >If you change the 4 of hearts into the Jack of hearts, there is nothing >at all irrational about leaving it out while playing winners. In similar >positions, it is not at all unusual for a claim to be stated "take your >high trump whenever you want". Therefore, I see no reason to presume that >declarer would have next played trumps without being alerted to the fact >that the >outstanding trump was, in fact, the 4. > >Cheers, > > Well said Bill - This is exactly the type of situation where it is=20 absolutely clear that it may be careless to fail to draw the J of trumps=20 (in case it is the four :)) - but it is absolutely not irrational to=20 cash outside winners if we think we are missing a master trump This case is so clear that it could be used as a defining example in TD=20 training >Bill Segraves > > >>This end position occurred in a club game and created a discussion that >>perhaps the group will settle. Declarer is a reasonable flight B >>player. >> >>DEAL # 23 >> >>VUL EW >>DEALER S >> S T74 >> H 4 >> D - >> C T7 >>S 8 S - >>H 86 H 9732 >>D K42 D A8 >>C - C - >> S QJ5 >> H - >> D T97 >> C - >>N E S W >> >> 2S X >>4S 5H >> >> This is the position at trick 8 where declarer has regained the lead >>and claims stating that the defense receives a trump trick. A few >>seconds later declarer states that they did not remember seeing the >>jack of trumps played [dummy played it a trick 2]. When north says >>that they will take the trump four because declarer conceded it and it >>was possible to trump the next diamond, Declarer states that =CCof >>course, I will always play trump first=ED. >> >>Question, since declarer was aware that a trump was out, is it not >>considered irrational to not pull the last trump? >> >>Should not the director award the rest of the tricks to declarer? >> >> >> >> >>Roger Pewick >>Houston, Texas >>r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >>___ >>* UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader > > Best wishes :) Mike --=20 michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 10 13:57:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:57:19 +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 NAA17105 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:57:12 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008461; 10 Dec 97 2:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 02:29:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments In-Reply-To: <6bc57c1e.348dc30e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench wrote: >"A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than >willingness to play in the last denomination named, or high-card strength or >length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall >strength does not make a call a convention." >Sure. The Gambling 3NT opening, showing a solid suit and expressing a desire >to play in the denomination named, is labeled a convention by the ACBL. This >and other off-shape notrump openings (e.g., 4-4-4-1) are not "natural" >according to the ACBL. Does that mean they come under the heading of >"convention"? They explcitly say so only in the case of Gambling 3NT. If your partner opens 3NT, does that merely mean she wishes to play there? Do you just put the dummy down, no matter what it contains? No, of course not, because while it may be willing to play there, that is only opposite certain hands, and it shows a solid minor, which is a meaning other than willingness to play there. I believe the Law book definition of convention includes the Gambling 3NT. If you played the Collings-Cansino Gambling 3NT opening, which meant that they had 13 cards, and they were willing to gamble on making the contract whatever partner had, partner being required to pass, that is not a convention because there is no meaning other than willingness to play there. -- David Stevenson ***************************************************** * Advertise here! Very reasonable rates! * * Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk * ***************************************************** From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 11 05:07:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 05:07:14 +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 FAA22418 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 05:07:08 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA06212 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:06:00 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199712101806.MAA06212@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:06:00 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > B) If it is obvious that the case is substantially without merit, > >how can it be right to penalize the opponents by reducing an excellent > >score to avg-minus? Particularly since there's no indication that this > >penalty would have been assessed if there was no appeal. > > I am surprised that an AC should regard an appeal as without merit when they > amended the TD's decision. I cannot imagine doing that. Mind you I can't > imagine why they awarded the "offenders" an AV- either. If one wanted to fine > them, then I would have a standard-sized procedural penalty (in England 10% of > a top) would be adequate. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning. That's what I thought. I should have mentioned, too, that this was Swiss teams. That means that even while ruling the appeal to be without merit, the AC gave a penalty to the opponents which could in principle have altered the results in favor of the appelants' team. Does this mean that even if I know my appeal is without merit and I will be penalized I should go ahead and file anyway hoping that my opponents will be penalized, if I'm playing teams? > > This is one of those ruling that, _as presented_, would have left > >me profoundly unsatisfied if I had been any of the 4 players involved. > >{Again, maybe there's more to the case than was presented, but in that > >case I'm not sure the case should have been chosen for a Bulletin > >article.} > > I agree. You don't say what point the author of the article was trying to > make. I would be interested to know. You'd have to ask Mr. LeBendig for his answer. The article as written contained no further summary. There was a paragraph about "just because there is misinformation doesn't necessarily mean that you are entitled to an adjustment", so maybe that was the point to be made. [In which case it was odd to choose a case where there was a penalty given for the misinformation.] I want to make it clear that I am not intending this as a criticism of either the AC [I don't have all the facts] or Alan LeBendig. But I think it brings up issues about who should bring appeals, under what circumstances, and what sorts of penalties are appropriate. > Steve Barnfield > Tunbridge Wells, England > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 11 06:01:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:01:20 +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 GAA22748 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:01:10 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa06674; 10 Dec 97 11:00 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:06:00 PST." <199712101806.MAA06212@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:00:21 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9712101100.aa06674@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > You'd have to ask Mr. LeBendig for his answer. The article as > written contained no further summary. There was a paragraph about "just > because there is misinformation doesn't necessarily mean that you are > entitled to an adjustment", so maybe that was the point to be made. [In > which case it was odd to choose a case where there was a penalty given for > the misinformation.] It doesn't seem that odd to me, since the people who complained about the misinformation didn't benefit at all from the penalty. (At least not directly. It's possible that the loss in VPs due to the procedural penalty could have affected the complaining team's place in the final standings. But they definitely didn't benefit by getting a better score on the board, as they had hoped.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 11 10:17:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:17:08 +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 KAA23741 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:17:01 +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 SAA26774 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02277; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:17:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:17:06 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712102317.SAA02277@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Conventions versus Treatments X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Mlfrench > Sure. The Gambling 3NT opening, showing a solid suit and expressing a desire > to play in the denomination named, is labeled a convention by the ACBL. I remember a statement from long ago -- I think from the ACBL but possibly not -- that Gambling 3NT denying outside stoppers (the way it is normally played in the US) is a convention, but if it promises outside stoppers (the way it is played elsewhere??), then it is not a convention. This distinction seems reasonable to me. The first shows a solid suit and suggests partner pick a contract. The second is a strong suggestion to play notrump. However, it does convey "a meaning other than willingness to play in the last denomination named" (the solid suit) so arguably both are conventions. > This > and other off-shape notrump openings (e.g., 4-4-4-1) are not "natural" > according to the ACBL. Does that mean they come under the heading of > "convention"? I think that under the new Laws, a notrump bid that might occasionally include a singleton but doesn't convey any special meaning other than willingness to play in notrump is _not_ a convention. If SO's take this seriously, it means many will have to revise their regulations on permitting notrump openings with a singleton. > Also, a three-card major suit opening, with the intent of following up with a > canape' bid is (by implication, because not permitted) a convention per the > ACBL. If it promises a longer suit, or even if it's forcing, I think they have a case. If it's non-forcing and might well be the longest suit in the hand (does not promise some other suit is longer), I think they probably don't. I am not holding my breath waiting for the ACBL or other organizations to correct their regulations. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 11 13:32:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:32:09 +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 NAA24219 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:32:02 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017868; 11 Dec 97 2:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:28:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-Reply-To: <199712101806.MAA06212@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: >> > B) If it is obvious that the case is substantially without merit, >> >how can it be right to penalize the opponents by reducing an excellent >> >score to avg-minus? Particularly since there's no indication that this >> >penalty would have been assessed if there was no appeal. >> >> I am surprised that an AC should regard an appeal as without merit when they >> amended the TD's decision. I cannot imagine doing that. Mind you I can't >> imagine why they awarded the "offenders" an AV- either. If one wanted to fine >> them, then I would have a standard-sized procedural penalty (in England 10% >of >> a top) would be adequate. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning. > > That's what I thought. I should have mentioned, too, that this >was Swiss teams. That means that even while ruling the appeal to be >without merit, the AC gave a penalty to the opponents which could in >principle have altered the results in favor of the appelants' team. Does >this mean that even if I know my appeal is without merit and I will be >penalized I should go ahead and file anyway hoping that my opponents will >be penalized, if I'm playing teams? I believe you are confusing adjusted scores and penalties. If the AC gave a penalty to the other team that does not improve your score except in k-o teams. Let us consider this without merit business. The partnership who played in 2S did so because of failure to understand basic bidding techniques, like cue-bidding the opponent's suit is forcing. The asked for a ruling which was about as likely as asking Hussein to throw a big party for the Americans, and then they decided to appeal, knowing that getting an adjustment their way required the Appeals Committee to be drunk *and* to accept brines. Their chance of an adjustment being about the same as Alan LeBendig being next EBU and WBU Presidents simultaneously means that their appeal was "without merit". Now it so happened that the ruling given to their opponents was not exactly cast in stone, and the AC correctly applied L82C[=] and decided to fine them. They did so in a *very* strange way, reducing their score to Ave-, which *may* mean they did not quite understand the legalities of what they did, but it was certainly legal. I do not know what sort of score -200 would have been: if as I suspect the score was a near top then it looks a completely and totally unfair level of fine [55% of a top smacks of the Spanish inquisition]. This all assumes we have the correct story: that Ave- looks so strange! >> > This is one of those ruling that, _as presented_, would have left >> >me profoundly unsatisfied if I had been any of the 4 players involved. >> >{Again, maybe there's more to the case than was presented, but in that >> >case I'm not sure the case should have been chosen for a Bulletin >> >article.} If you bid like a lunatic and fail to follow simple bidding precepts then you should not be too disappointed if the TD/AC are not fool enough to give you your score back. [=] Quoting Law numbers from memory at the moment so this one is quite likely wrong! -- 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 Dec 12 02:19:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:19:39 +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 CAA28353 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:19:32 +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 KAA05005 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02643; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:19:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:19:39 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712111519.KAA02643@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > They asked > for a ruling which was about as likely as asking Hussein to throw a big > party for the Americans, and then they decided to appeal, knowing that > getting an adjustment their way required the Appeals Committee to be > drunk *and* to accept brines. In view of the precedent set by the "poor Eddie Kantar" ruling in the Vanderbilt a few years ago, I think the above is a bit pessimistic. In any case, a penalty for frivolous appeal when the score is changed seems bizarre. Don't you want those appeals to be heard so that the TD's error (failing to impose a PP) can be fixed? This seems especially so when the imposed penalty is so severe. One might argue that a 10% penalty is not worth bothering an AC, but if the correct penalty is 50%, don't we want to get it right? I won't even mention that an assigned adjusted score would have been better than an artificial adjusted score. :-) I wonder whether the Bulletin edited out Al's comments on the case. Presenting this case without comment was probably not such a good idea. David probably meant L82B, not L82C, BTW. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 12 08:45:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:45:15 +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 IAA00198 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:45:05 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2007761; 11 Dec 97 21:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:23:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-Reply-To: <199712111519.KAA02643@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> They asked >> for a ruling which was about as likely as asking Hussein to throw a big >> party for the Americans, and then they decided to appeal, knowing that >> getting an adjustment their way required the Appeals Committee to be >> drunk *and* to accept brines. > >In view of the precedent set by the "poor Eddie Kantar" ruling in the >Vanderbilt a few years ago, I think the above is a bit pessimistic. > >In any case, a penalty for frivolous appeal when the score is changed >seems bizarre. Don't you want those appeals to be heard so that the >TD's error (failing to impose a PP) can be fixed? This seems >especially so when the imposed penalty is so severe. One might argue >that a 10% penalty is not worth bothering an AC, but if the correct >penalty is 50%, don't we want to get it right? You really want people appealing *solely* to change their opponents' score? I know I was a bit silly, officer, and I just know that I deserve what ever you do to me, officer, but I AM DETERMINED TO GET THOSE BASTARDS! Does this make the $50 safe if you make it clear that you are only appealing to try and do your oppos down, not to improve your score? >I won't even mention that an assigned adjusted score would have been >better than an artificial adjusted score. :-) Good idea, since it would not be correct in this case. :) >I wonder whether the Bulletin edited out Al's comments on the case. >Presenting this case without comment was probably not such a good >idea. >David probably meant L82B, not L82C, BTW. I've been thinking about that. I think I meant L80F. Do you think it is time that I opened the Law book? If, that is, I can find one. Personal message to all husbands out there. 'er indoors is getting the house decorated. This means that my files have disappeared, my Law books have gone somewhere, my work for the EBU is in chaos. If I sit in my easy chair, then the things I keep to the left are not there. Everything moves every time I sleep or go out. Tomorrow the man is going to decorate the room that contains the computer so this is probably my last ever message - well, for a couple of months anyway, while I search for the computer. -- 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 Dec 12 09:02:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:02:07 +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 JAA00280 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:02:02 +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 RAA23212 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:02:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02878; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:02:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:02:11 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712112202.RAA02878@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Does this make the $50 safe if you make it clear that > you are only appealing to try and do your oppos down, not to improve > your score? Good grief, of course not. But if the original ruling really was wrong, then the $50 should be safe, even if the ruling was wrong for only one side. I certainly can't imagine changing a score by half a board and then saying the appeal was frivolous. > >David probably meant L82B, not L82C, BTW. > > I've been thinking about that. I think I meant L80F. Do you think it > is time that I opened the Law book? If, that is, I can find one. Better find one. I've given up guessing. L80F is Supplementary Regulations. L82B is Rectification of Error; L82B1 allows an adjusted score for that purpose. If you wish to adjust the offenders' score -- and there is no dispute that there was an infraction, and one could argue that it caused damage -- then an assigned AS seems right. If all you want is a PP, then it should be a certain number of matchpoints, and the score should not change. Perhaps I'll change my mind about this when David finds the right Law number. > this is probably my last ever message - well, for a > couple of months anyway, while I search for the computer. Good luck to you! I have the opposite problem. Everything ends up in a huge heap in my study. The problem is not finding the item I want, it's digging it out. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 12 09:47:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:47:38 +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 JAA00457 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:47:32 +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 RAA02601; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:47:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 17:47:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712112247.RAA05413@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:23:05 +0000) Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Steve Willner wrote: >> In view of the precedent set by the "poor Eddie Kantar" ruling in the >> Vanderbilt a few years ago, I think the above is a bit pessimistic. >> In any case, a penalty for frivolous appeal when the score is changed >> seems bizarre. Don't you want those appeals to be heard so that the >> TD's error (failing to impose a PP) can be fixed? This seems >> especially so when the imposed penalty is so severe. One might argue >> that a 10% penalty is not worth bothering an AC, but if the correct >> penalty is 50%, don't we want to get it right? > You really want people appealing *solely* to change their opponents' > score? I know I was a bit silly, officer, and I just know that I > deserve what ever you do to me, officer, but I AM DETERMINED TO GET > THOSE BASTARDS! Does this make the $50 safe if you make it clear that > you are only appealing to try and do your oppos down, not to improve > your score? If you believe the Director has awarded an incorrect score to your opponents, are you expected to risk your $50 over it? I think there should be much less risk, provided that you have a justification for adjusting only your opponent's score. For example, say that you have pulled a slow penalty double, and the director ruled an adjustment from +650 in 5H to +200 in 4Sx. You might appeal the opponents' score on the grounds that proper defense would probably beat the contract two tricks and thus -200 was not likely. There was such a case in St. Louis, Case 6, but this borders on the friviolous anyway. South had pulled a wrong card, and the director ruled that he attempted to correct too late. #[N/S] were seeking no redress for themselves but were appealing because, #"even if you feel that the interpretation of the laws is against N/S, it #is ludicrous for E/W to be given a ton of matchpoints for a clearly #inadvertent, illogical mistake, immediately corrected by their #opponent." The screener should have advised that this was frivolous, since the Laws make it clear that the non-offenders are entitled to the benefit of any penalty imposed. There is no case for a split score here. #The Committee unanimously upheld the Director's ruling on the basis that #once it was determined and agreed that this was a played card, there #would be no basis for the Committee to know the laws better than the #Director. Since N/S were not asking to have their score adjusted, the #Committee decided to return the $50 deposit to N/S. The appeal would #have been deemed frivolous had they been asking for a change to their #own score. The double standard does appear here, and it's probably good in principle if not in this case. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 12 11:08:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:08:03 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA00673 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:07:52 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA00402; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 18:06:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca3-22.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.118) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma000358; Thu Dec 11 18:05:57 1997 Message-ID: <34907FA3.2B29@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:04:51 -0800 From: B&S <#jonbriss@ix15.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: #jonbriss@ix15.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? References: <199712112247.RAA05413@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote, inter alia: > The screener should have advised that this was frivolous, since the Laws > make it clear that the non-offenders are entitled to the benefit of any > penalty imposed. > Screeners are used at NABC events as a stepping-stone between a floor director's ruling and an appeals committee. Often a player or pair files an appeal without full knowledge of the facts or law, or in hot blood. The screener's function is to explain the law, how it applied to the facts of the case, and allow cooler minds to assess the situation. About half of all appeals that are filed at NABCs are not pursued beyond the screening stage. However, the final decision as to whether an AC hears the case rests with the appellants. The screener is _forbidden_ from advising the players as to his opinion regarding the possible frivolity of the appeal. Screeners are in a position to threaten, intimidate, wheedle or cajol a player into dropping a meritorious appeal; that's undesireable. We are fortunate at NABCs to have a very good screening staff, anchored by Brian Moran. The screeners have assiduously complied with the prohibition regarding commenting on the advisibility of an appeal. Jon Brissman NABC Appeals Co-Chair From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 12 12:44:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:44:42 +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 MAA00928 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:44:37 +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 UAA06888; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:44:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:44:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712120144.UAA08522@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: #jonbriss@ix15.ix.netcom.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <34907FA3.2B29@popd.ix.netcom.com> (message from B&S on Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:04:51 -0800) Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > David Grabiner wrote, inter alia: >> The screener should have advised that this was frivolous, since the Laws >> make it clear that the non-offenders are entitled to the benefit of any >> penalty imposed. > We are fortunate at NABCs to have a very good screening staff, anchored > by Brian Moran. The screeners have assiduously complied with the > prohibition regarding commenting on the advisibility of an appeal. Thanks for the clarification; I'm sorry about the misconception problem. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 12 15:57:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:57:17 +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 PAA01239 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:57:10 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1006733; 12 Dec 97 4:56 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 04:55:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-Reply-To: <199712112202.RAA02878@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> I've been thinking about that. I think I meant L80F. Do you think it >> is time that I opened the Law book? If, that is, I can find one. > >Better find one. I've given up guessing. L80F is Supplementary >Regulations. L82B is Rectification of Error; L82B1 allows an >adjusted score for that purpose. I meant L81C6. Perhaps I should have looked earlier ... -- 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 Dec 13 01:12:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:12:47 +1100 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04722 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:12:40 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic72.cais.com [207.226.56.72]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA29293 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:05:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971212091355.006c64a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:13:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-Reply-To: <199712101806.MAA06212@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:06 PM 12/10/97 -0600, Grant wrote: > I want to make it clear that I am not intending this as a >criticism of either the AC [I don't have all the facts] or Alan LeBendig. >But I think it brings up issues about who should bring appeals, under what >circumstances, and what sorts of penalties are appropriate. I think Grant is being too easy on the AC. Regardless of whatever additional facts there may have been beyond what was stated in the article, the committee's action is ludicrous on its face. The point of the deposit is that it can be retained if the AC decides that the appeal was a clear waste of its time. For a committee to judge that an appeal simultaneously (a) is such as to warrant an adjustment to the score of one of the parties involved, and (b) is a clear waste of the committee's time, is flatly contradictory. If the penalty to the appellees wasn't justified, it shouldn't have been given. If it was justified, the appellants should sooner have been commended for bringing the matter to the AC's attention than penalized for doing so. 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 Dec 13 03:51:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 03:51:15 +1100 Received: from ni1.ni.net (ni1.ni.net [192.215.247.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05445 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 03:51:10 +1100 Received: from proxy (proxy1.microsim.com [207.71.110.253]) by ni1.ni.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA20801 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.microsim.com ([10.1.1.253]) by proxy via smtpd (for ni1.ni.net [192.215.247.1]) with SMTP; 12 Dec 1997 16:50:31 UT Received: from blue by microsim.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA15061; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:47:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199712121647.IAA15061@microsim.com> Received: by blue (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02061; Fri, 12 Dec 97 08:50:33 PST Date: Fri, 12 Dec 97 08:50:33 PST From: ian@microsim.com (Ian Wilson) Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'd like a quick poll on the expected actions by a) director b) screener on the following episode: 1N[1] 2c[2] X*[3] p[4] p p 1. 1N: 15-17 2. 2c: natural 3. X: long hesitation; alerted 4. explanation asked for the X: reply "Stayman" The 1N opener has 2335 shape. 2c-X down a couple. I (the partner of the 2c overcaller) requested a director at the of the (agreed) long hesitation. "Play on". I also requested the return of the director at the end of the hand. My contention was that the hesitation before X suggested a hand that was off-shape for Stayman somehow, and that this increases the chance of a successful conversion for penalties; thus the 1N bidder in in possesion of UI. a) What should the director's action be now? b) What would you expect the screener's position to be, if it comes to that? - ian From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 13 04:17:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 04:17:33 +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 EAA05705 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 04:17:26 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27613) with SMTP id <0EL300CLI0P2OZ@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:07:50 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA18746; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:07:56 +0100 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:07:55 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: change of score ? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EL300CLJ0P2OZ@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I got the folowing problem last night : Bidding : N S 1NT 2S (A1) A1= Alert for clubs. 2NT (A2) 3D (A3) A2=alert for topcard in clubs. A3=1-ste or 2-de control. 3H 4C 5C p South is leader in 5C and before West plays his first card he asks what the A1, A2 and A3 meaned. Then he starts with H9 and the contract was simply made. In the 10-th trick West detected that His partner East had Diamond AK42. West had two Diamonds 83 and South started with Diamonds QJ97. West calls the TD and said that if he got the wrong information about the diamond-holding of South. If he had the right information he would started Diamond and then he would ruff the third diamond and the contract would go one down. On the sy- stemcard of NS stands cue-bidding. South said that he kept the bidding open for 3NT, but that 3D in their system was cue for Diamond. What would you rule. 5C made or something else ? 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 Dec 13 05:48:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 05:48:07 +1100 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [205.252.116.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05978 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 05:48:02 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-tnt19s151.erols.com [207.172.119.151]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA25852; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:47:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19971212134842.008b7250@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:48:42 -0500 To: ian@microsim.com (Ian Wilson) From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199712121647.IAA15061@microsim.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:50 AM 12/12/97 PST, Ian Wilson wrote: > >I'd like a quick poll on the expected actions by a) director b) screener on >the following episode: > >1N[1] 2c[2] X*[3] p[4] >p p > >1. 1N: 15-17 >2. 2c: natural >3. X: long hesitation; alerted >4. explanation asked for the X: reply "Stayman" > >The 1N opener has 2335 shape. 2c-X down a couple. > >I (the partner of the 2c overcaller) requested a director at the of the >(agreed) long hesitation. "Play on". I also requested the return of the >director at the end of the hand. My contention was that the hesitation >before X suggested a hand that was off-shape for Stayman somehow, and that >this increases the chance of a successful conversion for penalties; thus >the 1N bidder in in possesion of UI. > You are missing relevant info (form of scoring, vulnerability, not to mention the actual hands. Despite that: >a) What should the director's action be now? score stands >b) What would you expect the screener's position to be, if it comes to that? appeal appears frivolous. (I would expect a deposit to be lost if this ever got to a committee) Why would an "off-shape" Stayman suggest conversion to penalties? I don't see this argument at all. The only argument that would suggest an adjustment would be that the slow double showed clubs. Are you seriously suggesting that the NT bidder should pull this double with a 5 card trump stack and no fit for partner? Pass should be systemic with the shape given. IMO there are no LAs. > >- ian > > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 13 07:36:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 07:36:03 +1100 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06441 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 07:35:56 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (ppp29.net-A.dc.net [205.252.61.29]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id PAA24640 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:29:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971212153715.006c0a0c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:37:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-Reply-To: <199712121647.IAA15061@microsim.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:50 AM 12/12/97 PST, Ian wrote: >I'd like a quick poll on the expected actions by a) director b) screener on >the following episode: > >1N[1] 2c[2] X*[3] p[4] >p p > >1. 1N: 15-17 >2. 2c: natural >3. X: long hesitation; alerted >4. explanation asked for the X: reply "Stayman" > >The 1N opener has 2335 shape. 2c-X down a couple. > >I (the partner of the 2c overcaller) requested a director at the of the >(agreed) long hesitation. "Play on". I also requested the return of the >director at the end of the hand. My contention was that the hesitation >before X suggested a hand that was off-shape for Stayman somehow, and that >this increases the chance of a successful conversion for penalties; thus >the 1N bidder in in possesion of UI. > >a) What should the director's action be now? No adjustment. >b) What would you expect the screener's position to be, if it comes to that? I'd expect him to discourage the appeal, as it might well be regarded as frivolous. I don't see how the hesitation suggested a penalty pass. For one thing, it seems at least as likely to suggest that the doubler was stretching to bid on minimal values, which would, if anything, discourage passing. For another, even if the huddle suggested that the huddler wasn't 4-4 in the majors, it seems at least as likely that he has better than 4-4 -- which would again suggest not passing for penalties -- than that he has less. Suppose opener had bid 2H on his 3-card suit, caught partner with a weak 5-6-2-0, and made 2H when 2CX would have made with overtricks. Wouldn't an appellant in those circumstances have about as strong a case? If so, then there was no demonstrable suggestion, and no reason to adjust here. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 13 16:56:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:56:25 +1100 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA07872 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:56:18 +1100 From: RuefulR Message-ID: <872f744c.34922220@aol.com> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 00:50:19 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-12-12 20:17:50 EST, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: << Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> They asked >> for a ruling which was about as likely as asking Hussein to throw a big >> party for the Americans, and then they decided to appeal, knowing that >> getting an adjustment their way required the Appeals Committee to be >> drunk *and* to accept brines. > >In view of the precedent set by the "poor Eddie Kantar" ruling in the >Vanderbilt a few years ago, I think the above is a bit pessimistic. > >In any case, a penalty for frivolous appeal when the score is changed >seems bizarre. Don't you want those appeals to be heard so that the >TD's error (failing to impose a PP) can be fixed? This seems >especially so when the imposed penalty is so severe. One might argue >that a 10% penalty is not worth bothering an AC, but if the correct >penalty is 50%, don't we want to get it right? You really want people appealing *solely* to change their opponents' score? I know I was a bit silly, officer, and I just know that I deserve what ever you do to me, officer, but I AM DETERMINED TO GET THOSE BASTARDS! Does this make the $50 safe if you make it clear that you are only appealing to try and do your oppos down, not to improve your score? >> This has happened. Several appeals cases I have read have had the comment made by the players appealing, "We are not asking for our score to be changed, merely the opponents". At least one case had the comment by the committee "If the opponents hadn't stated they were only trying to get the opponents score changed, we would have found it frivolous and forfeited their deposit". David A. Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 14 02:47:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:47:50 +1100 Received: from iver.docline.it (iver.docline.it [194.184.121.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11191 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:47:39 +1100 Received: from stefanof (194.184.121.232) by iver.docline.it (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.81) with SMTP id ; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:56:57 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971213165344.007b7380@iver.docline.it> X-Sender: fly@iver.docline.it X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Demo [I] Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:53:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Stefano Franchino Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk subscrive me From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 02:27:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 02:27:29 +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 CAA16377 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 02:27:22 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic220.cais.com [207.226.56.220]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA28995 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:20:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971214102851.006c7340@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:28:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-Reply-To: <872f744c.34922220@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:50 AM 12/13/97 EST, RuefulR wrote: >In a message dated 97-12-12 20:17:50 EST, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > ><< Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: David Stevenson > >> They asked > >> for a ruling which was about as likely as asking Hussein to throw a big > >> party for the Americans, and then they decided to appeal, knowing that > >> getting an adjustment their way required the Appeals Committee to be > >> drunk *and* to accept brines. > > > >In view of the precedent set by the "poor Eddie Kantar" ruling in the > >Vanderbilt a few years ago, I think the above is a bit pessimistic. > > > >In any case, a penalty for frivolous appeal when the score is changed > >seems bizarre. Don't you want those appeals to be heard so that the > >TD's error (failing to impose a PP) can be fixed? This seems > >especially so when the imposed penalty is so severe. One might argue > >that a 10% penalty is not worth bothering an AC, but if the correct > >penalty is 50%, don't we want to get it right? > > You really want people appealing *solely* to change their opponents' > score? I know I was a bit silly, officer, and I just know that I > deserve what ever you do to me, officer, but I AM DETERMINED TO GET > THOSE BASTARDS! Does this make the $50 safe if you make it clear that > you are only appealing to try and do your oppos down, not to improve > your score? >> > >This has happened. Several appeals cases I have read have had the comment >made by the players appealing, "We are not asking for our score to be >changed, merely the opponents". At least one case had the comment by >the committee "If the opponents hadn't stated they were only trying to >get the opponents score changed, we would have found it frivolous and >forfeited >their deposit". I don't believe that ACs should be used by players for the sole purpose of "getting" opponents who have committed minor infractions and whom they don't like. IMHO, if I were a single-handed AC, I would tell an appellant who said "We are not asking for our score to be changed, merely the opponents'" that that's not what the appeals process is for, and throw them out of the room. My personal reaction to the original case presented was that the appeal should have been found frivolous, the $50 kept, and the case dismissed without the issue of the PP for failure to alert ever having arisen. But (beside the point) I still don't see how an AC can take action on a matter while simultaneously holding that their time was wasted by having the matter brought to their attention. I don't believe that every technical infraction, notwithstanding the fact that it failed to cause damage to the opponents, should receive a PP. I believe even less that it should receive a PP just because it happened to occur against a pair that doesn't like you and so takes you to a committee claiming no self-interest in the outcome. Of course, there are egregious infractions that don't happen to result in damage but that should be noted and, perhaps, penalized in some way. In the ACBL, we have recorders for that. ACs should save their valuable time for "real" appeals, i.e. ones in which the appellants have some stake in the outcome. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 04:30:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA16798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 04:30:33 +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 EAA16793 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 04:30:26 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by null.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA20497 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:30:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:30:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712141730.MAA03570@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19971214102851.006c7340@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Sun, 14 Dec 1997 10:28:51 -0500) Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > I don't believe that ACs should be used by players for the sole purpose of > "getting" opponents who have committed minor infractions and whom they > don't like. IMHO, if I were a single-handed AC, I would tell an appellant > who said "We are not asking for our score to be changed, merely the > opponents'" that that's not what the appeals process is for, and throw them > out of the room. Sometimes there is a legitimate issue, though. The general policy when the non-offenders make an egregious error is to give the non-offenders the score they earned with their error but not to give the offenders the benefit. If the director doesn't do this, the only way for the correct ruling to be made is for the non-offenders to appeal. For example, West pulls a slow penalty double of 3H to 3S, and North makes a bad double of 3S, which makes for -730. If the director gives +730 to E-W, rather than +200 or -730 or whatever would have happened in 3Hx, how does this get corrected? It's the same principle as placing an appeal which can affect your score but not your placing in the event. I believe it is proper to place such an appeal. > But (beside the point) I still don't see how an AC can take action on a > matter while simultaneously holding that their time was wasted by having > the matter brought to their attention. I agree with this principle. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 09:06:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:06:10 +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 JAA17656 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:06:01 +1100 Received: from default (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02998 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:05:52 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712142205.XAA02998@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:06:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: change of score ? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "E.Angad-Gaur" > I got the folowing problem last night : > > Bidding : > N S > 1NT 2S (A1) A1= Alert for clubs. > 2NT (A2) 3D (A3) A2=alert for topcard in clubs. A3=1-ste or 2-de control. > 3H 4C > 5C p > > South is leader in 5C and before West plays his first card he asks what the > A1, A2 and A3 meaned. Then he starts with H9 and the contract was simply made. > In the 10-th trick West detected that His partner East had Diamond AK42. West > had two Diamonds 83 and South started with Diamonds QJ97. West calls the TD > and said that if he got the wrong information about the diamond-holding of > South. If he had the right information he would started Diamond and then he > would ruff the third diamond and the contract would go one down. On the sy- > stemcard of NS stands cue-bidding. South said that he kept the bidding open > for 3NT, but that 3D in their system was cue for Diamond. > > What would you rule. 5C made or something else ? I would be in doubt what to rule. I accept that the defenders are damaged by the explanation of the 3D bid, but I am not sure whether I would rule that S has bid outside his agreements (not an irregularity, no adjustment), or that the system card and North's explanation constitutes misinformation (an irregularity, adjustment seems reasonable). In situations like these, with players at a serious level, where agreements usually are quite elaborate, I tend towards the misinformation ruling. If it is likely that NS have not exercised this part of their system very much, and thus may have trouble remembering their agreement, I rule that the system card does not reflect their agreement, and there is misinformation. Evidently, South did not correct North's explanation that this was a cue bid. This implies that at the time of the opening lead, after hearing North's explanation, South was convinced that he had bid outside his system (and thus not obliged to correct the correct explanation). If South's ethics could be questionable (which I have no reason to suspect), he could also have disagreed with North's explanation but consciously neglected to correct that explanation. To get much closer, I would need to interview NS about the way their system has been defined and the type of analogous situations they have been in earlier. I am not sure if this is much help, but at least it does illustrate the principle that a written account of an agreement can be ruled as misinformation. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 09:06:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:06:08 +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 JAA17655 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:06:00 +1100 Received: from default (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02995 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:05:49 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712142205.XAA02995@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:06:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Judgement call, logical alternative Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is one from the club about a month ago. North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams South holds: S QJT732 H 92 D KT93 C 7 NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, and the bidding goes W S E N 1C - 1S 2H - 3H ? North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical alternative? Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than passing? Your learned judgement would be welcomed; I would appreciate an indication of the types of hand you find that N could have for his pass (barring the hesitation). -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 13:36:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:36:12 +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 NAA18364 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:36:06 +1100 Received: from mike (ip120.baltimore6.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.182.120]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA06339 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:35:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971213104937.006a671c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:49:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-Reply-To: <199712121647.IAA15061@microsim.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:50 AM 12/12/97 Ian wrote: > >I'd like a quick poll on the expected actions by a) director b) screener on >the following episode: > >1N[1] 2c[2] X*[3] p[4] >p p > >1. 1N: 15-17 >2. 2c: natural >3. X: long hesitation; alerted >4. explanation asked for the X: reply "Stayman" > >The 1N opener has 2335 shape. 2c-X down a couple. > >I (the partner of the 2c overcaller) requested a director at the of the >(agreed) long hesitation. "Play on". I also requested the return of the >director at the end of the hand. My contention was that the hesitation >before X suggested a hand that was off-shape for Stayman somehow, and that >this increases the chance of a successful conversion for penalties; thus >the 1N bidder in in possesion of UI. > >a) What should the director's action be now? >b) What would you expect the screener's position to be, if it comes to that? > >- ian > a) IMO, the director should rule to let the result stand. To argue otherwise you must assert that the NT bidder had a LA (presumably 2NT) and that the hesitation demonstrably suggested passing. Neither proposition has much going for it. Although the vulnerability and scoring might be relevant, the pass seems fairly automatic in most any case. What the hesitation suggests is quite unclear. It might well be confusion over competitive methods in this auction, sub-standard values, off-shape Stayman, or a number of other possibilities. Even if, as you argue, it clearly indicates an off-shape Stayman, this does not demonstrably suggest that passing is more likely to be a winner. Suppose the NT bidder removes the double and this happens to be right (e.g., finds partner with a fitting 6-card diamond suit and rolls 3nt, 2C making or failing by only a trick). Are we then to penalize the NT bidder for not leaving the double in? b) Assuming the director ruled as in a), the screener should make precisely the case I have made to prospective appellants. However, I do not think that the deposit should be forfeit if they go ahead. I am not a big fan of the forfeiture system in any case, but if it is to be used, it should really be used sparingly and to discourage real abuse of the appeals process. Possibly the director would (mistakenly) rule for the NOs, on the usual grounds of benefit of the doubt, etc. This would be lazy, but would at least have the supreficial factual basis of an agreed hesitiation followed by a poor result for the NOs. Presumably he would advise the "offenders" of their right to appeal, perhaps encourage them to do so. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 13:48:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:48:57 +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 NAA18397 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:48:21 +1100 Received: from mike (ip120.baltimore6.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.182.120]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA15927 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:48:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971214214823.006ad058@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 21:48:23 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative In-Reply-To: <199712142205.XAA02995@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:06 PM 12/14/97 +0100, you wrote: >Here is one from the club about a month ago. > >North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams > >South holds: > > S QJT732 > H 92 > D KT93 > C 7 > >NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, >and the bidding goes > > W S E N > 1C > - 1S 2H - >3H ? > >North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical >alternative? Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than >passing? > Pass is certainly a LA, vulnerable at IMPs. Probably not the best alternative, but a reasonable one, (easily by the ACBL standard, closer but I think still meeting the 30% EBU standard). The pass itself merely indicates minimum values without any notable spade fit. It might be useful in this context to know whether NS are playing support doubles. The hesitation suggests that N holds either more than a minimum opener or 3 spades, possibly both. What N does NOT hold (for the hesitation) is a hand with minimum values and short spades. By ruling out this category of dangerous hands, the hesitation improves the odds on bidding more for this South hand, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 19:31:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:31:56 +1100 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA19060 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:31:41 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id IAA23134 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:30:28 GMT Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 08:30 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative 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: <199712142205.XAA02995@isa.dknet.dk> > Here is one from the club about a month ago. > > North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams > > South holds: > > S QJT732 > H 92 > D KT93 > C 7 > > NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, > and the bidding goes > > W S E N > 1C > - 1S 2H - > 3H ? > > North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical > alternative? 3S, double (if TO oriented) and pass all appear to have merits (my choice would probably depend on partner's attitude to 3-card raises). > Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than passing? Pard was about to bid (possibly 1NT, probably 2C) before the 2H intervention. A few seconds to reappraise the situation would seem likely whatever the hand he has and I would be reluctant to read any suggestion into it. A longer pause might suggest non-minimum values, and thus make double (copes with most eventualities) more appealing, although even this feels a bit tenuous. I find it difficult to see any suggestion that 3S is better/worse than pass > > Your learned judgement would be welcomed; I would appreciate an > indication of the types of hand you find that N could have for his > pass (barring the hesitation). Most likely he holds a 2425/1435(possibly 2245) in the 11-14 range. Of course a lot depends on what a double would be - I would have to pass 2H with a 1516 hand (though this does make oppos' bidding seem a little odd), while others might be stuck with a 2344 15-16 count or choose to pass a 3??5 11 count. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 19:48:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:48:31 +1100 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA19107 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:48:16 +1100 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA08515 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:47:24 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA28204; Mon, 15 Dec 97 08:47:21 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19971215095115.007c8200@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:51:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative In-Reply-To: <199712142205.XAA02995@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:06 14/12/97 +0100, you wrote: >Here is one from the club about a month ago. > >North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams > >South holds: > > S QJT732 > H 92 > D KT93 > C 7 > >NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, >and the bidding goes > > W S E N > 1C > - 1S 2H - >3H ? > >North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical >alternative? Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than >passing? I think pass is a logical alternative (not a very attractive one) I don't think the hesitation favors bidding > >Your learned judgement would be welcomed; I would appreciate an >indication of the types of hand you find that N could have for his >pass (barring the hesitation). > North's most probable hand is an unbalanced hand with long clubs, short spades and, maybe, secondary diamonds. The hesitation suggests good clubs with a minimum opening (tentation to bid 3C). In my opinion, normal action, by South, would be to bid 3S and "Pass" might be subject to an adjusted score, as suggested by the partner's pause. >-- >Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > > ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 15 20:12:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:12:03 +1100 Received: from coconut.tc.pw.com (coconut-ext.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA19167 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:11:58 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id BAA28655; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 01:10:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from palm.us.pw.com(131.209.7.57) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma028629; Mon, 15 Dec 97 01:10:14 -0800 Received: by palm.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA16846; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 01:12:41 -0800 Message-Id: <199712150912.BAA16846@palm.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 09:03:43 GMT Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark said: >Here is one from the club about a month ago. > >North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams > >South holds: > > S QJT732 > H 92 > D KT93 > C 7 > >NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, >and the bidding goes > > W S E N > 1C > - 1S 2H - >3H ? > >North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical >alternative? IMO yes, >Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than passing? Yes, but I would respect counter-arguments. I suspect partner is near maximum for a pass. To me this suggests bidding with the W hand. I would expect a TD to rule this way. Om an AC I'd have similar inclinations, but listen to the arguments of the contestants, and my fellow AC members (as ever!). >Your learned judgement would be welcomed; I would appreciate an >indication of the types of hand you find that N could have for his >pass (barring the hesitation). To a certain extent this would depend on partnership agreement as to what X would have meant. If X would have been for penalty, then I think pass might be any balanced hand up to and including 16 HCP with fewer than three spades, or any distributional hand with fewer than 3 spades lacking the values for a bid. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 00:41:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:41:40 +1100 Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com (pimaia4w.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA22031 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:41:34 +1100 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA15534 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:41:30 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id IAA81210 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:41:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199712151341.IAA81210@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:41:28, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: Most likely he holds a 2425/1435(possibly 2245) in the 11-14 range. Of course a lot depends on what a double would be - I would have to pass 2H with a 1516 hand (though this does make oppos' bidding seem a little odd), while others might be stuck with a 2344 15-16 count or choose to pass a 3??5 11 count. ----------------- Thanks Tim, these were all the things going through my head when I was trying to work out what partner might have. In response to a question by Mike Dennis, he wondered if the opponents play support doubles. I sent him a private note saying that if they were, then the pass would have had to be alerted as denying 3 spades. This eliminates the not having a penalty double handy and needing partner to reopen the bidding. My next question was, if 1NT is 12-14, what would 2NT be at this point in the auction and was part of the hesitation because the opener now holds the wrong hand. =============== However, the problem as stated by Jens was that this is a flight B pair. Therefore, I think I qualify to give a flight B opinion. Is pass a logical alternative? I say no, because it would never occur to me to pass. I know that my partner opened the bidding; that I have a declaring (offensive) kind of hand and do not particularly care to defend 3H. I don't think I care whether partner has 3 spades or 2 spades. If partner cannot come up with some kind of noise that says notrump, I would leap to the conclusion that the points are probably placed in the other suits and that is of an advantage to me. =================================== Seeing decisions from a flight b or flight C position has been something that has influenced committeess in the past. I have seen in the write ups of committees allowing results to stand because it just "never occurred" to the person of lesser ability that pass was a logical alternative. The other problem with flight B and C is that sometimes, due to inexperience, people get caught with the hand that does not allow them to make a decision quickly and the hesitation really means nothing. ================================= There was only one other point I considered. If the hesitation in some way said that partner had good values in hearts, but could not bid 2NT because of the range, then pass would be highly attractive because partner wants to defend. In this case, you are almost forced to be 3S. After considering that there were many hands that partner could hold, I did not feel guilty about bidding 3S, feeling the hesitation does not suggest one action over the other. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 02:54:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 02:54:08 +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 CAA22558 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 02:54:01 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005648; 15 Dec 97 15:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:02:50 +0000 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: change of score ? In-Reply-To: <199712142205.XAA02998@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199712142205.XAA02998@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >> From: "E.Angad-Gaur" >> I got the folowing problem last night : >> >> Bidding : >> N S >> 1NT 2S (A1) A1= Alert for clubs. >> 2NT (A2) 3D (A3) A2=alert for topcard in clubs. A3=1-ste or 2-de control. >> 3H 4C >> 5C p >> >> South is leader in 5C and before West plays his first card he asks what the >> A1, A2 and A3 meaned. Then he starts with H9 and the contract was simply made. >> In the 10-th trick West detected that His partner East had Diamond AK42. West >> had two Diamonds 83 and South started with Diamonds QJ97. West calls the TD >> and said that if he got the wrong information about the diamond-holding of >> South. If he had the right information he would started Diamond and then he >> would ruff the third diamond and the contract would go one down. On the sy- >> stemcard of NS stands cue-bidding. South said that he kept the bidding open >> for 3NT, but that 3D in their system was cue for Diamond. >> >> What would you rule. 5C made or something else ? > >I would be in doubt what to rule. I accept that the defenders are >damaged by the explanation of the 3D bid, but I am not sure whether I >would rule that S has bid outside his agreements (not an >irregularity, no adjustment), or that the system card and North's >explanation constitutes misinformation (an irregularity, adjustment >seems reasonable). > >In situations like these, with players at a serious level, where >agreements usually are quite elaborate, I tend towards the >misinformation ruling. If it is likely that NS have not exercised >this part of their system very much, and thus may have trouble >remembering their agreement, I rule that the system card does not >reflect their agreement, and there is misinformation. > snip As far as I can see South misbid (or psych'd). I'd rule result stands because I can't see there's been any UI. Certainly S *shouldn't* draw attention to the problem before the opening lead as long as the explanation is correct. In effect N-S have been lucky that their system error has got them a good result. Have I missed something 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 Tue Dec 16 02:58:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 02:58:45 +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 CAA22581 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 02:58:33 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005661; 15 Dec 97 15:47 GMT Message-ID: <5ZTfqkCrAUl0EwG9@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:35:23 +0000 To: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971215095115.007c8200@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.5.32.19971215095115.007c8200@phedre.meteo.fr>, Jean- Pierre Rocafort writes >At 23:06 14/12/97 +0100, you wrote: >>Here is one from the club about a month ago. >> >>North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams >> >>South holds: >> >> S QJT732 >> H 92 >> D KT93 >> C 7 >> >>NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, >>and the bidding goes >> >> W S E N >> 1C >> - 1S 2H - >>3H ? >> >>North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical >>alternative? Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than >>passing? > snip > North's most probable hand is an unbalanced hand with long clubs, short >spades and, maybe, secondary diamonds. The hesitation suggests good clubs >with a minimum opening (tentation to bid 3C). > This problem is very interesting in that IMO in the UK, pard cannot have 3S when he passes the 2H bid. Whether you show the 3 card suit with a support double or by bidding 2S S *knows* that pard is either 15-16 balanced with 2S or (given the auction) 1-3-4-5 minimum, possible 1-3-3-6 with bad clubs. In this case IMO he wouldn't have hesitated, which is a clear disagreement of your intepretation. The hesitation suggests to me he doesn't now have this sort of hand, hence has some fit for spades maybe even 3 small (3-3-3-4 15 count) and Pass becomes a serious LA. BTW to another correspondent 2NT would show 17-18, probably 2-3-4-4 > In my opinion, normal action, by South, would be to bid 3S and "Pass" >might be subject to an adjusted score, as suggested by the partner's pause. > > >>-- >>Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark >> >> > > > > > >________________________________________________________________ >Jean-Pierre Rocafort >METEO-FRANCE >SCEM/TTI/DAC >42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis >31057 Toulouse CEDEX >Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) >Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) >e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr > >Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr >________________________________________________________________ -- 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 Dec 16 03:00:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 03:00:54 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA22609 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 03:00:48 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005650; 15 Dec 97 15:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:14:20 +0000 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative In-Reply-To: <199712142205.XAA02995@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199712142205.XAA02995@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >Here is one from the club about a month ago. > >North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams > >South holds: > > S QJT732 > H 92 > D KT93 > C 7 > >NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, >and the bidding goes > > W S E N > 1C > - 1S 2H - >3H ? > >North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical >alternative? Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than >passing? > >Your learned judgement would be welcomed; I would appreciate an >indication of the types of hand you find that N could have for his >pass (barring the hesitation). > In the UK N passes with a balanced 15-16, and doubleton S, or a hand with 4H (which seems unlikely here), or some sort of 1-3-4-5. IMO N would have bid 2S with a three card fit (pretty standard in UK but possibly not in mainland Europe). Hence it's possible that N is thinking about bidding 3S and so Pass is definitely a LA, particularly since we have a minimum and a misfit. FWIW I'd guess TNT on the hand is about 16 and it's normally wrong to take the second bid at the three-level with these sort of hands. -- 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 Dec 16 03:01:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 03:01:41 +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 DAA22625 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 03:01:35 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1000248; 15 Dec 97 15:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:19:38 +0000 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative 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: <199712142205.XAA02995@isa.dknet.dk> >> Here is one from the club about a month ago. >> >> North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams >> >> South holds: >> >> S QJT732 >> H 92 >> D KT93 >> C 7 >> >> NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, >> and the bidding goes >> >> W S E N >> 1C >> - 1S 2H - >> 3H ? >> >> North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical >> alternative? > >3S, double (if TO oriented) and pass all appear to have merits (my choice >would probably depend on partner's attitude to 3-card raises). > >> Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than passing? > snip >Most likely he holds a 2425/1435(possibly 2245) in the 11-14 range. >Of course a lot depends on what a double would be - I would have to pass >2H with a 1516 hand (though this does make oppos' bidding seem a little >odd), while others might be stuck with a 2344 15-16 count or choose to >pass a 3??5 11 count. > I don't think (in the UK at least) that N has a 3-card spade fit of any strength. His hesitation later tells me he might have. I think that is what makes bidding on more attractive. I'd rule for the pass as a LA, Tim. >Tim West-Meads > -- 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 Dec 16 04:09:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:09:35 +1100 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22918 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:09:28 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id RAA08148 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:08:49 GMT Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 17:08 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: At all probable 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 While contemplating L12c2 (1987) these words seemed to lash out at me. Obviously on any given hand there is a vanishingly small, but non-zero mathematical probability of an offender bidding 7 of their shortest suit redoubling and then playing misere. I am also sure that this was not what the lawmakers meant by "at all probable". Is there some widely recognised standard/consensus on how this should be interpreted? And while this law is in my mind how about "likely"? Thanks Tim Apologies if this is completely obvious/has been discussed before. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 04:22:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:22:06 +1100 Received: from ni1.ni.net (ni1.ni.net [192.215.247.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA23015 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:22:00 +1100 Received: from proxy (proxy1.microsim.com [207.71.110.253]) by ni1.ni.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12628 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.microsim.com ([10.1.1.253]) by proxy via smtpd (for ni1.ni.net [192.215.247.1]) with SMTP; 15 Dec 1997 17:21:22 UT Received: from blue by microsim.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04177; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:18:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199712151718.JAA04177@microsim.com> Received: by blue (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00784; Mon, 15 Dec 97 09:21:20 PST Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 09:21:20 PST From: ian@microsim.com (Ian Wilson) Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to everyone who gave me feedback on the auction 1N-2c-X!-p-p?-p. To my surprise, I find myself in a minority of 1 in thinking that the hesitation suggested a clear course of action to the 1N bidder. Indeed, the tone of the majority of responses was that I should be shot at dawn for an attempted double shot (I was the partner of the 2c overcaller). I must admit to being puzzled by the argument that the offshape stayman X could be of many types for the hesitation - anything with decent values and/or shape presents no problem. It is precisely the hand with marginal values and poor shape that presents a problem. Oh well :) At the table (0-1000, ACBL Nationals, pairs) the director ruled "result stands"; the screener was prepared to refer the hand to an AC but with a strong recommendation not to bother. I decided it wasn't worth it. Next time I'll consult BLML before asking for an AC :) ian From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 04:47:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:47:19 +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 EAA23137 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:47:09 +1100 Received: from default (client85e1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.225]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA11821; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:46:58 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: What is irrational play Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:42:29 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd058a$9b0ba7e0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : >Mind you : L70C does NOT apply (declarer knew there was an outstanding >trump), so only L71C can be used : a trick that cannot be lost by any >normal play. > ++++ It seems that Declarer has made it clear enough he was claiming on the basis that the trump Knave was out; he only 'found' the thought of drawing the trump after he realised he was wrong. With the Knave out it is rational not to draw trump and Law 70D does not permit the change. He is too late at that point to add to his statement of claim.++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 04:47:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:47:18 +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 EAA23136 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:47:07 +1100 Received: from default (client85e1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.225]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA11826; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:47:01 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Stevenson" Cc: "Carol von Linstow" Subject: Re: new law book edition Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:00:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd058d$26e4d320$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : Subject: Re: new law book edition >Herman De Wael wrote: >>David Stevenson . > > >>I think it would be advisable for Grattan to tell us where to find a WBF >>version of the Laws, and for someone to clearly check these against the >>several English language "editions" so we can get on with things! > > There is no WBF version. There may be some argument as to which >version most closely follows the WBF view, but the English edition has >the advantage of being produced last> ++++Hang on. There IS a WBF version. It is the one finally approved by the WBF Executive and presumably lodged with Carol von Linstow. It is not a version that is printed as such but it *is* the standard text against which all others may be compared for accuracy. If push came to shove and some earth-shaking judgement were to hang on 'what is the letter of the law' that would be the final resort.++++Grattan++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 04:47:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:47:37 +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 EAA23150 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 04:47:29 +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 MAA14578 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04544; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:47:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:47:11 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712151747.MAA04544@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: At all probable X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Is there some widely recognised > standard/consensus on how this should be interpreted? And while this law > is in my mind how about "likely"? In the ACBL, the National Laws Commission has interpreted "likely" as one chance in three; "at all probable" as one in six. Or so I was told by a source that seemed reliable at the time; unfortunately, I cannot now remember the source. Corrections and interpretations in other jurisdictions would be welcome. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 05:21:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 05:21:57 +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 FAA23265 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 05:21:51 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1014913; 15 Dec 97 18:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 18:10:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: At all probable In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >While contemplating L12c2 (1987) these words seemed to lash out at me. >Obviously on any given hand there is a vanishingly small, but non-zero >mathematical probability of an offender bidding 7 of their shortest suit >redoubling and then playing misere. I am also sure that this was not what >the lawmakers meant by "at all probable". Is there some widely recognised >standard/consensus on how this should be interpreted? And while this law >is in my mind how about "likely"? When interpreting various parts of the Law it is not always a question of "what the lawmakers meant". Unless they promulgate an opinion then it seems not unreasonable to interpret parts of the Law as we see fit, There have been various interpretations of "at all probable" from about one in twenty until one in six. "Likely" seems to be between one in three and one in ten. -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 05:24:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 05:24:23 +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 FAA23281 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 05:24:17 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2018623; 15 Dec 97 18:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 18:11:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative In-Reply-To: <5ZTfqkCrAUl0EwG9@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >This problem is very interesting in that IMO in the UK, pard cannot have >3S when he passes the 2H bid. Why ever not? Of course he can have three card support for a pass in the UK. -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 06:36:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 06:36:34 +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 GAA23722 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 06:36:23 +1100 Received: from default (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA28679 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:36:15 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712151936.UAA28679@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:36:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: At all probable Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > While contemplating L12c2 (1987) these words seemed to lash out at me. > Obviously on any given hand there is a vanishingly small, but non-zero > mathematical probability of an offender bidding 7 of their shortest suit > redoubling and then playing misere. I am also sure that this was not what > the lawmakers meant by "at all probable". Is there some widely recognised > standard/consensus on how this should be interpreted? And while this law > is in my mind how about "likely"? The EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws (by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen) advises the director as follows in section 12.14: [D]iscard the improbable and consider the scores that remain. Select the one most unfavourable for the offending side. They go on to offer this guidance in section 12.18: Likely: "I really believe this would be quite likely to happen". At all probable: "It is not really likely, but it is not stretching the imagination to say it could quite well happen". The latter guideline certainly supports ruling out those vanishingly small, but mathematically non-zero probabilities. >From Steve Willner's response I have selected: > In the ACBL, the National Laws Commission has interpreted "likely" as > one chance in three; "at all probable" as one in six. Or so I was > told My impression is that the EBL Commentary position will allow a score as "at all probable" that the alleged ACBL position would not consider "at all probable". I am not so sure which position is more liberal with respect to "likely". -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 09:20:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:20:59 +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 JAA24217 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:20:53 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic202.cais.com [207.226.56.202]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id RAA14285 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:13:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971215172224.006cb75c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:22:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? In-Reply-To: <199712141730.MAA03570@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19971214102851.006c7340@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:30 PM 12/14/97 -0500, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes: > >> I don't believe that ACs should be used by players for the sole purpose of >> "getting" opponents who have committed minor infractions and whom they >> don't like. IMHO, if I were a single-handed AC, I would tell an appellant >> who said "We are not asking for our score to be changed, merely the >> opponents'" that that's not what the appeals process is for, and throw them >> out of the room. > >Sometimes there is a legitimate issue, though. The general policy when >the non-offenders make an egregious error is to give the non-offenders >the score they earned with their error but not to give the offenders the >benefit. If the director doesn't do this, the only way for the correct >ruling to be made is for the non-offenders to appeal. For example, West >pulls a slow penalty double of 3H to 3S, and North makes a bad double of >3S, which makes for -730. If the director gives +730 to E-W, rather >than +200 or -730 or whatever would have happened in 3Hx, how does this >get corrected? > >It's the same principle as placing an appeal which can affect your score >but not your placing in the event. I believe it is proper to place such >an appeal. I don't believe that directors should make evaluations regarding "egregious errors" that may have been committed by the NOs. The TD should hear the facts, and decide either that there was an infraction and damage, in which case he adjusts the result of the board, or not, in which case he doesn't. If he determines that no adjustment is warranted, and the NOs disagree, they can and should appeal, at which point the AC decides whether or not an adjustment is warranted. If the AC determines that there was an infraction and damage, it may further determine that (per the "Kaplan doctrine") an egregious error by the NOs subsequent to the infraction "broke the connection" between the infraction and the damage, and that therefore the NOs should not receive the benefit of the score adjustment, and apply that adjustment to the offenders only. In effect, they have made the adjustment the NOs asked for, but have refused them the benefit of it. It's always appropriate for the NOs to appeal if they believe that the TD didn't adjust when he should have (or adjusted incorrectly), even if they expect not to receive the benefit of the appropriate adjustment under the Kaplan doctrine. What's not appropriate is to appeal on the grounds that, even though there's no reason to adjust the score, the NOs think that the offenders should get a PP. Requests for PPs against one's opponents (as opposed to adjustments of results) should go to the recorder, or, for a really blatant offense, to a C&E committee, not to an AC. It's hard to imagine the NOs going to an AC to argue that there was an infraction and damage, but, since they erred egregiously, they do not believe they should get the benefit of the adjustment, that it should only be applied to their opponents' score. If they did, though, I suppose I would want to hear the appeal. That would be very different from arguing that there was an infraction but no damage, thus there should be no adjustment, but the offenders should be given a PP based on the infraction alone. 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 Dec 16 09:27:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:27:49 +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 JAA24261 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:27:44 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic202.cais.com [207.226.56.202]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id RAA15795 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:20:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971215172925.006c53fc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:29:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Judgement call, logical alternative In-Reply-To: <199712142205.XAA02995@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:06 PM 12/14/97 +0100, Jens wrote: >North Dealer, NS Vulnerable, imp teams > >South holds: > > S QJT732 > H 92 > D KT93 > C 7 > >NS are flight B players, playing a 12-14 NT and four card majors, >and the bidding goes > > W S E N > 1C > - 1S 2H - >3H ? > >North hesitated before passing over 2H. Is pass by South a logical >alternative? Does the pause suggest that bidding on is better than >passing? Assuming S bid 3S, I wouldn't quarrel with a ruling that let the result stand on the grounds that passing 3H wasn't a logical alternative. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 10:16:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:16:59 +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 KAA24441 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:16:51 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by null.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA02354 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 18:16:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 18:16:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712152316.SAA00155@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19971215172224.006cb75c@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:22:24 -0500) Subject: Re: Without Substantial Merit? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > It's hard to imagine the NOs going to an AC to argue that there was an > infraction and damage, but, since they erred egregiously, they do not > believe they should get the benefit of the adjustment, that it should only > be applied to their opponents' score. That's what happened in the St. Louis case brought up in this discussion; the offenders had revoked and argued that they deserved their bottom but their opponents were not entitled to a top. > If they did, though, I suppose I would want to hear the appeal. That > would be very different from arguing that there was an infraction but > no damage, thus there should be no adjustment, but the offenders > should be given a PP based on the infraction alone. I agree with this on procedural penalties, and I think it is proper for an appeals committee to impose a procedural penalty which the Director neglected to impose, while ruling the appeal frivolous on the score adjustment. It isn't proper for the appeals committee to adjust a score, or seriously consider adjusting a score, and then rule the appeal frivolous. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner 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 Dec 16 12:54:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:54:52 +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 MAA24965 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:54:40 +1100 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1017391; 16 Dec 97 1:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 01:48:46 +0000 To: John Probst Cc: Jens & Bodil , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: change of score ? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In message <199712142205.XAA02998@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil > writes >>> From: "E.Angad-Gaur" >>> I got the folowing problem last night : >>> >>> Bidding : >>> N S >>> 1NT 2S (A1) A1= Alert for clubs. >>> 2NT (A2) 3D (A3) A2=alert for topcard in clubs. A3=1-ste or 2-de >control. >>> 3H 4C >>> 5C p >>> >>> South is leader in 5C and before West plays his first card he asks what the >>> A1, A2 and A3 meaned. Then he starts with H9 and the contract was simply >made. >>> In the 10-th trick West detected that His partner East had Diamond AK42. West >>> had two Diamonds 83 and South started with Diamonds QJ97. West calls the TD >>> and said that if he got the wrong information about the diamond-holding of >>> South. If he had the right information he would started Diamond and then he >>> would ruff the third diamond and the contract would go one down. On the sy- >>> stemcard of NS stands cue-bidding. South said that he kept the bidding open >>> for 3NT, but that 3D in their system was cue for Diamond. >>> >>> What would you rule. 5C made or something else ? >> >>I would be in doubt what to rule. I accept that the defenders are >>damaged by the explanation of the 3D bid, but I am not sure whether I >>would rule that S has bid outside his agreements (not an >>irregularity, no adjustment), or that the system card and North's >>explanation constitutes misinformation (an irregularity, adjustment >>seems reasonable). >> >>In situations like these, with players at a serious level, where >>agreements usually are quite elaborate, I tend towards the >>misinformation ruling. If it is likely that NS have not exercised >>this part of their system very much, and thus may have trouble >>remembering their agreement, I rule that the system card does not >>reflect their agreement, and there is misinformation. >> >snip > >As far as I can see South misbid (or psych'd). I'd rule result stands >because I can't see there's been any UI. Certainly S *shouldn't* draw >attention to the problem before the opening lead as long as the >explanation is correct. In effect N-S have been lucky that their system >error has got them a good result. Have I missed something here? Yes. If I understand the original poster correctly, the convention card does not say anything about this specific sequence, it just announces "cue-bidding" in general. It is possible that the pair has no agreement about this bid, and South has politely gone along with his partner's explanation, not necessarily dishonestly but probably knowing that that is the best chance of avoiding an adjustment. Furthermore,to play 3D as a cue bid in this sequence is not a good agreement, and it is possible that the pair would routinely bid like this "to keep the bidding open for 3NT"; in other words even if this is their agreement they don't keep to it in practice. I would be interested to see more comment from laws experts on this one. I appreciate that it is not a crime to play methods I think inferior, but to what extent should a pair's announced methods be believed when bridge logic suggests they may quite frequently be disregarded? -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 14:43:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:43:39 +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 OAA25191 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:43:30 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020774; 16 Dec 97 3:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 03:38:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Whence come BLML members? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some time ago someone posted an analysis of BLML members based on their email suffix. I forgot to take a copy, and am interested to know the current situation. Of course, I can and am willing to count the suffices, but what do they mean? -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 14:56:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:56:21 +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 OAA25241 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:56:14 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008507; 16 Dec 97 3:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 03:35:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: change of score ? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Barden wrote: >I would be interested to see more comment from laws experts on this one. >I appreciate that it is not a crime to play methods I think inferior, >but to what extent should a pair's announced methods be believed when >bridge logic suggests they may quite frequently be disregarded? It is a matter of how much detail, isn't it? If a pair's CC says "We play cue-bids" that hardly proves what 1NT - 2S[=C] - 2NT[=C hon] - 3D means - but a TD/AC will note it as saying something about this sequence, even if not very much. If the pair's CC says "We play cue-bids after a fit is shown below game even in a minor" that is quite strong evidence what 1NT - 2S[=C] - 2NT[=C hon] - 3D means and a TD/AC will take a fair amount of notice. If the pair's CC says "We play cue-bids in the sequence 1NT - 2S[=C] - 2NT[=C hon] - 3D then not many TD/ACs will disbelieve them! These are judgement situations. ACs are encouraged to use judgement, though it can be difficult in the ACBL where a record is being made for publication. In Europe ACs find judgement easier, and TDs are allowed more judgement. How far the TD/AC believes the pair is a matter of judgement. -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 16 19:01:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:01:32 +1100 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA25604 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:01:27 +1100 From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <8a7c2ffd.34963486@aol.com> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 02:57:56 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: At all probable Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes, in re L12C2: >When interpreting various parts of the Law it is not always a question >of "what the lawmakers meant". Unless they promulgate an opinion then i>t seems not unreasonable to interpret parts of the Law as we see fit, >There have been various interpretations of "at all probable" from >about one in twenty until one in six. "Likely" seems to be between one >in three and one in ten. The Laws Commission of the ACBL has defined "likely" as one chance in three, and "probable" as one chance in six, as applied to those words in L12C2. This was printed in a Daily Bulletin at the 1995 Summer NABC, but I don't know whether it appears elsewhere. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 03:54:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 03:54:59 +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 DAA29555 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 03:54:51 +1100 Received: from default (client85c7.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.199]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA16345; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:54:36 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: Subject: WBF Appeals Committee. Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:53:25 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd0a43$2030d640$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BD0A43.2030D640" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BD0A43.2030D640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ : =20 Following up recent postings I have looked at the general=20 conditions of contest for WBF tournaments. The tournament=20 appeals committee hears appeals and, except on a point of=20 law appealable to the Laws Committee, its judgemental decisions=20 are not open to further appeal. [Freud might have known something,=20 I have just typed 'judgemental' with an 'f' for the 'j'.] I surmise that the WBF adopts a stance that, as the Promulgating=20 Authority for the laws, it is entitled by its own decree in the = Conditions of Contest to set Law 93C aside. Or perhaps it is saying 'there is no=20 national authority to which the WBF affiliates so Law 93C has no = effect". =20 Anyway the decision of the TAC is final. The procedures are in the main models of natural justice although I have = reservations as to the moral basis for a procedure in which the decision of the Chairman determines the result unless the plain members of the=20 AC are unanimous in opposing his view, and I feel that might be open to serious challenge in a democracy. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BD0A43.2030D640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
gester@globalnet.co.uk &n= bsp;   =20
Grattan=20 Endicott           = ;        =20
Liverpool  L18=20 8DJ           &nbs= p;    =20 :
 
 
Following up recent = postings I have=20 looked at the general
conditions of contest = for WBF=20 tournaments. The tournament
appeals committee = hears appeals=20 and, except on a point of
law appealable to the = Laws=20 Committee, its judgemental decisions
are not open to = further appeal.=20 [Freud might have known something,
I have just typed = 'judgemental'=20 with an 'f' for the 'j'.]
I = surmise that the=20 WBF adopts a stance that, as the Promulgating  
Authority for the laws, it is entitled by its own decree in the=20 Conditions
of Contest to set Law 93C aside. Or perhaps it is saying 'there is = no=20
national authority to which the WBF affiliates so Law 93C has no=20 effect". 
Anyway the decision of the TAC is = final.
The procedures are in the main models = of natural=20 justice although I have  
reservations as to = the moral basis=20 for a procedure in which the decision
of the Chairman=20 determines the result unless the plain members of the =
AC = are unanimous in opposing his = view, and I feel=20 that might be open to
serious = challenge in a=20 democracy.
        &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;        =20  

 
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BD0A43.2030D640-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 04:40:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 04:40:41 +1100 Received: from imo03.mx.aol.com (imo03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.105]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA29797 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 04:40:36 +1100 From: DANDEE4727 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:39:42 EST To: To:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Drury non-alert. Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Drury non-alert. After several years of enjoying the net, this is first hand. Not sure how to do it, but most of the ones I get are a mess so I’ll try dashes to get them in proper relationship. -------S - J -------H - Q653 -------D - Q865 -------C - J653 S - KQT---------S - A86432 H - T94----------H - KJ2 D - AJ43---------D - K2 C - 982----------C - Q T --------S - 975 --------H - A87 --------D - T97 --------C - AK74 Dealer S - NS vulnerable S__W__N__E P__P___P__1S P__2C_X___P P__3S_ P___4S P__P__P After 3 round (club - A, K, 7 ruffed by declarer). N called the director. N (a pro playing with a student) claimed that EW playing Drury but not alerted. Card says they play two way reverse Drury but doesn’t specify seat. Director adjusted the score. Dale Blank Director, Anaheim (CA) Bridge Club From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 12:05:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:05:40 +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 MAA01130 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:05:33 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1022574; 17 Dec 97 1:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:15:34 +0000 To: Paul Barden Cc: Jens & Bodil , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: change of score ? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Paul Barden writes >In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" > writes >>In message <199712142205.XAA02998@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil >> writes >>>> From: "E.Angad-Gaur" >>>> I got the folowing problem last night : >>>> >>>> Bidding : >>>> N S >>>> 1NT 2S (A1) A1= Alert for clubs. >>>> 2NT (A2) 3D (A3) A2=alert for topcard in clubs. A3=1-ste or 2-de >>control. >>>> 3H 4C >>>> 5C p >>>> >> >>As far as I can see South misbid (or psych'd). I'd rule result stands >>because I can't see there's been any UI. Certainly S *shouldn't* draw >>attention to the problem before the opening lead as long as the >>explanation is correct. In effect N-S have been lucky that their system >>error has got them a good result. Have I missed something here? > snip > >I would be interested to see more comment from laws experts on this one. >I appreciate that it is not a crime to play methods I think inferior, >but to what extent should a pair's announced methods be believed when >bridge logic suggests they may quite frequently be disregarded? I think you have something here Paul, Thanks -- 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 Dec 17 14:24:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:24:55 +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 OAA01530 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:24:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001370; 17 Dec 97 3:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 02:10:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Whence come BLML members? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following is the spread of members of BLML defined by email address suffix, now, and the previous time figures were quoted: au 11 9 Australia be 4 4 Belgium ca 8 7 Canada ch 2 2 Switzerland cz 1 0 Czech Republic ??? de 7 7 Germany dk 4 4 Denmark es 1 1 Spain fi 1 1 Finland fr 1 1 France gl 1 1 Greenland hk 1 1 Hong Kong hr 1 1 Croatia il 4 3 Israel it 1 0 Italy ??? jp 1 1 Japan nl 9 7 Netherlands no 2 2 Norway nz 8 4 New Zealand pt 1 1 Portugal ru 5 1 Russia se 1 0 Sweden ??? tr 1 1 Turkey tw 0 1 Taiwan gb 1 1 GBritain uk 16 14 United Kingdom com 69 58 edu 11 9 gov 1 1 net 21 22 org 5 6 Total 200 171 Suffices 30 28 USA Aust Neth Can SAfr UK Ger Isr N/k com 23 0 1 2 1 4 1 1 36 edu 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 gov 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 net 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 org 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Summarising the current figures by country: Australia 12 Belgium 4 Canada 10 Croatia 1 Czech Republic ??? 1 Denmark 4 Finland 1 France 1 Germany 8 Greenland 1 Hong Kong 1 Israel 5 Italy ??? 1 Japan 1 Netherlands 10 New Zealand 8 Norway 2 Portugal 1 Russia 5 South Africa 1 Spain 1 Sweden ??? 1 Switzerland 2 Turkey 1 United Kingdom 21 USA 36 Not known 60 TOTAL 200 However, of the not knowns, I believe the majority are from the USA. Certainly .edu, .net and .org are normally USA [24 of the not knowns]. Of the 36 .com not knowns, it is likely based on the ones I do know that about two-thirds would be USA. Thus it would seem reasonable to assume that the USA figure is nearer 84, and that there are 12 others around the world. Of course, because of people's work arrangements, some of these suffices are not a guide to where they live. The sole .se one which I believe stands for Sweden actually lives in Kent, England, UK! Still, I believe this gives some idea of the spread of BLML members. Thanks to Jesper and Con for their assistance. -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 14:30:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:30:37 +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 OAA01549 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:30:26 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2001374; 17 Dec 97 3:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 03:02:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Drury non-alert. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DANDEE4727 wrote: >Drury non-alert. > >After several years of enjoying the net, this is first hand. Not sure how to >do it, but most of the ones I get are a mess so Ill try dashes to get them in >proper relationship. >-------S - J >-------H - Q653 >-------D - Q865 >-------C - J653 > >S - KQT----------S - A86432 >H - T94----------H - KJ2 >D - AJ43---------D - K2 >C - 982----------C - Q T > >--------S - 975 >--------H - A87 >--------D - T97 >--------C - AK74 > >Dealer S - NS vulnerable > >S__W___N___E > >P__P___P___1S >P__2C__X___P >P__3S_ P___4S >P__P___P > >After 3 round (club - A, K, 7 ruffed by declarer). N called the director. >N (a pro playing with a student) claimed that EW playing Drury but not >alerted. >Card says they play two way reverse Drury but doesnt specify seat. >Director adjusted the score. Why? OK, they probably do play Drury [whatever two way reverse Drury means] and since the CC does not prove otherwise we shall assume that. Now, to adjust, we need damage consequent on the MI [their failure to alert caused N/S to go wrong] or the UI [West's bid was affected by East's failure to alert]. MI is clearly irrelevant, but UI? Why did West bid 3S not 2S? I do not know TWRD [!!] but at a guess West's has shown a reasonable raise by 2C followed by 2S. If so, 2S is clearly an LA, and 3S is suggested by the UI, so I adjust to 2S+2. Of course, if I have TWRD wrong, this might be wrong. -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 14:48:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:48:37 +1100 Received: from coconut.tc.pw.com (coconut-ext.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA01609 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:48:15 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id AAA20375; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:31:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from palm.us.pw.com(131.209.7.57) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma020370; Tue, 16 Dec 97 00:31:50 -0800 Received: by palm.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA07234; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:34:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199712160834.AAA07234@palm.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 16 Dec 97 08:26:02 GMT Subject: Re: change of score ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: >big snip >As far as I can see South misbid (or psych'd). I'd rule result stands >because I can't see there's been any UI. Certainly S *shouldn't* draw >attention to the problem before the opening lead as long as the >explanation is correct. In effect N-S have been lucky that their system >error has got them a good result. Have I missed something here? Correct in theory. But there are some, me included, who are very sceptical about declarers or dummys whose hands are not consistent with their partner's explanation, *and who fail to comment before the opening lead*. IMO you should be very very sure your partner's explanation was right, and you were wrong, before you fail to correct. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 16:34:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:34:54 +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 QAA01897 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:34:48 +1100 Received: from mike (ip193.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.163.193]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA03191 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:34:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971217003450.006adc70@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:34:50 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Drury non-alert. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:39 PM 12/16/97 EST, Dale Blank wrote: > Good problem! At first blush, the ruling looks completely wrong. How were NS damaged by the MI of the non-alerted Drury call? Would they have bid or defended differently if the call had been alerted? IMO, the NS actions would have been just the same. On closer review, however, what appears to be an MI problem turns into a UI problem. What on earth is going on with West's 3S bid? Even if EW have no agreement about how to proceed over the double of a Drury bid, 2S seems obvious for the West hand. To me, the answer is that West has been tipped off about the likelihood that his partner has forgotten Drury (a common-enough occurrence with this convention), and is bidding 3S to remind his partner that what he REALLY holds is a limit raise in spades. Did West have a logical alternative? Yes, 2S. Does the non-alert make bidding 3S more attractive relative to 2S than it would be without the UI that East may have forgotten the agreement? Yes. Therefore we proceed as if West had bid 2S. Might East pass here? Certainly, if he has forgotten that he is playing Drury. He did fail to alert, and his partner apparently believes he could have forgotten the convention, so I will choose to respect that judgement and rule that 2S would have been the final contract. EW +170. At a later time, I might also wish to have a friendly word with West about his responsibilities in handling UI. But I will qualify this judgement by adding that if EW can show that these bids are in fact mandated by specific systemic agreements, I will let the result stand. This will be a really tough sell, but it is not outside the realm of possibility. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 17:08:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:08:39 +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 RAA01970 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:08:23 +1100 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA04913; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:06:26 -0900 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:06:26 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: change of score ? In-Reply-To: <199712160834.AAA07234@palm.us.pw.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > > Correct in theory. But there are some, me included, who are very sceptical > about declarers or dummys whose hands are not consistent with their partner's > explanation, *and who fail to comment before the opening lead*. IMO you should > be very very sure your partner's explanation was right, and you were wrong, > before you fail to correct. I'm never quite sure what to do in this sort of situation when it happens to me (the misbidder). If I am dummy I sometimes say something to the effect of "partner's explanation is correct, I misbid (or lied, or psyched, or whatever the appropriate term is for the occasion)" as I spread my hand on the table. I know I'm not required to do this and no one has ever complained about my doing so; still, if I do it I feel as if I shouldn't have, and if I don't I feel as if I should have. Anyone care to comment on what the best way to handle this is? Of course if I psych or misbid, and wind up being the declarer, I can't fess up until the end of the hand. My impression, for what it is worth, is that the "confession" is probably technically illegal, but it can go a long way toward keeping peace at the table -- that way the opponents don't have to wonder in silence about your ethics, and there are fewer acrimonious director calls. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 19:56:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:56:46 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA02253 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:56:41 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA00878 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:56:03 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:56:01 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Whence come BLML members? In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > The following is the spread of members of BLML defined by email address > suffix, now, and the previous time figures were quoted: > > cz 1 0 Czech Republic ??? > it 1 0 Italy ??? > se 1 0 Sweden ??? You can remove the question marks, these country codes are correct. > USA Aust Neth Can SAfr UK Ger Isr N/k > net 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 should be: > net 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 as ripe.net is in the Netherlands. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 21:41:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:41:04 +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 VAA02402 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:40:58 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10-227.innet.be [194.7.10.227]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA25475 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:40:47 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34966277.DDB4EF80@innet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:13:59 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: new law book edition X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd058d$26e4d320$LocalHost@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > gester@globalnet.co.uk > Grattan Endicott > Liverpool L18 8DJ : > > Subject: Re: new law book edition > > > ++++Hang on. There IS a WBF version. It is the one finally approved by the > WBF Executive and presumably lodged with Carol von Linstow. It is not a > version that is printed as such but it *is* the standard text against which > all others may be compared for accuracy. If push came to shove and some > earth-shaking judgement were to hang on 'what is the letter of the law' that > would be the final > resort.++++Grattan++++ Which is indeed what I wanted to hear. Now can somebody please check the various editions and tell us in what way they differ from the WBF - version. Don't forget that the official language for bridge in Belgium is ... (you guessed it) English ! I don't want to get into a position where half the directors are using the "English" translation, half the American ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 17 22:59:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 22:59:59 +1100 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02618 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 22:59:53 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id LAA05667 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:59:12 GMT Date: Wed, 17 Dec 97 11:58 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Drury non-alert. 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: <3.0.1.32.19971217003450.006adc70@pop.mindspring.com> > At 12:39 PM 12/16/97 EST, Dale Blank wrote: > > > > Good problem! At first blush, the ruling looks completely wrong. How > were > NS damaged by the MI of the non-alerted Drury call? Would they have bid > or > defended differently if the call had been alerted? IMO, the NS actions > would have been just the same. > > On closer review, however, what appears to be an MI problem turns into > a UI > problem. What on earth is going on with West's 3S bid? Even if EW have > no > agreement about how to proceed over the double of a Drury bid, 2S seems > obvious for the West hand. To me, the answer is that West has been > tipped > off about the likelihood that his partner has forgotten Drury (a > common-enough occurrence with this convention), and is bidding 3S to > remind > his partner that what he REALLY holds is a limit raise in spades. > > Did West have a logical alternative? Yes, 2S. Does the non-alert make > bidding 3S more attractive relative to 2S than it would be without the > UI > that East may have forgotten the agreement? Yes. Therefore we proceed > as if > West had bid 2S. I'm not really familiar with Drury but I assume that the West hand is at least a maximum 2S (perhaps 2.6 spades, if such were allowed) although I reserve the right to alter my opinion if a Drury 2S is forcing in this sequence. However I'm not unhappy with the concept that 2S is an LA. > > Might East pass here? Certainly, if he has forgotten that he is playing > Drury. This is where I have difficulty. I can't think of a system that East "thinks" he is playing where he wouldn't make a game try with this hand (obviously if the rest of the cc is 2/1 gf then pass is never an option) but even playing Acol I doubt the chances of pass are 1 in 6, let alone 1 in 3 (thanks to all those who answered my L12 question BTW) Equally, if West holds a borderline 2S/3S Drury hand he will always accept a game try from East. Even if bring the MI back into consideration and assume N would not have doubled 2C I still can't find a likely sequence to stay out of game. Basically I don't like the "smell" of North's double of 2C and subsequent actions. It has the feel of someone who knows the 2C was Drury and is trying a double shot believing that his hand avoids a "wild and gambling action" accusation if a ruling is required. (Full apologies to North if this is unjustified, I may well have perceived it differently if actually at the table). > He did fail to alert, and his partner apparently believes he could > have forgotten the convention, so I will choose to respect that > judgement > and rule that 2S would have been the final contract. EW +170. At a later > time, I might also wish to have a friendly word with West about his > responsibilities in handling UI. As might I. > > But I will qualify this judgement by adding that if EW can show that > these > bids are in fact mandated by specific systemic agreements, I will let > the > result stand. This will be a really tough sell, but it is not outside > the > realm of possibility. I, OTOH, don't believe that NS were damaged (by UI or MI) - but a more detailed understanding of the systems involved might persuade me otherwise. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 18 01:12:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 01:12:20 +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 BAA05183 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 01:12:11 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27613) with SMTP id <0ELC00A2C7FD5C@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:11:37 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA10300; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:11:36 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:11:35 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: change of score ? In-reply-to: <199712142205.XAA02998@isa.dknet.dk>; from "Jens & Bodil" at Dec 14, 97 11:06 pm To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0ELC00A2D7FD5C@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > From: "E.Angad-Gaur" > > I got the folowing problem last night : > > > > Bidding : > > N S > > 1NT 2S (A1) A1= Alert for clubs. > > 2NT (A2) 3D (A3) A2=alert for topcard in clubs. A3=1-ste or 2-de control. > > 3H 4C > > 5C p > > > > South is leader in 5C and before West plays his first card he asks what the > > A1, A2 and A3 meaned. Then he starts with H9 and the contract was simply made. > > In the 10-th trick West detected that His partner East had Diamond AK42. West > > had two Diamonds 83 and South started with Diamonds QJ97. West calls the TD > > and said that if he got the wrong information about the diamond-holding of > > South. If he had the right information he would started Diamond and then he > > would ruff the third diamond and the contract would go one down. On the sy- > > stemcard of NS stands cue-bidding. South said that he kept the bidding open > > for 3NT, but that 3D in their system was cue for Diamond. > > > > What would you rule. 5C made or something else ? > > I would be in doubt what to rule. I accept that the defenders are > damaged by the explanation of the 3D bid, but I am not sure whether I > would rule that S has bid outside his agreements (not an > irregularity, no adjustment), or that the system card and North's > explanation constitutes misinformation (an irregularity, adjustment > seems reasonable). > > In situations like these, with players at a serious level, where > agreements usually are quite elaborate, I tend towards the > misinformation ruling. If it is likely that NS have not exercised > this part of their system very much, and thus may have trouble > remembering their agreement, I rule that the system card does not > reflect their agreement, and there is misinformation. > > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > ------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion NS must prove that 3D was a cue-bidding in their system. Saying that it was a cue is not enough. Normally system-cards don't give answer in susch cases. Explanation of S that he bid 3D to keep the bidding open for 3NT is an indication that 3D is not always a cue-bid. In practice I asked further and I was not convinced that the 3D was systematically a cue-bid and then the ruling is in my opinion 5C-1. I hope the other responders on this problem will agree, if not then I again am interested in your view. 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 Dec 18 07:09:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 07:09:45 +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 HAA06905 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 07:09:39 +1100 Received: from mike (ip103.baltimore.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.11.97.103]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA13177 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:09:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971217150937.006b2d70@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:09:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Drury non-alert. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: >I'm not really familiar with Drury but I assume that the West hand is at >least a maximum 2S (perhaps 2.6 spades, if such were allowed) although I >reserve the right to alter my opinion if a Drury 2S is forcing in this >sequence. However I'm not unhappy with the concept that 2S is an LA. > Playing 2-way reverse Drury, West promises a 3-card limit raise in spades with his 2C call. This is what he has, barely. He has no reason to push beyond 2S opposite a potentially minimum 1S bid. Nor would he necessarily have any reason to accept a merely invitational bid by his partner. >> >> Might East pass here? Certainly, if he has forgotten that he is playing >> Drury. >This is where I have difficulty. I can't think of a system that East >"thinks" he is playing where he wouldn't make a game try with this hand >(obviously if the rest of the cc is 2/1 gf then pass is never an option) >but even playing Acol I doubt the chances of pass are 1 in 6, let alone 1 >in 3 (thanks to all those who answered my L12 question BTW) > Bear in mind that West is a passed hand, so that even if E/W play 2/1, this is certainly not a game-forcing auction. If East remembers he is playing Drury, then a pass to 2S does seem to be an extremely conservative action. But if he has forgotten the convention, then partner's subsequent 2S bid will seem like a mere preference or correction, possibly based on a 2-card spade holding. Perhaps East is still worth a 3S call, but pass in this case is not completely bizarre, given the ratty trump holding, and in any case, as mentioned above, it is not clear that West has any basis for accepting an invitation, given that he's already shown his values in full. So proceeding from the assumption that East could well have forgotten his methods, it is quite possible for the auction to stop short of game after a 2S rebid by West. >Equally, if West holds a borderline 2S/3S Drury hand he will always accept >a game try from East. > No! See above. >Even if bring the MI back into consideration and assume N would not have >doubled 2C I still can't find a likely sequence to stay out of game. > >Basically I don't like the "smell" of North's double of 2C and subsequent >actions. It has the feel of someone who knows the 2C was Drury and is >trying a double shot believing that his hand avoids a "wild and gambling >action" accusation if a ruling is required. (Full apologies to North if >this is unjustified, I may well have perceived it differently if actually >at the table). > Clearly N/S were not damaged by the MI, but I think the UI is a different issue. Moreover, West's 3S bid is, IMO, a fairly egregious use of UI. He has already bid his hand completely with the 2C call, and the only real justification for 3S is the UI that his partner did not get the previous message. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 18 08:56:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:56:05 +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 IAA07113 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:55:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1021409; 17 Dec 97 21:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 20:19:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: change of score ? In-Reply-To: <0ELC00A2D7FD5C@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk E.Angad-Gaur wrote: >In my opinion NS must prove that 3D was a cue-bidding in their system. >Saying that it was a cue is not enough. Normally system-cards don't >give answer in susch cases. Explanation of S that he bid 3D to keep the >bidding open for 3NT is an indication that 3D is not always a cue-bid. > > In practice I asked further and I was not convinced that the 3D was >systematically a cue-bid and then the ruling is in my opinion 5C-1. > >I hope the other responders on this problem will agree, if not then I again >am interested in your view. I agree with your approach and have no argument therefore with your conclusion. -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 19 23:48:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 23:48:11 +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 XAA16886 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 23:48:04 +1100 Received: from default (client8292.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.146]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA16485; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:47:53 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: " CHYAH E BURGHARD" Cc: Subject: Re: WBF Appeals Committee. Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:46:20 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd0c7c$1b1b64a0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : Sorry if message went out in MIME; not intended, didn't notice the indicator! Repeat:- Following up recent postings I have looked at the general conditions of contest for WBF Tournaments. The Tournament Appeals Committee (TAC) hears appeals and, except on points of law appealable to the Laws Committee, its judgemental decisions are not open to further appeal. [Freud might have known something, I have just typed 'judgemental' with an ' f ' for the ' j '] I surmise that the WBF adopts the stance that, as the Promulgating Authority for the laws, it is entitled by its own decree in the Conditions of Contest to set Law 93C aside. Or perhaps it is saying 'there is no national authority to which the WBF affiliates so Law 93C has no effect'. Anyway, the decision of the TAC is final. The procedures are in the main models of natural justice although I have reservations as to the moral basis for that part of a procedure in which the decision of the Chairman determines the result unless the plain members of the AC are unanimous in opposing his view, and I feel that might be open to serious challenge in a democracy. -----Original Message----- From: CHYAH E BURGHARD To: gester@globalnet.co.uk Date: 16 December 1997 17:36 Subject: WBF Appeals Committee. >Grattan, could you resend your note and send it in plain text. >You sent it in mime with html format and the note is not readable. > >Thanks, > >Chyah > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 20 06:17:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:17:54 +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 GAA20498 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:17:48 +1100 Received: from default (client852d.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.45]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA19938; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 19:17:22 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Herman De Wael" Subject: Re: new law book edition Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 19:13:53 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd0cb2$3ede25e0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: 17 December 1997 11:45 Subject: Re: new law book edition >> gester@globalnet.co.uk >> Grattan Endicott >> Liverpool L18 8DJ : >> >> Subject: Re: new law book edition >> >> >Don't forget that the official language for bridge in Belgium is ... >(you guessed it) English ! > ++++ It is getting rather messy! Carol tells me she does not have a copy of the laws and yet the WBF Executive must have had one to approve it! So I wonder who has ended up with it? In the meantime, of course, Belgium is said to be in Europe (Zone 1) so there can be little justification for using anything not authorised in Zone 1. Mind you I have no reason to suppose there is a great difference if you eliminate the zonal options and information and substitute the European ones. I believe David Stevenson has a note of these. In the meantime we will try to track down the official WBF version! ++++Grattan++++ > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 20 06:17:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:17:51 +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 GAA20492 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:17:44 +1100 Received: from default (client852d.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.45]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA19930; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 19:17:20 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "G. R. Bower" , Subject: Re: change of score ? Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 19:00:02 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd0cb0$4f4f0cc0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: G. R. Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 December 1997 07:01 Subject: Re: change of score ? > > >On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: >> >> Correct in theory. But there are some, me included, who are very sceptical \\\\\\\snipped////// > >I'm never quite sure what to do in this sort of situation \\\\\\snipped////// > >My impression, for what it is worth, is that the "confession" is probably >technically illegal, but it can go a long way toward keeping peace at the >table -- that way the opponents don't have to wonder in silence about your >ethics, and there are fewer acrimonious director calls. > ++++ Illegal? Why, if you are putting opponents straight? * What* stops you from saying "I'm not sure about this, I bid under the impression that we played....etc.... now it seems I may have got it wrong." EVEN if you are now convinced you HAVE got it wrong; I am convinced you should do this if you are not going to be able provide evidence to the Director. There may be no law requiring you to 'correct' a correct explanation, but I doubt there is one preventing you from doing it so long as your hand justifies what you are saying. [Behind screens, of course, you might not have had the same opportunity to know you were in the mire] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 20 06:18:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:18:18 +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 GAA20521 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 06:18:13 +1100 Received: from default (client852d.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.45]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA19923; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 19:17:18 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: change of score ? Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 18:38:35 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd0cad$506ae460$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 December 1997 04:53 Subject: Re: change of score ? >John Probst wrote: > >>big snip > >>As far as I can see South misbid (or psych'd). > Stephen B responded: >Correct in theory. But there are some, me included, who are very sceptical >about declarers or dummys whose hands are not consistent with their partner's >explanation, *and who fail to comment before the opening lead*. IMO you should >be very very sure your partner's explanation was right, and you were wrong, >before you fail to correct. > ++++There is an onus on the TD to be sceptical. Under the laws he requires *evidence*, not mere assertion, to rule misbid rather than mistaken explanation. The player who has not *recognized* that he has misbid should take this into account when deciding whether to say anything at the due time - admission of the problem can save him from causing any later damage to the opponents. Actually there is an interesting question latent in these exchanges. The player who has failed to correct has not been permitted to learn anything from partner's explanation, so he has continued to call on the basis of the understanding of his system as it was when the "misbid" occurred. The laws state that he must not base "subsequent actions" on information derived from partner's explanation. This being so, and being the cause of a poor result for opponents, he will surely expect a ruling against him if he remains silent once he is free to speak and is not able to produce the evidence to back up what he says to the Director.++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 20 14:53:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:53:52 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA22141 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:53:43 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024307; 20 Dec 97 3:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 03:32:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Christmas MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk + / /\ //\\ MERRY XMAS *//O\\\* ////\\\\ and a */////\\\O\ ////O/\\\\\\* HAPPY NEW YEAR *///////\\\O\\\ O////O///\\\\\\\\* from /////////\\\\O\\\\ *///////O//\\\\\\\O\\* DAVID ___ ___ || |___|___| || | | | || --- --- There are two hundred of you, more or less, and I think of you all as my friends. Some of you I have met, like Herman, Jens, Jesper, Jac, Rui, Richard, Stef and [of course] most of the British subscribers, plus our resident Swedish subscriber, Rachael King, who actually lives in Kent. Amongst those I have not met, there are several who I think of as personal friends owing to the magic of email which provides a method of getting to know people. Examples are Wally Farley, Jeff Goldsmith, Alan LeBendig, Jon Brissman, Rusty Court, Eric Landau, Steve Willner, Tony Edwards, Adam Wildavsky, Richard Lighton, Reg Busch, Niels Pedersen, Roger Penny, Laurence Kelso, Kent & Chyah Burghard, Sergei Litvak, Tony Musgrove, Karen Allison, Marvin French. Larry Hall is different from the rest: I have actually played bridge with him, on OKBridge! It is very important to me, BLML, and I hope that all the people who I have not mentioned send me an email in 1998, so when I write at Christmas 1998 I mention them as friends. We have developed a lot from the six or so people discussing matters by email all that time ago. According to the list the original six should have been Steve, Alan, Jesper, Eric, Jeff and me, but I think that is wrong. What about Jens? David? As we have developed, we have seen some of the lawmakers join us. I have really been pleased to see Karen Allison, Ton Kooijman and Grattan Endicott. Some of the problems in the 1997 Laws were pointed out **four years** ago and still never got corrected!!! At least we can now be confident thatr some of the people who read BLML will take note for 2007! Looking back, I remember when I was going to dump BLML. There were attacks on the EBU policy. Somehow, they seemed to be aimed at me, and I was going to give up. I still remember three emails: all three said [in different ways] that BLML relied on me to provide the balance. I do not know what I would havce done otherwise, but I like to think I have added something to BLML. I have a friend in South Wales. She got attached to the Inernet this week [wahey!]. She has been trying and failing to attach to BLML! I do not know whether she will have succeeded by the time I write this, but I hope so. Her name is Anne, and she is [I hope] the newest member of BLML. So where are we? We are 200 of the top people in the world at applying the Laws of Bridge. To be truthful, we are 100 of the top people, and 100 others who are intereested. In my view, both 100s are important. We are going to have a positive effect on how the Laws are applied throughout the world until 2007, anf we are going to make the lawmakers get it *right* in 2007! On a personal note, I would like to speak to each of the 200 personally. Please send me an email! Just to give me an idea, please tell me your interest in the Laws, whether TD, AC member, some particular post in your NBO, or just an interested player. PLease tell me where you live as well. Let us go into the new millenium on 01/01/2001 [anyone who mistakenly thinks it is at 01/01/2000 should read my Generalpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gen_menu.htm which explains why you are wrong!] with a fresh approach to the Laws! Merry Christmas! Have a Happy New Year! Enjoy your Bridge! -- 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 Dec 20 14:53:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:53:53 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA22142 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:53:45 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1009637; 20 Dec 97 3:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 02:39:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: change of score ? In-Reply-To: <01bd0cb0$4f4f0cc0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >++++ Illegal? Why, if you are putting opponents straight? > * What* stops you from saying "I'm not sure about this, I bid under >the impression that we played....etc.... now it seems I may have got it >wrong." >EVEN if you are now convinced you HAVE got it wrong; I am convinced you >should do this if you are not going to be able provide evidence to the >Director. > There may be no law requiring you to 'correct' a correct >explanation, >but I doubt there is one preventing you from doing it so long as your hand >justifies what you are saying. A year or so ago there was a case involving Garozzo in an NABC. The explanation was correct and the hand was wrong. _BUT_ a correct explanation was actually more help to the defence than one that described the hand [purely because of luck]. So 'correcting' a legally correct explanation would actually damage the defence - and did! -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 20 16:47:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:47:46 +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 QAA22365 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:47:40 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1015340; 20 Dec 97 5:39 GMT Message-ID: <0fj0VLBon1m0EwuX@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 05:38:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Seasons Greetings MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk text picture of angels, mince pies etc To everyone who makes this such a really useful forum Seasonal Greetings and a Prosperous New Year 1998 Thank you all for setting me right frequently ... ... And listening sometimes ... and agreeing occasionally ... you might make a TD of me yet :-} -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |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 Dec 21 10:25:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 10:25:08 +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 KAA27370 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 10:25:01 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002193; 20 Dec 97 23:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 22:01:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Christmas In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > We have developed a lot from the six or so people discussing matters >by email all that time ago. According to the list the original six >should have been Steve, Alan, Jesper, Eric, Jeff and me, but I think >that is wrong. What about Jens? David? Sorry Herman! The original group was Steve, Alan, Jesper, Eric, Jens, Herman and me. -- David Stevenson * Jac Fuchs is willing to pay a fair price for: * * (original) editions of Bridge Laws predating 1924 * * British Bridge World: pre-war and Jan-Apr 1960 * * Send emails to * From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 21 13:48:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA27874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:48:37 +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 NAA27869 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:48:30 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010112; 21 Dec 97 2:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 02:42:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Lady Milne Trials MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A correspondeent sent me the following situation and asked me to put it on BLML. It arose in trials for Welsh ladies international teams: E/W vul A x x x x North East South West Teams Q x x x x 2H (1) X (2) XX (3) pass x pass 3D 5C pass T x x x K J 9 x pass pass A 9 x K J x K J 9 x x A Q T x x x x x Q x x T x x x A K Q J x x x (1) The 2H bid was alerted. (Lucas, showing 6-10 points and 5+ Hearts with another 4 card or longer suit.) (2) The X was alerted. (System agreement that this was a penalty double; however, on the convention card the defence to weak two openers was shown as 'Double for take-out'. The players had agreed that this should apply to Benjamin type opening bids, but over a Lucas bid they would play the double as penalties.) (3) The XX was intended as the start of a non-forcing take-out into another suit, regardless of partners holding. Partner is forced to make a relay bid of 2S (assuming the next hand passes) and then this relay bid is converted to the final contract. North (who had consulted the opponents convention card) was under the impression that E/W were playing the double as take-out, not penalties, and didn't ask any questions. When asked the meaning of the redouble North replied that it showed a good hand. The E/W pair called the director and claimed that they had been damaged by Norths failure to give a correct explanation of the re- double. If they had been aware that this was a rescue bid then they would not have bid 3D. N/S claimed that they had been misled by their opponents convention card, which did not contain the information about the different meaning of a double when used over a Lucas bid. North said she would have bid 2S if the convention card had given the opponents methods in full. -- 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 Dec 21 21:01:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 21:01:15 +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 VAA28733 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 21:01:10 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-163.uunet.be [194.7.13.163]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08558 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 11:01:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <349A72B5.C7E017B1@innet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 14:12:21 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: another statistic X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Or am I just boosting my number of posts : The most common first name is (surprise surprise) : David (SIX) But we also have 3 Ians, 3 Jans , 3 Johns and a Jon, a Jean-Pierre and a Jean-Marc. There are 4 Mikes, 4 Richards, 3 Steves and 3 Tonies -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 21 21:01:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 21:01:12 +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 VAA28728 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 21:01:07 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-163.uunet.be [194.7.13.163]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08531 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 11:01:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <349A6FF6.1AFD75DE@innet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 14:00:38 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Record posters X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk These are the top producers of rantings : (since I got back on-line early september - that is some 100 days) David Stevenson 122 (including 2 from Nanki Poo and 1 from Quango) Dany Haimovici 84 Herman De Wael 67 John (MadDog) Probst 62 Steve Willner 56 Grattan Endicott 52 Eric Landau 49 Labeo 43 Mike Dennis 43 Stephen Barnfield 43 Adam Beneschan 37 Tim West-Meads 32 David Grabiner 30 Marv French 29 Henk Uijterwaal 26 Jesper Dybdal 26 David Martin 23 David Burn 20 Tim Goodwin 20 Jens Brix Christiansen 19 Richard Bley 19 Alexey Gerasimov 19 Robin Barker 17 Alan LeBendig 14 Christian Farwig 13 Sergei Litvak 13 Everett Boyer 12 Gordon Bower 12 Martin Pool 12 Chyah E Burghard 10 Irv Kostal 9 Jeff Goldsmith 9 Roger Pewick 9 Tony Musgrove 8 Evert Angad-Gaur 8 Linda Weinstein 8 Mike Amos 8 Craig Senior 8 Ed Sheldon 8 Richard Lighton 6 Reg Busch 6 Con Holzscherer 5 Jac Fuchs 5 Nancy Dressing 5 Richard Willey 5 Robin Wigdor 5 Ann Parker 4 Grant Sterling 4 Jean-Pierre Rocafort 4 Jon C Brissman 4 Karen Allison 4 Laval Dubreuil 4 Brian Baresch 3 Rich Odlin 3 Bill Segraves 3 Mary Buckland 3 Patrick Carter 3 Jan Romanski 3 Paul Barden 3 Tony Edwards 2 Bruce Small 2 Hirsh Davis 2 Ian Reissmann 2 Ian Wilson 2 Jeremy Rickard 2 David Metcalf 2 Eitan Levy 2 R Craig 2 David Blizzard 2 Ton Kooijman 1 Kent Burghard 1 Cameron Fairbairn 1 Dale Blank 1 Norbert Fornoville 1 Curt Hastings 1 Vytautas Rekus 1 Ian Crorie 1 John Kuchenbrod 1 1 Lucas Mendoza 1 Mike Fairbrother 1 Mike Kopera 1 Niels Pedersen 1 John Mayne 1 Rusty Court 1 Roger Penny 1 Barry Wolk 1 Steve Nathan 1 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 21 22:21:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 22:21:50 +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 WAA28965 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 22:21:44 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-112.uunet.be [194.7.13.112]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17408 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:21:34 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <349CF2AB.F96E9E3B@innet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 11:42:51 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Christmas X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > We have developed a lot from the six or so people discussing matters > >by email all that time ago. According to the list the original six > >should have been Steve, Alan, Jesper, Eric, Jeff and me, but I think > >that is wrong. What about Jens? David? > > Sorry Herman! The original group was Steve, Alan, Jesper, Eric, Jens, > Herman and me. > Apologies accepted, David. Through some fortunate incident (friday night ending only at 5.30 on saturday morning) I did not read my mail on saturday. Time enough for David to discover his mistake all on his own. I concur wholeheartedly with David's sentiments on the state of our little list. When you mail David, do send me a copy. I too am compiling a list of you and would like to see us getting to know one another a little better. (And I'm not just talking making statistics of first names either) Enjoy the holidays and whatever feasts you are celebrating in your homes and bridge clubs. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 21 22:21:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 22:21:43 +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 WAA28959 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 22:21:37 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-112.uunet.be [194.7.13.112]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17403 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:21:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <349CF1C0.7CCD0243@innet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 11:38:56 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials 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: > > A correspondeent sent me the following situation and asked me to put > it on BLML. It arose in trials for Welsh ladies international teams: > > E/W vul A x x x x North East South West > Teams Q x x x x 2H (1) X (2) XX (3) pass > x pass 3D 5C pass > T x x x K J 9 x pass pass > A 9 x K J x > K J 9 x x A Q T x x > x x x Q x x > T x > x x > A K Q J x x x > > (1) The 2H bid was alerted. (Lucas, showing 6-10 points and 5+ Hearts > with another 4 card or longer suit.) > > (2) The X was alerted. (System agreement that this was a penalty double; > however, on the convention card the defence to weak two openers was > shown as 'Double for take-out'. The players had agreed that this should > apply to Benjamin type opening bids, but over a Lucas bid they would > play the double as penalties.) > > (3) The XX was intended as the start of a non-forcing take-out into > another suit, regardless of partners holding. Partner is forced to make > a relay bid of 2S (assuming the next hand passes) and then this relay > bid is converted to the final contract. > IIUC, South did not ask about the meaning of the double ? Considering that they apparently play two different systems according to the meaning of the double, I consider this the start of all problems! So, let's for the moment believe all the statements made by the players and reconstruct the "real" meaning of the bidding : X = penalties XX = start of relay South, even if unaware of the meaning of the double, has made a correct call. It is not clear if the meaning of the XX was asked before or after west's pass, but I do not see any problems at this stage. Now North should bid 2S, but because of the wrong information (the badly filled-out CC) she passes. If 2HXX becomes the contract, there is surely reason for this to be changed !! (A) Now it is back to East. East has also received wrong information, even if inadvertently. I am always cautious about this kind of situation. You are entitled to the meaning of the bidding, but you are NOT entitled to knowing that opponents are in disagreement. Whatever the meaning of the bidding, NS are apparently willing to play in 2HXX. When east despite holding 14 HCP decides to pull this, she is (IMVHO) not entitled to redress. And now it's up to south. She has UI that partner thinks she is strong, but she also has AI to the same effect : partner passed. She is rescued by west and decides to jump in the water (**) apparently with success. So I decide : - No use of UI, South is entitled to bid 5Cl - No redress to east for bidding 3D - Even if that were the case : redress to NS, back into 5Cl=, because of (A) Result stands. (**) : is this an English expression as well ? - It is in flemish and someone used it on friday night to tell partner to "jump in the water" and bid game - the answer was hilarious : "are you kidding ? in december ???) > North (who had consulted the opponents convention card) was under the > impression that E/W were playing the double as take-out, not penalties, > and didn't ask any questions. When asked the meaning of the redouble > North replied that it showed a good hand. > > The E/W pair called the director and claimed that they had been > damaged by Norths failure to give a correct explanation of the re- > double. If they had been aware that this was a rescue bid then they > would not have bid 3D. > > N/S claimed that they had been misled by their opponents convention > card, which did not contain the information about the different meaning > of a double when used over a Lucas bid. > > North said she would have bid 2S if the convention card had given the > opponents methods in full. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 00:24:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:24:00 +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 AAA01552 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:23:52 +1100 Received: from default (cph56.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.56]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA06494 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 14:23:38 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712211323.OAA06494@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 14:24:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson I will have a go at this one. Please understand that the phrase "in my opinion" applies all over the place. > A correspondeent sent me the following situation and asked me to put > it on BLML. It arose in trials for Welsh ladies international teams: > > E/W vul A x x x x North East South West > Teams Q x x x x 2H (1) X (2) XX (3) pass > x pass 3D 5C pass > T x x x K J 9 x pass pass > A 9 x K J x > K J 9 x x A Q T x x > x x x Q x x > T x > x x > A K Q J x x x > > (1) The 2H bid was alerted. (Lucas, showing 6-10 points and 5+ Hearts > with another 4 card or longer suit.) > > (2) The X was alerted. (System agreement that this was a penalty double; > however, on the convention card the defence to weak two openers was > shown as 'Double for take-out'. The players had agreed that this should > apply to Benjamin type opening bids, but over a Lucas bid they would > play the double as penalties.) It would be nice to know whether the Welsh alert rules consider a penalty double to be alertable in this position. The Danish rules (which do not apply at all here) are not clear on this issue, and I would be alerting just to make sure. In the unlikely case that a penalty double here is obviously not alertable, the ruling degenerates to an easy open-and-shut case of EW misinforming N, with no resulting damage to NS. However, it would seem that the alert does hint at the double as a penalty double, since South took it that way. > > (3) The XX was intended as the start of a non-forcing take-out into > another suit, regardless of partners holding. Partner is forced to make > a relay bid of 2S (assuming the next hand passes) and then this relay > bid is converted to the final contract. > > North (who had consulted the opponents convention card) West (or East, if screens were in use) should have noticed that North was consulting the card and should have worried that North was now being misinformed. This is what I consider the spirit of full diclosure, as laid out in L40B: The onus is on EW to ensure that NS understands their methods. North, on the other hand, might find it strange that a take-out double was being alerted. In events with WBF as the SO, fairly much responsibility is put on North to protect herself in such a situation. This point of view also has merit - it can be used to shut up a bridge lawyer in the North seat. > was under the > impression that E/W were playing the double as take-out, not penalties, > and didn't ask any questions. When asked the meaning of the redouble > North replied that it showed a good hand. > > The E/W pair called the director and claimed that they had been > damaged by Norths failure to give a correct explanation of the re- > double. If they had been aware that this was a rescue bid then they > would not have bid 3D. Granted, but if North had been able to give the correct explanation, North would not have been passing. The thrust of this part of East-West's claim thus seems to be that East-West feel that they have the right to know that North-South are having a misunderstanding. They do not have that right. > N/S claimed that they had been misled by their opponents convention > card, which did not contain the information about the different meaning > of a double when used over a Lucas bid. This seems to be a fact. Whether the failure to note this agreement on the card constitutes an infraction of the regulations in force in Wales as mentioned in L40E1 and L40B is hard for me to tell. > North said she would have bid 2S if the convention card had given the > opponents methods in full. I am convinced that North would not have passed 2H xx given that knowledge. ----- The damage done to EW was caused by North's lack of understanding of the EW methods. The task at hand, therefore, is to determine whether L21A applies (i.e., this is North's own misunderstanding), or whether L40B applies (East-West have not adequately disclosed their methods). Even with my lack of knowledge of the regulations in place, I will hold EW responsible for the unfortunate misunderstandings, because they did not react when North consulted their card. This I take as a case of inadvertent failure to comply with L40B. North's failure to ask further questions does not give North a share of the responsibility. Since EW is the side that is claiming to be damaged, and since EW is found to be the cause of the problem, there is no reason to consider redress, and the score stands. --- Digressing from the BLML aspects, the 5C bid is quite frisky, but good, considering the vulnerability. West's failure to bid 5D is remarkable, but her further failure to double 5C is so surprising that I must ask: Are you sure the contract was not doubled? None of this analysis has bearing on the "egregious error" or "double shot" aspects of the case, which I find no grounds to apply here. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 11:19:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:19:54 +1100 Received: from barra.jcu.edu.au (barra.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA03691 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:19:48 +1100 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA14230; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:19:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by lionfish.jcu.edu.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA05586; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:19:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: lionfish.jcu.edu.au: sci-lsk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:19:53 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > > A correspondeent sent me the following situation and asked me to put > it on BLML. It arose in trials for Welsh ladies international teams: > > E/W vul A x x x x North East South West > Teams Q x x x x 2H (1) X (2) XX (3) pass > x pass 3D 5C pass > T x x x K J 9 x pass pass > A 9 x K J x > K J 9 x x A Q T x x > x x x Q x x > T x > x x > A K Q J x x x > > (1) The 2H bid was alerted. (Lucas, showing 6-10 points and 5+ Hearts > with another 4 card or longer suit.) > > (2) The X was alerted. (System agreement that this was a penalty double; > however, on the convention card the defence to weak two openers was > shown as 'Double for take-out'. The players had agreed that this should > apply to Benjamin type opening bids, but over a Lucas bid they would > play the double as penalties.) > > (3) The XX was intended as the start of a non-forcing take-out into > another suit, regardless of partners holding. Partner is forced to make > a relay bid of 2S (assuming the next hand passes) and then this relay > bid is converted to the final contract. > > North (who had consulted the opponents convention card) was under the > impression that E/W were playing the double as take-out, not penalties, > and didn't ask any questions. When asked the meaning of the redouble > North replied that it showed a good hand. > > The E/W pair called the director and claimed that they had been > damaged by Norths failure to give a correct explanation of the re- > double. If they had been aware that this was a rescue bid then they > would not have bid 3D. > > N/S claimed that they had been misled by their opponents convention > card, which did not contain the information about the different meaning > of a double when used over a Lucas bid. > > North said she would have bid 2S if the convention card had given the > opponents methods in full. > EW appear to have ended up with a poor result on this board. They didn't bid 5D, didn't double 5C, and elected not to defend 2HXX. There may have been a failure to alert something by NS, but the first infraction (and the cause of all the trouble) seems to have been the failure by EW to adequately disclose their agreements regarding the initial double. I have no compunction to award any adjustment. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 11:50:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:50:23 +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 LAA03729 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:50:15 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022218; 22 Dec 97 0:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 20:38:50 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: another statistic In-Reply-To: <349A72B5.C7E017B1@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <349A72B5.C7E017B1@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >The most common first name is (surprise surprise) : David (SIX) > >But we also have 3 Ians, 3 Jans , 3 Johns and a Jon, a Jean-Pierre and a >Jean-Marc. > >There are 4 Mikes, 4 Richards, 3 Steves and 3 Tonies > but no Goliaths ? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 12:23:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:23:48 +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 MAA03824 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:23:42 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008247; 22 Dec 97 1:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 01:10:45 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > (CUT) > >(2) The X was alerted. (System agreement that this was a penalty double; >however, on the convention card the defence to weak two openers was >shown as 'Double for take-out'. The players had agreed that this should >apply to Benjamin type opening bids, but over a Lucas bid they would >play the double as penalties.) > (CUT) Labeo: there is no shortage of comment (nor of copies of the original text....) I would just say that a disclosure of a defence to Weak Twos (which are natural bids making no statement about other suits) is not a statement about defence to a conventional opener. North does not learn anything from the card in respect of defence to the method she is playing and a player using an uncommon opening bid should ascertain more diligently the meaning of opponent's action following. ('Uncommon' - i.e. the kind of opener unlikely to be catered for on opponents' CC.) -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 12:52:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:52:38 +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 MAA03882 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:52:33 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ad1010682; 22 Dec 97 1:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 01:48:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials In-Reply-To: <199712211323.OAA06494@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >It would be nice to know whether the Welsh alert rules consider a >penalty double to be alertable in this position. Definitely. No question. -- 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 Dec 22 18:53:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 18:53:44 +1100 Received: from gatekeeper.agro.nl (gatekeeper.agro.nl [145.12.10.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA04682 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 18:53:37 +1100 Received: by gatekeeper.agro.nl id AA17875; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:53:32 +0100 Received: from gate.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) id <01IRGVUODSUO005TZ8@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:53:19 MED Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:53:05 +0000 (MED) Disclose-Recipients: prohibited Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:53:05 +0000 (MED) From: KOOYMAN Subject: lawbook text To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-Id: <4405530822121997/A04691/EXPERT/11BCB2350000*@MHS> Autoforwarded: false Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Importance: normal Priority: normal Sensitivity: Company-Confidential Ua-Content-Id: 11BCB2350000 X400-Mts-Identifier: [;4405530822121997/A04691/EXPERT] Hop-Count: 1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The EBL has sent the offical version of the WBF '97 laws to each member NCBO in July. That should have reached even Belgium. Ton Kooijman From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 19:46:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 19:46:17 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA04769 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 19:46:11 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA26264 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:45:20 +0100 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:45:19 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials In-Reply-To: <349CF1C0.7CCD0243@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > A correspondeent sent me the following situation and asked me to put > > it on BLML. It arose in trials for Welsh ladies international teams: > > > > E/W vul A x x x x North East South West > > Teams Q x x x x 2H (1) X (2) XX (3) pass > > x pass 3D 5C pass > > T x x x K J 9 x pass pass > > A 9 x K J x > > K J 9 x x A Q T x x > > x x x Q x x > > T x > > x x > > A K Q J x x x > > > > (1) The 2H bid was alerted. (Lucas, showing 6-10 points and 5+ Hearts > > with another 4 card or longer suit.) > > > > (2) The X was alerted. (System agreement that this was a penalty double; > > however, on the convention card the defence to weak two openers was > > shown as 'Double for take-out'. The players had agreed that this should > > apply to Benjamin type opening bids, but over a Lucas bid they would > > play the double as penalties.) > > (3) The XX was intended as the start of a non-forcing take-out into > > another suit, regardless of partners holding. Partner is forced to make > > a relay bid of 2S (assuming the next hand passes) and then this relay > > bid is converted to the final contract. > IIUC, South did not ask about the meaning of the double ? > Considering that they apparently play two different systems according to > the meaning of the double, I consider this the start of all problems! But: assuming that the Welsh alert rules are such that either penalty doubles or take-out doubles of 2H have to be alerted, but not both, then I think that it is completely reasonable that south didn't ask. In theory she should perhaps have take action to find out what the double was, but in practice and given that 99% of the players use either T/O or penalty, the alert itself told her all she wanted to know. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 21:38:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:38:00 +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 VAA05048 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:37:44 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:20:01 GMT Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 10:20:00 GMT Message-Id: <25754.9712221020@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@innet.be Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman > > (**) : is this an English expression as well ? - It is in flemish and > someone used it on friday night to tell partner to "jump in the water" > and bid game - the answer was hilarious : "are you kidding ? in december > ???) I think the correct English translation is 'take the plunge' 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 Mon Dec 22 21:41:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:41:41 +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 VAA05070 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:41:35 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client262c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.44]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA26881 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:41:28 GMT From: "Elizabeth Anne Jones" To: Subject: Lady Milne Trial. Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:41:45 -0800 Message-ID: <01bd0f09$4104d540$2c1a93c3@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01BD0EC6.32E19540" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BD0EC6.32E19540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable North has opened a Lucas 2H.East has made a penalty double which has = been correctly alerted by West. South believes the Alert and puts into = action their systemic removal procedure. North has seen the alert but = 'thinks' it is in contradiction of something she has seen on the CC. She = decides not to believe it and informs the opponents that the XX is = natural. E/W have been given misinformation and IMVHO are entitled to = redress. I would rule 2HXX plays. =20 eajewm@globalnet.co.uk ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BD0EC6.32E19540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    North has=20 opened a Lucas 2H.East has made a penalty double which has been = correctly=20 alerted by West. South believes the Alert and puts into action their = systemic=20 removal procedure. North has seen the alert but 'thinks' it is in = contradiction=20 of something she has seen on the CC. She decides not to believe it and = informs=20 the opponents that the XX is natural. E/W have been given misinformation = and=20 IMVHO are entitled to redress. I would rule 2HXX = plays.
 
eajewm@globalnet.co.uk<= /FONT>
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BD0EC6.32E19540-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 23:05:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:05:37 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05254 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:05:31 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA11808 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:04:54 +0100 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:04:54 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Elizabeth Anne Jones Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: <01bd0f09$4104d540$2c1a93c3@vnmvhhid> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Elizabeth Anne Jones wrote: > North has opened a Lucas 2H.East has made a penalty double which has > been correctly alerted by West. South believes the Alert and puts into > action their systemic removal procedure. North has seen the alert but > 'thinks' it is in contradiction of something she has seen on the CC. She > decides not to believe it and informs the opponents that the XX is > natural. E/W have been given misinformation and IMVHO are entitled to > redress. I would rule 2HXX plays. But why aren't EW (at least) partially responsible for the problem? EW play different defenses against both regular weak 2's and Lucas' 2's, but only put the defense against regular weak 2's on the CC without giving any indication that it didn't apply against other types of weak 2M bids. Then, North looks at the CC. EW know that the card is incomplete and also could have known that it is quite unusual that one uses different defenses against weak and Lucas' 2's. Yet, they fail to point this out to North. In short, the whole thing could have been avoided if EW had filled out their convention card correctly. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 23:59:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:59:38 +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 XAA05427 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:59:33 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-164.uunet.be [194.7.13.164]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA00341; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:59:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <349E6023.C80998B0@innet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:42:11 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KOOYMAN , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: lawbook text X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <4405530822121997/A04691/EXPERT/11BCB2350000*@MHS> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KOOYMAN wrote: > > The EBL has sent the offical version of the WBF '97 laws to each member NCBO in > July. That should have reached even Belgium. > > Ton Kooijman Given that the 'official' text was altered in Tunisia, that does not solve the problem at hand, does it ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 22 23:59:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:59:33 +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 XAA05420 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:59:27 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-164.uunet.be [194.7.13.164]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA00309; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:59:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <349E6018.A27B85F9@innet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:42:00 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Ton Kooijman Subject: Calculation of L25b2 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have just received the october number (delay probably due to distribution in Belgium) of the dutch magazine for directors 'WEKO-Wijzer'. In it the dutch Commission of Directors sets out their decision on how to implement the scoring in case of application of L25b2 (not more than average-minus in case of change of call). Their interpretation is the same as what I had gathered to be the general stance : after the tournament, the score is compared to a 40% score. If it is higher, then the pair gets a 'penalty' equal to the difference between the score and 40%. Neither the score for opponent's, nor the score at any other table is changed. This is logical, as the purpose of this Law is to return to a form of 'normal' bridge, with only the offender being punished for his original mistake. However they go on to say that : - if the score on the board is originally 37.5%, and - the score for the pair in the session (not counting this board) is just 35%, then too a penalty of 2.5% has to be given ! My first reaction was that this was wrong on two counts, as L25 stood on its own, but it doesn't, it refers to L12C1. Which leaves us to consider L12C1. Should a score of average-minus be lowered below 40% if the pair score less than that on the other boards of the same session. I do believe that we had discussed this on the list, and I don't recall being in disagreement, so I thought I was right in saying that it should not be changed downwards. Now a very high ranking committee (IINM including Ton Kooijman) decides otherwise ! Let me clarify my position. Although L12C1 has changed, by adding "at most" in front of 40%, L88 has not changed ! (that's the one setting out that 60% must be corrected upwards. If the Lawmakers had decided to change to this interpretation, would they not also have changed L88 ? As to why the change in L12C1, I offer a plausible conclusion : maybe they wanted to allow directors to award AS's of less than 40% if they think a contestant was even more severely in error ? Clarification from Ton and/or Grattan, please ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 23 00:19:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:19:05 +1100 Received: from bkinis.ms.com (firewall-user@bkinis.ms.com [204.254.196.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA07786 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:18:59 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bkinis.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id IAA21031 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma020958; Mon, 22 Dec 97 08:18:41 -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 NAA24547 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:18:40 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id NAA04730 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:18:40 GMT Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:18:40 GMT Message-Id: <9712221318.ZM4728@ms.com> In-Reply-To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" "Re: Lady Milne Trial." (Dec 22, 12:56pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. > On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Elizabeth Anne Jones wrote: > > > North has opened a Lucas 2H.East has made a penalty double which has > > been correctly alerted by West. South believes the Alert and puts into > > action their systemic removal procedure. North has seen the alert but > > 'thinks' it is in contradiction of something she has seen on the CC. She > > decides not to believe it and informs the opponents that the XX is > > natural. E/W have been given misinformation and IMVHO are entitled to > > redress. I would rule 2HXX plays. I agree absolutely. E/W have been misinformed, and N/S would not have compromised their interests by asking the meaning of the double. > But why aren't EW (at least) partially responsible for the problem? > > EW play different defenses against both regular weak 2's and Lucas' 2's, > but only put the defense against regular weak 2's on the CC without giving > any indication that it didn't apply against other types of weak 2M bids. Should they have indicated that it didn't apply against a 2S openings showing a club pre-empt? Perhaps the CC should read: Defence to weak twos: Dbl = T/O NB This applies only to doubles of a natural weak two opening bid Doubles in other auctions and of bids with different meanings may have different meanings! Please ask if in doubt! I think that the first line of that should be sufficent. You cannot expect people to put defences to every possible meaning of 2M on the card. > Then, North looks at the CC. EW know that the card is incomplete and also > could have known that it is quite unusual that one uses different defenses > against weak and Lucas' 2's. Yet, they fail to point this out to North. I don't think it's particularly unusual amongst pairs who have seriously thought about their defensive methods. > In short, the whole thing could have been avoided if EW had filled out > their convention card correctly. It is perhaps worth noting that Lucas twos are not particularly common in Britain, certainly nowhere near as common as in the Netherlands. I suspect that '2H = 5H & 4m weak' no more crossed the mind of whichever of E/W filled out the CC than '2H = 4H & 5S weak' did when filling in the defence to weak twos. I see no indication that E/W did not fill out their card correctly. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 23 00:57:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:57:39 +1100 Received: from bkinis.ms.com (firewall-user@bkinis.ms.com [204.254.196.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA07872 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:57:32 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bkinis.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id IAA29123 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma028907; Mon, 22 Dec 97 08:56:52 -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 NAA04953 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:56:51 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id NAA04747 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:56:50 GMT Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:56:50 GMT Message-Id: <9712221356.ZM4745@ms.com> In-Reply-To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" "Re: Lady Milne Trial." (Dec 22, 12:56pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. > EW play different defenses against both regular weak 2's and Lucas' 2's, > but only put the defense against regular weak 2's on the CC without giving > any indication that it didn't apply against other types of weak 2M bids. A similar thing happened to me at the weekend. I was using a WBF card, which has, inter alia, these section headings: Defensive and Competitive Bidding Overcalls (Style, Responses, 1/2 Level, Reopening) 1NT Overcall (2nd/4th Live, Responses, Reopening) Jump Overcalls (Style, Responses, Unusual NT) Direct and Jump Cue-Bids (Style, Responses, Reopening) All of which were completely filled out with our defence to natural opening bids. We play an entirely different, quite artificial, defence to 1m openings which could be 13HCP or less with a doubleton in the suit opened, e.g. precision diamond, polish club. This defence was prominent on the front of the card (Special Bids that may Require Defence), but was not referred to in the cue-bid section. On one board, he auction went (1C)-2C*-All Pass. Their system was 5cM, 15-17 no-trump, four card diamond suit, so 1C could be a doubleton, so we played 2C as showing the minors. If 1C had been natural, 2C would have shown spades and diamonds. The partner of the opening bidder consulted our card before passing, and was visibly upset when his partner was told 2C showed the minors. I don't think any damage was done, and the TD was not called, but clearly this situation could have got a little tricky. I have never had any complaints before - people who play a precision diamond or a polish club seem to be comfortable with the fact that they play an artificial system, and expect people to wield different defences. Our opponents clearly felt that their 1C opening was more or less natural (although not by the Laws' definition), so expected our normal defence to apply. That took a long time to explain! What I want to know is: was the convention card poorly filled out, or was my opponent at fault for assuming that that section applied to his methods? I would prefer not to have lots of notes, cross-references and supplementary sheets, especially for friendly events, but perhaps I have to? The WBF system policy reads: "While brevity is encouraged, particularly for Category 2 and Category 3 events, full disclosure must not be prejudiced in any way as a result." I have only encountered one pair in junior events (which are category 3) with supplementary sheets - and they played different systems at different P&V. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 23 01:43:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:43:48 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA07990 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:43:40 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA29198 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:43:01 +0100 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:43:00 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Edward Sheldon Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: <9712221318.ZM4728@ms.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Edward Sheldon wrote: > On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Elizabeth Anne Jones wrote: > > EW play different defenses against both regular weak 2's and Lucas' 2's, > > but only put the defense against regular weak 2's on the CC without giving > > any indication that it didn't apply against other types of weak 2M bids. > Should they have indicated that it didn't apply against a 2S openings > showing a club pre-empt? Perhaps the CC should read: > Defence to weak twos: Dbl = T/O > NB This applies only to doubles of a natural weak two opening bid > Doubles in other auctions and of bids with different meanings may > have different meanings! Please ask if in doubt! > I think that the first line of that should be sufficent. You cannot > expect people to put defences to every possible meaning of 2M on the > card. No, but (at least in this part of the world) >90% of the players use the same defence against regular weak 2's and Muiderberg/Lucas. So, if I read on a CC that EW were playing T/O doubles of a normal weak 2 and nothing about Muiderberg, I'd simply assume that they play T/O over Muiderberg too. I agree that in theory, I'm not protecting myself 100% here but then again after asking N times and getting the obvious reply .99N times, one tends not to bother anymore. BTW, my card usually reads: After the opponents open: [...] vs.Preempts: Take-out doubles, Lebensohl over 2M-X Conv.Defenses vs. Multi, Transfer Preempts, Two-way 2C. If EW have gone through the trouble of discussing defenses against various flavors of 2M opening bids, then I don't see why they cannot put a similar line on their CC. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 23 02:05:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 02:05:03 +1100 Received: from bkinis.ms.com (firewall-user@bkinis.ms.com [204.254.196.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08217 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 02:04:58 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bkinis.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id KAA13423; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:04:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma013357; Mon, 22 Dec 97 10:04:28 -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 PAA27759; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:04:26 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id PAA04783; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:04:26 GMT Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:04:26 GMT Message-Id: <9712221504.ZM4781@ms.com> In-Reply-To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" "Re: Lady Milne Trial." (Dec 22, 2:43pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Dec 22, 2:43pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Edward Sheldon wrote: > > On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > EW play different defenses against both regular weak 2's and Lucas' 2's, > > > but only put the defense against regular weak 2's on the CC without giving > > > any indication that it didn't apply against other types of weak 2M bids. [snip] > I'd simply assume that they play T/O over Muiderberg > too. I agree that in theory, I'm not protecting myself 100% here but then > again after asking N times and getting the obvious reply .99N times, one > tends not to bother anymore. [snip] The evidence the North player had was: An alert of the double of 2H A CC stating that (weak 2H)-Dbl is takeout As David clarified, the first item means that the double is not takeout. The second item is not directly relevant. It seems foolish of North to assume that the double was takeout, especially when she could have asked without creating any UI or other problems. Maybe East/West have some sort of "active ethics" responsibility, but I don't think they did anything wrong. Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 23 03:06:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 03:06:01 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA08415 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 03:05:55 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA09655 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:05:15 +0100 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:05:15 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Edward Sheldon Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: <9712221356.ZM4745@ms.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Edward Sheldon wrote: > On one board, he auction went (1C)-2C*-All Pass. Their system > was 5cM, 15-17 no-trump, four card diamond suit, so 1C could be > a doubleton, so we played 2C as showing the minors. If 1C had > been natural, 2C would have shown spades and diamonds. The > partner of the opening bidder consulted our card before passing, > and was visibly upset when his partner was told 2C showed the > minors. I don't think any damage was done, and the TD was not > called, but clearly this situation could have got a little tricky. I'd think that this is different from the previous case. There are 2 schools of thought against Polish Club, Precision diamond, 2+C 1C openers and all that: one group regards the opening bid as natural, the other as conventional. Surely, Ed's opponents must have met players from both groups, so I think that they should have protected themselves by asking which defense applied. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 23 03:48:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 03:48:55 +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 DAA08650 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 03:48:21 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:47:42 GMT Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 16:47:39 GMT Message-Id: <12965.9712221647@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: sheldone@ms.com, henk@ripe.net Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > > On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Edward Sheldon wrote: > > On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Elizabeth Anne Jones wrote: > > > > EW play different defenses against both regular weak 2's and Lucas' 2's, > > > but only put the defense against regular weak 2's on the CC without giving > > > any indication that it didn't apply against other types of weak 2M bids. > > > Should they have indicated that it didn't apply against a 2S openings > > showing a club pre-empt? Perhaps the CC should read: > > > Defence to weak twos: Dbl = T/O > > NB This applies only to doubles of a natural weak two opening bid > > Doubles in other auctions and of bids with different meanings may > > have different meanings! Please ask if in doubt! > > > I think that the first line of that should be sufficent. You cannot > > expect people to put defences to every possible meaning of 2M on the > > card. > > No, but (at least in this part of the world) >90% of the players use the > same defence against regular weak 2's and Muiderberg/Lucas. So, if I read > on a CC that EW were playing T/O doubles of a normal weak 2 and nothing > about Muiderberg, I'd simply assume that they play T/O over Muiderberg > too. I agree that in theory, I'm not protecting myself 100% here but then > again after asking N times and getting the obvious reply .99N times, one > tends not to bother anymore. BTW, my card usually reads: > > After the opponents open: > [...] > vs.Preempts: > Take-out doubles, Lebensohl over 2M-X > Conv.Defenses vs. Multi, Transfer Preempts, Two-way 2C. > > If EW have gone through the trouble of discussing defenses against various > flavors of 2M opening bids, then I don't see why they cannot put a similar > line on their CC. > It is clear there are different expectations in different countries using different convention cards. I agree with Ed but then I am used to a CC (the EBU20(a)) which has separate boxes for 'when opponents open weak 2 bid', 'when opponents open a multi' and no box for 'when opponents open 2M 2suiter'. I would not expect the 'when opponents open weak 2 bid' to include defenses to not-natural weak 2M, but that is because not very many of my opponents play 2M not natural. It might be interesting to know what CC were used in the event in question. If EW had written "v. 2M: TO double" in a section of the CC labelled "after the opponents open a pre-empt" then I would have some sympathy with North. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 23 04:19:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 04:19:55 +1100 Received: from coconut.tc.pw.com (coconut-ext.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA08767 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 04:19:48 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id JAA04960; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:18:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from palm.us.pw.com(131.209.7.57) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma004948; Mon, 22 Dec 97 09:17:54 -0800 Received: by palm.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13031; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:20:58 -0800 Message-Id: <199712221720.JAA13031@palm.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 14:58:45 GMT Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sheldone @ ms.com wrote: ---big snip >A similar thing happened to me at the weekend. I was using a WBF card, >which has, inter alia, these section headings: > >Defensive and Competitive Bidding > Overcalls (Style, Responses, 1/2 Level, Reopening) > 1NT Overcall (2nd/4th Live, Responses, Reopening) > Jump Overcalls (Style, Responses, Unusual NT) > Direct and Jump Cue-Bids (Style, Responses, Reopening) > >All of which were completely filled out with our defence to natural >opening bids. We play an entirely different, quite artificial, defence >to 1m openings which could be 13HCP or less with a doubleton in the >suit opened, e.g. precision diamond, polish club. This defence was >prominent on the front of the card (Special Bids that may Require >Defence), but was not referred to in the cue-bid section. > >On one board, he auction went (1C)-2C*-All Pass. Their system >was 5cM, 15-17 no-trump, four card diamond suit, so 1C could be >a doubleton, so we played 2C as showing the minors. If 1C had >been natural, 2C would have shown spades and diamonds. The >partner of the opening bidder consulted our card before passing, >and was visibly upset when his partner was told 2C showed the >minors. I don't think any damage was done, and the TD was not >called, but clearly this situation could have got a little tricky. > >I have never had any complaints before - people who play a precision >diamond or a polish club seem to be comfortable with the fact that >they play an artificial system, and expect people to wield different >defences. Our opponents clearly felt that their 1C opening was more >or less natural (although not by the Laws' definition), so expected >our normal defence to apply. > >That took a long time to explain! What I want to know is: was the >convention card poorly filled out, or was my opponent at fault for >assuming that that section applied to his methods? I would prefer >not to have lots of notes, cross-references and supplementary sheets, >especially for friendly events, but perhaps I have to? The WBF system >policy reads: > >"While brevity is encouraged, particularly for Category 2 and >Category 3 events, full disclosure must not be prejudiced in >any way as a result." As ever Ed presents his arguments very fairly, but, whilst I think he might have logic on his side, in that to call 2C in (1C)2C a "cue bid", when 1C need only be 2cards is less than clear-cut, I would rule he should include this point in the cue-bid section. This is because I think the general expectation, at least where I play, is that such a bid *is* a cue bid. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 23 04:26:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 04:26:03 +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 EAA08797 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 04:25:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011983; 22 Dec 97 17:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:02:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 In-Reply-To: <349E6018.A27B85F9@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I have just received the october number (delay probably due to >distribution in Belgium) of the dutch magazine for directors >'WEKO-Wijzer'. > >In it the dutch Commission of Directors sets out their decision on how >to implement the scoring in case of application of L25b2 (not more than >average-minus in case of change of call). [s] >However they go on to say that : >- if the score on the board is originally 37.5%, and >- the score for the pair in the session (not counting this board) is >just 35%, >then too a penalty of 2.5% has to be given ! > >My first reaction was that this was wrong on two counts, as L25 stood on >its own, but it doesn't, it refers to L12C1. Not in my Law book! >Which leaves us to consider L12C1. Should a score of average-minus be >lowered below 40% if the pair score less than that on the other boards >of the same session. > >I do believe that we had discussed this on the list, and I don't recall >being in disagreement, so I thought I was right in saying that it should >not be changed downwards. > >Now a very high ranking committee (IINM including Ton Kooijman) decides >otherwise ! > >Let me clarify my position. > >Although L12C1 has changed, by adding "at most" in front of 40%, L88 has >not changed ! (that's the one setting out that 60% must be corrected >upwards. > >If the Lawmakers had decided to change to this interpretation, would >they not also have changed L88 ? > >As to why the change in L12C1, I offer a plausible conclusion : maybe >they wanted to allow directors to award AS's of less than 40% if they >think a contestant was even more severely in error ? > >Clarification from Ton and/or Grattan, please ? What about the rest of us? Anyway, I am not sure whether the Dutch way is legal in the case cited. It amy be, by reference to L12C1, though I am not sure why. If so it is a regulation because it is not based on an actual Law. I do not believe iit to be a normal interpretation. There is no law suggesting it - certainly not L12C1, which doesn't. IMO if they are running at 35%, change a call under L25B2B2 and get 38% on the board, then they get 38% and their opponents 62%. -- 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 Dec 23 12:00:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA10391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:00:42 +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 MAA10386 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:00:35 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2007051; 23 Dec 97 0:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:36:20 +0000 To: Edward Sheldon Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: <9712221318.ZM4728@ms.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9712221318.ZM4728@ms.com>, Edward Sheldon writes >On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. >> On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Elizabeth Anne Jones wrote: >> >> > North has opened a Lucas 2H.East has made a penalty double which has >> > been correctly alerted by West. South believes the Alert and puts into >> > action their systemic removal procedure. North has seen the alert but >> > 'thinks' it is in contradiction of something she has seen on the CC. She >> > decides not to believe it and informs the opponents that the XX is >> > natural. E/W have been given misinformation and IMVHO are entitled to >> > redress. I would rule 2HXX plays. > >I agree absolutely. E/W have been misinformed, and N/S would not >have compromised their interests by asking the meaning of the double. > >> But why aren't EW (at least) partially responsible for the problem? >> >> EW play different defenses against both regular weak 2's and Lucas' 2's, >> but only put the defense against regular weak 2's on the CC without giving >> any indication that it didn't apply against other types of weak 2M bids. > >Should they have indicated that it didn't apply against a 2S openings >showing a club pre-empt? Perhaps the CC should read: > >Defence to weak twos: Dbl = T/O >NB This applies only to doubles of a natural weak two opening bid >Doubles in other auctions and of bids with different meanings may >have different meanings! Please ask if in doubt! > >I think that the first line of that should be sufficent. You cannot >expect people to put defences to every possible meaning of 2M on the >card. > >> Then, North looks at the CC. EW know that the card is incomplete and also >> could have known that it is quite unusual that one uses different defenses >> against weak and Lucas' 2's. Yet, they fail to point this out to North. > >I don't think it's particularly unusual amongst pairs who have >seriously thought about their defensive methods. > >> In short, the whole thing could have been avoided if EW had filled out >> their convention card correctly. > >It is perhaps worth noting that Lucas twos are not particularly common >in Britain, certainly nowhere near as common as in the Netherlands. I >suspect that '2H = 5H & 4m weak' no more crossed the mind of whichever >of E/W filled out the CC than '2H = 4H & 5S weak' did when filling in the >defence to weak twos. > >I see no indication that E/W did not fill out their card correctly. > >Cheers, > >Ed and yet NS got screwed up by it :-) I adjust. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |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 Dec 24 03:42:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 03:42:41 +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 DAA14935 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 03:38:02 +1100 Received: from notes2.compuserve.com (cserve-91.inhouse.compuserve.com [149.174.64.210]) by mhaaf.inhouse.compuserve.com (8.6.9/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13763.; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:03:22 -0500 Received: by notes2.compuserve.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.17/2.0) id AA3475; Tue, 23 Dec 97 11:37:21 -0500 Message-Id: <9712231637.AA3475@notes2.compuserve.com> Received: by External Gateway (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 005027340012F89CC12565760031AEEE; Tue, 23 Dec 97 11:37:20 To: bridge-laws From: "christian.farwig" Date: 23 Dec 97 10:07:39 Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Sheldon wrote: > Maybe East/West have some sort of "active ethics" responsibility, but I don't think they did anything wrong.< I second your opinion. N/S play an unusual convention and they cannot expect to find a special entry on the convention card just for that. No convention card in the world is able to hold all your agreements - unless you publish them in book form ("What's that book you are carrying? Jurassic Park or Polish Club?"). E/W did everything they were obliged to. I adjust to 2Hxx down a zillion. Just my 2c worth, Christian From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 24 04:37:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:37:40 +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 EAA15232 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:37:34 +1100 Received: from default (client83a3.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.163]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA27613; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:37:24 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: change of score ? Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:36:07 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd0fc9$409399a0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 20 December 1997 04:18 Subject: Re: change of score ? >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>++++ Illegal? Why, if you are putting opponents straight? >> * What* stops you from saying "I'm not sure about this, I bid under >>the impression that we played....etc.... now it seems I may have got it >>wrong." > > A year or so ago there was a case involving Garozzo in an NABC. The >explanation was correct and the hand was wrong. _BUT_ a correct >explanation was actually more help to the defence than one that >described the hand [purely because of luck]. So 'correcting' a legally >correct explanation would actually damage the defence - and did! > ####There was also the case of the lady whose World Championship opponent protested* that she would have got the defence right if she had been given the info based on system, rather than the true meaning of the calls (behind screens). Which is why I was so careful in what I suggested a player might say.The fact is the true nature of the hand is info more likely to be helpful on balance and it is very dangerous to assume oneself must be right as to system and partner's version must be wrong.####Grattan#### [*not altogether convincingly to my mind] From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 24 20:19:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 20:19:52 +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 UAA17572 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 20:19:45 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-113.uunet.be [194.7.13.113]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA20600 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:19:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <349F8337.CD353BCC@innet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:24:07 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9712221356.ZM4745@ms.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edward Sheldon wrote: > > > A similar thing happened to me at the weekend. I was using a WBF card, > which has, inter alia, these section headings: > Would that have been in Oostende, then ? Sadly I was not there ! > > On one board, he auction went (1C)-2C*-All Pass. Their system > was 5cM, 15-17 no-trump, four card diamond suit, so 1C could be > a doubleton, so we played 2C as showing the minors. If 1C had > been natural, 2C would have shown spades and diamonds. The > partner of the opening bidder consulted our card before passing, > and was visibly upset when his partner was told 2C showed the > minors. I don't think any damage was done, and the TD was not > called, but clearly this situation could have got a little tricky. > > I have never had any complaints before - people who play a precision > diamond or a polish club seem to be comfortable with the fact that > they play an artificial system, and expect people to wield different > defences. Our opponents clearly felt that their 1C opening was more > or less natural (although not by the Laws' definition), so expected > our normal defence to apply. > In Belgium, playing this system and opening 1C on a possible 4432 is considered natural and not-alertable. I suppose your opponents were not sufficiently aware of this. > That took a long time to explain! What I want to know is: was the > convention card poorly filled out, or was my opponent at fault for > assuming that that section applied to his methods? I would prefer > not to have lots of notes, cross-references and supplementary sheets, > especially for friendly events, but perhaps I have to? The WBF system > policy reads: > > "While brevity is encouraged, particularly for Category 2 and > Category 3 events, full disclosure must not be prejudiced in > any way as a result." > > I have only encountered one pair in junior events (which are > category 3) with supplementary sheets - and they played different > systems at different P&V. > > Cheers, > > Ed Although I sympathise with you, and would find it hard to rule against you, I think I should point out that before play commences, you must have agreed with partner to treat their 1C opening as a 2-card one. You might have told the oppenents at the same time and shown them the front of your card. Also, if you notice them only studying the back of the card, and you know it's not there, I might rule against you. It is still YOUR obligation to inform opponents. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 24 20:19:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 20:19:53 +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 UAA17576 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 20:19:48 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-113.uunet.be [194.7.13.113]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA20581 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:19:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <349F80DE.7B8467B6@innet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:14:06 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Herman De Wael wrote: [s] > > > >If the Lawmakers had decided to change to this interpretation, would > >they not also have changed L88 ? > > > >As to why the change in L12C1, I offer a plausible conclusion : maybe > >they wanted to allow directors to award AS's of less than 40% if they > >think a contestant was even more severely in error ? > > > >Clarification from Ton and/or Grattan, please ? > I have just received a private e-mail from Ton Kooijman telling me that this was indeed the interpretation that the Law-committee was thinking of. They thought it was unreasonable for an offender to boost his score by accepting not to play a hand. As to not changing L88, he says the Laws Committee was not 100% full proof consistent. Meanwhile, David S wrote : > What about the rest of us? > > Anyway, I am not sure whether the Dutch way is legal in the case > cited. It amy be, by reference to L12C1, though I am not sure why. If > so it is a regulation because it is not based on an actual Law. > Yes it is a regulation, but one we should all be able to live with. > I do not believe iit to be a normal interpretation. There is no law > suggesting it - certainly not L12C1, which doesn't. IMO if they are > running at 35%, change a call under L25B2B2 and get 38% on the board, > then they get 38% and their opponents 62%. > Two things : as we heard from Ton, L12C1 is indeed intending to suggest this. And L25B2b2 does indeed refer to L12. I suggest we do indeed follow this practice, even if it means an extra burden upon calculators. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 24 23:42:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:42:25 +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 XAA18140 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:42:16 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-49.star.net.il [195.8.208.49]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA08731 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:42:55 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <34A10385.56237CE5@star.net.il> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 14:43:50 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Greetings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Friends and Contributors M M EEEEE RRRR RRRR YY YY MM MM E R R R R YY YY M M M EEEEE RRRR RRRR YYYY M M E R R R R YY M M EEEEE R R R R YY CCCC H H RRRR II SSSS TTTTT M M A SSSS C H H R R II S T MM MM A A S C HHHHH RRRR II SSS T M M M AAAAA SSS C H H R R II S T M M A A S CCCC H H R R II SSSS T M M A A SSSS and H H A PPPP PPPP YY YY H H A A P P P P YYYY HHHHH AAAAA PPPP PPPP YY H H A A P P YY H H A A P P YY N N EEEEE W W NN N E W W W N N N EEEEE WWW N NN E W W N N EEEEE W W YY YY EEEEE A RRRR YYYY E A A R R YY EEEEE AAAAA RRRR YY E A A R R YY EEEEE A A R R DANY From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 02:22:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 02:22:29 +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 CAA21308 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 02:22:24 +1100 Received: from default (client83ab.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.171]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA05728; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:22:11 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "KOOYMAN" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: lawbook text Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:21:16 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd107f$93ae3300$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : Herman writes \x/ snip \x/ >Given that the 'official' text was altered in Tunisia, that does not >solve the problem at hand, does it ? > ####nor does it resolve for me the nature of the authority for the post facto change in the English edition where a word has been changed in Law 12C3 without, as far as I know, reference to the WBF Laws Committee. Hopefully this will have no significant effect although the original was certainly the intention of the Committee and is perfectly good English grammar. ####Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 02:22:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 02:22:22 +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 CAA21301 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 02:22:16 +1100 Received: from default (client83ab.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.171]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA05725; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:22:08 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:09:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd107d$fa958020$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 22 December 1997 18:13 Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 >Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>My first reaction was that this was wrong on two counts, as L25 stood on >>its own, but it doesn't, it refers to L12C1. > >> \x/ snip \x/ >>Clarification from Ton and/or Grattan, please ? #### My personal understanding is that the reference to Law 12C1 in Law 25B is for the purpose of defining the meaning of "average minus" and is not otherwise intended to affect the adjustment. ####Grattan#### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 11:48:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:48:24 +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 LAA23792 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:48:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1015864; 25 Dec 97 0:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:34:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 In-Reply-To: <349F80DE.7B8467B6@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David S wrote: >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >If the Lawmakers had decided to change to this interpretation, would >> >they not also have changed L88 ? >> > >> >As to why the change in L12C1, I offer a plausible conclusion : maybe >> >they wanted to allow directors to award AS's of less than 40% if they >> >think a contestant was even more severely in error ? >> > >> >Clarification from Ton and/or Grattan, please ? >I have just received a private e-mail from Ton Kooijman telling me that >this was indeed the interpretation that the Law-committee was thinking >of. They thought it was unreasonable for an offender to boost his score >by accepting not to play a hand. > >As to not changing L88, he says the Laws Committee was not 100% full >proof consistent. >> Anyway, I am not sure whether the Dutch way is legal in the case >> cited. It amy be, by reference to L12C1, though I am not sure why. If >> so it is a regulation because it is not based on an actual Law. >Yes it is a regulation, but one we should all be able to live with. I think that is fair: I can live with it easily enough as a regulation. However, I do not approve - see below. I do retract the question of *whether* it is legal: the reference to L12C1 makes it clear - see below for why I did not consider that reference. >> I do not believe iit to be a normal interpretation. There is no law >> suggesting it - certainly not L12C1, which doesn't. IMO if they are >> running at 35%, change a call under L25B2B2 and get 38% on the board, >> then they get 38% and their opponents 62%. >Two things : as we heard from Ton, L12C1 is indeed intending to suggest >this. >And L25B2b2 does indeed refer to L12. When I said "not in my Law book" I was 100% accurate. However I have discovered the copy I was using was flawed! I am quite prepared to believe that some of the Lawmakers put this in to allow ave- to include the contestant's score when running at below 40%. That may or may not be a reasonable approach, I am not very worried, it is easy to see arguments both ways, and it is totally trivial. If anyone thinks it is not trivial, then consider this. You run a pairs tournament. The only people who are affected are those who get below 40%. If someone over 25 boards scores 38% including an average minus, we are asking whether they get 38% or 37.92%: that's trivial! Even a 30% contestant is getting 30% or 29.6%: it's not worth bothering about! Legally I do not consider the Laws advocate this approach, though they allow for it. Therefore IMO we should only follow it if there is a regulation. >I suggest we do indeed follow this practice, even if it means an extra >burden upon calculators. I suggest we don't. The extra burden on the calculators cannot be juified in view of the totally trivial nature of the effect of such a regulation. -- 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 Dec 25 11:53:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:53:29 +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 LAA23819 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:53:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012697; 25 Dec 97 0:45 GMT Message-ID: <0eh+TGAoxSo0Ewuy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:38:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: lawbook text In-Reply-To: <01bd107f$93ae3300$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Herman writes >>Given that the 'official' text was altered in Tunisia, that does not >>solve the problem at hand, does it ? >####nor does it resolve for me the nature of the authority for the post >facto change in the English edition where a word has been changed >in Law 12C3 without, as far as I know, reference to the WBF Laws >Committee. Hopefully this will have no significant effect although >the original was certainly the intention of the Committee and is perfectly >good English grammar. >####Grattan #### A word was also changed in L6D2. Was this with WBF Laws Committee authority? -- 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 Dec 25 19:25:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 19:25:28 +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 TAA24575 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 19:25:22 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010711; 25 Dec 97 8:19 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 08:14:55 +0000 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials In-Reply-To: <199712211323.OAA06494@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199712211323.OAA06494@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >> From: David Stevenson > >I will have a go at this one. Please understand that the phrase "in >my opinion" applies all over the place. > >> A correspondeent sent me the following situation and asked me to put >> it on BLML. It arose in trials for Welsh ladies international teams: >> >> E/W vul A x x x x North East South West >> Teams Q x x x x 2H (1) X (2) XX (3) pass >> x pass 3D 5C pass >> T x x x K J 9 x pass pass >> A 9 x K J x >> K J 9 x x A Q T x x >> x x x Q x x >> T x >> x x >> A K Q J x x x >> >> (1) The 2H bid was alerted. (Lucas, showing 6-10 points and 5+ Hearts >> with another 4 card or longer suit.) >> >> (2) The X was alerted. (System agreement that this was a penalty double; >> however, on the convention card the defence to weak two openers was >> shown as 'Double for take-out'. The players had agreed that this should >> apply to Benjamin type opening bids, but over a Lucas bid they would >> play the double as penalties.) (cut) > >> North (who had consulted the opponents convention card) Jens said: > >West (or East, if screens were in use) should have noticed that >North was consulting the card and should have worried that North was >now being misinformed. This is what I consider the spirit of full >diclosure, as laid out in L40B: The onus is on EW to ensure that NS >understands their methods. > (cut) Labeo:- I have two doubts about this statement. The first is that it seems to me entirely appropriate (Law 74C5) if a player resolutely avoids looking in the direction of opponent and avoids noticing what the actions of that player are, including whether she looks at the convention card. Second, even if aware that North looks at the convention card, East or West is also aware that North will find nothing there about defence to 'Lucas' and in the absence of screens should hardly speak on the subject unless asked a question (behind screens it is easier to speak - well, write actually); it seems to me that East-West discharge this obligation by alerting, which does not tell North what the double means but invites her to find out. -- Labeo " Once the people begin to reason, all is lost " - Voltaire said it in French. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 20:20:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:20:24 +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 UAA24720 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:20:18 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1014997; 25 Dec 97 9:20 GMT Message-ID: <4J$VHFAKvho0EweP@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 08:39:38 +0000 To: Edward Sheldon Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: <9712221356.ZM4745@ms.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9712221356.ZM4745@ms.com>, Edward Sheldon writes >On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. > >> EW play different defenses against both regular weak 2's and Lucas' 2's, >> but only put the defense against regular weak 2's on the CC without giving >> any indication that it didn't apply against other types of weak 2M bids. > >A similar thing happened to me at the weekend. I was using a WBF card, >which has, inter alia, these section headings: (cut) > >That took a long time to explain! What I want to know is: was the >convention card poorly filled out, or was my opponent at fault for >assuming that that section applied to his methods? I would prefer >not to have lots of notes, cross-references and supplementary sheets, >especially for friendly events, but perhaps I have to? The WBF system >policy reads: > >"While brevity is encouraged, particularly for Category 2 and >Category 3 events, full disclosure must not be prejudiced in >any way as a result." (cut) > Labeo:- One would want to see the detail of the disclosure regulations for the competition in question. Should one list one hundred and eight such conventions as Lucas Twos and state a defence to each? Or is it permissible (and thus full disclosure) simply to alert and disclose a defence for the less common ones at the table? The amswer lies in the actual regs for the competition. -- Labeo " Once the people begin to reason, all is lost " - Voltaire said it in French. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 20:24:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:24:24 +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 UAA24735 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:24:18 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1014993; 25 Dec 97 9:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 08:29:52 +0000 To: Robin Barker Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@innet.be From: Labeo Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials In-Reply-To: <25754.9712221020@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <25754.9712221020@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >Herman >> >> (**) : is this an English expression as well ? - It is in flemish and >> someone used it on friday night to tell partner to "jump in the water" >> and bid game - the answer was hilarious : "are you kidding ? in december >> ???) > >I think the correct English translation is 'take the plunge' > (In the case of marriage) -- Labeo " Once the people begin to reason, all is lost " - Voltaire said it in French. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 20:32:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:32:31 +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 UAA24761 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:32:26 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-194-7-13-203.uunet.be [194.7.13.203]) by hydrogen.inbe.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA11351 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:32:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34A225A3.42B5E895@innet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:21:39 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 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: > > >I suggest we do indeed follow this practice, even if it means an extra > >burden upon calculators. > > I suggest we don't. The extra burden on the calculators cannot be > juified in view of the totally trivial nature of the effect of such a > regulation. > I'm planning to change my program Brigitte, so it won't burden anyone but me (but I'm a perfectionist). However, it now seems Grattan understands something else than Ton. I suspect there's a virtual boxing match going on now - do send us the final result ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 20:33:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:33:08 +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 UAA24777 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 20:33:03 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014852; 25 Dec 97 9:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 08:51:49 +0000 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: Edward Sheldon , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes > >On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Edward Sheldon wrote: >> On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >> > On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Elizabeth Anne Jones wrote: (cut) > and Henk states: >No, but (at least in this part of the world) >90% of the players use the >same defence against regular weak 2's and Muiderberg/Lucas. So, if I read >on a CC that EW were playing T/O doubles of a normal weak 2 and nothing >about Muiderberg, I'd simply assume that they play T/O over Muiderberg >too. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Labeo: and maybe we could go along with this in your part of the world; but it is not a universal truth and my opinion is that North has no right to make the assumption unless conditions match to those in your part of the World - and who can say that our beloved Wales is like any other place on Earth? If E/W alerted I defend them from accusations of misinforming N/S. -- Labeo " Once the people begin to reason, all is lost " - Voltaire said it in French. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 22:39:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 22:39:02 +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 WAA25105 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 22:38:55 +1100 Received: from default (client8393.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.147]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA22487; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:38:47 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:38:04 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd1129$904defc0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: 24 December 1997 09:55 Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >[s] > >> > >> >If the Lawmakers had decided to change to this interpretation, would >> >they not also have changed L88 ? >> > > \x/snip\x/ >I have just received a private e-mail from Ton Kooijman telling me that >this was indeed the interpretation that the Law-committee was thinking >of. They thought it was unreasonable for an offender to boost his score >by accepting not to play a hand. > >As to not changing L88, he says the Laws Committee was not 100% full >proof consistent. > >Meanwhile, David S wrote : > >> What about the rest of us? \x/snip\x/ > >Yes it is a regulation, but one we should all be able to live with. > \x/snip\x/ > >I suggest we do indeed follow this practice, even if it means an extra >burden upon calculators. > #### I am quite confused as to what everyone is saying. Law 25B2(b)2 is self-contained; the reference to Law 12 is only by way of definition of 'average minus'. What Law 25B2(b)2 says in a nutshell is that an offender who exercises this option will receive his own score or 40% whichever is the lesser.That was what we intended and that is what it says, even if the style is convolutedly Kaplanesque. Personally I have a difficulty if anyone seeks to award something different from this by way of a 'regulation'; it appears to me that the player should be entitled to it as a matter of law. ####Grattan#### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 25 23:00:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:00:52 +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 XAA25150 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:00:47 +1100 Received: from default (client86b3.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.179]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id MAA23368; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:00:40 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: lawbook text Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:00:12 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd112c$a79d9ec0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 25 December 1997 01:21 Subject: Re: lawbook text >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>Herman writes > >>>Given that the 'official' text was altered in Tunisia, that does not >>>solve the problem at hand, does it ? > >>####nor does it resolve for me the nature of the authority for the post >>facto change in the English edition where a word has been changed >>in Law 12C3 without, as far as I know, reference to the WBF Laws >>Committee. Hopefully this will have no significant effect although >>the original was certainly the intention of the Committee and is perfectly >>good English grammar. >>####Grattan #### > > A word was also changed in L6D2. Was this with WBF Laws Committee >authority? > ####The wording of L6D2 which we settled in Rhodes and passed forward to the WBF Executive Council was:- "No Shuffle or No Deal No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a sorted deck, or if the deal had previously been played in a different session". The normal process is for the Laws Committee to settle wording and then pass it to the Executive Council for its imprimatur. I accept that by a minuted resolution of the Executive Council the words could be changed without reference back to the Laws Committee, but since 1985 I have never known this to happen. I mention the point simply to cover myself against the unlikely event that there is such a minute authorising any change in the text the Committee prepared and of which we are unaware. Lacking one of these procedures any wording change is without authority. Note: a meaning of 'deck' listed in the better English dictionaries is "a pack of cards"; to change it is pedantic, unnecessary. Personally I desire uniformity in the laws world-wide and I deprecate any informal alterations made anywhere without due process of the WBF Laws Committee and/or its Executive Council. ####Grattan#### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 26 00:07:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 00:07:43 +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 AAA25243 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 00:07:37 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002788; 25 Dec 97 13:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:57:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >In message <25754.9712221020@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker > writes >>Herman >>> >>> (**) : is this an English expression as well ? - It is in flemish and >>> someone used it on friday night to tell partner to "jump in the water" >>> and bid game - the answer was hilarious : "are you kidding ? in december >>> ???) >> >>I think the correct English translation is 'take the plunge' >> >(In the case of marriage) No, that is "to jump into *hot* water". :)) -- 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 Dec 26 00:07:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 00:07:32 +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 AAA25236 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 00:07:26 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017377; 25 Dec 97 13:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 12:55:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: lawbook text In-Reply-To: <01bd112c$a79d9ec0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: David Stevenson >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>####nor does it resolve for me the nature of the authority for the post >>>facto change in the English edition where a word has been changed >>>in Law 12C3 without, as far as I know, reference to the WBF Laws >>>Committee. Hopefully this will have no significant effect although >>>the original was certainly the intention of the Committee and is perfectly >>>good English grammar. >>>####Grattan #### >> A word was also changed in L6D2. Was this with WBF Laws Committee >>authority? >####The wording of L6D2 which we settled in Rhodes and passed forward >to the WBF Executive Council was:- > "No Shuffle or No Deal > No result may stand if the cards are dealt without shuffle from a >sorted >deck, or if the deal had previously been played in a different session". > >The normal process is for the Laws Committee to settle wording and then >pass it to the Executive Council for its imprimatur. I accept that by a >minuted >resolution of the Executive Council the words could be changed without >reference back to the Laws Committee, but since 1985 I have never known >this to happen. I mention the point simply to cover myself against the >unlikely >event that there is such a minute authorising any change in the text the >Committee prepared and of which we are unaware. Lacking one of these >procedures any wording change is without authority. > >Note: a meaning of 'deck' listed in the better English dictionaries is "a >pack of cards"; to change it is pedantic, unnecessary. Personally I desire >uniformity in the laws world-wide and I deprecate any informal alterations >made anywhere without due process of the WBF Laws Committee and/or >its Executive Council. To change it may be pedantic, but IMO it is not unnecessary. The Laws have defined a 'pack': throughout the rest of the Laws they use the term 'pack': that leaves two possibilities, that the lawmakers meant it to be different in this situation, or they accidentally brought in another word. Commonsense and unofficial comments both suggest the latter: if so it would be helpful if it were corrected for consistency and to stop others reading something different into the word. Note that this crept into the 1985 Laws. Despite what the dictionary says, I consider "deck" to be an Americanism, and perhaps this was more in the nature of a translation than anything else! However, the change in L12C3 from "to do equity" to "to achieve equity" is a change of meaning, albeit minor, and that is much more serious IMO. -- 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 Dec 26 09:22:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:22:33 +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 JAA29085 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:22:26 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1013185; 25 Dec 97 22:19 GMT Message-ID: <5AWP8lAJgto0Ew$Q@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 22:02:49 +0000 To: Labeo Cc: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@innet.be From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Labeo writes >In message <25754.9712221020@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker > writes >>Herman >>> >>> (**) : is this an English expression as well ? - It is in flemish and >>> someone used it on friday night to tell partner to "jump in the water" >>> and bid game - the answer was hilarious : "are you kidding ? in december >>> ???) >> >>I think the correct English translation is 'take the plunge' >> >(In the case of marriage) Of course if my aunt hadn't plunged into the shark infested pool she'd still be my uncle. Take the plunge is much wider reaching than marriage. I'd be tempted by "leap from the top board" rather than "plunging" I think. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |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 Dec 26 09:32:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:32:16 +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 JAA29104 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 09:32:11 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2002628; 25 Dec 97 22:19 GMT Message-ID: <+AsOcrAhkto0Ew+S@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 22:07:29 +0000 To: Labeo Cc: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Edward Sheldon , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Labeo writes >In message , >"Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >> >>On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Edward Sheldon wrote: >>> On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >>> > On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Elizabeth Anne Jones wrote: >(cut) >> >and Henk states: >>No, but (at least in this part of the world) >90% of the players use the >>same defence against regular weak 2's and Muiderberg/Lucas. So, if I read >>on a CC that EW were playing T/O doubles of a normal weak 2 and nothing >>about Muiderberg, I'd simply assume that they play T/O over Muiderberg >>too. >>------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Labeo: and maybe we could go along with this in your part of the world; >but it is not a universal truth and my opinion is that North has no >right to make the assumption unless conditions match to those in your >part of the World - and who can say that our beloved Wales is like any >other place on Earth? If E/W alerted I defend them from accusations of >misinforming N/S. Labeo you are asking S to ask W "why did you alert, if your double is take-out". In practise S won't, she'll shrug her shoulders and *assume the alert was a mistake. If one takes a course of action which one could have known at the time might mislead I *will* adjust. The convention card was mis-leading - NS screwed up because of it. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |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 Dec 26 11:48:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:48:41 +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 LAA29355 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:48:31 +1100 Received: from star.net.il (Herzelia-AS1-37.star.net.il [195.8.208.37]) by UFO.star.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA23107; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 02:49:01 -0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <34A2FF32.911FDEF1@star.net.il> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 02:49:54 +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: Lady Milne Trials References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk FACTS First I appologize because I am not sure I had all facts clear enough form David's message . I assume the following scenario : 0. the contest was at the highest level of its kind ( the trials for the women national team). a. 2H was alerted and EXPLAINED as Lucas (imho not a very usual). b. Double was alerted but North didn't ask , just read the CC. b1. When North read the e-w's cc neither E or W said anything ! c. Redbl - I have no idea what "was intended" means and "when asked" when = by the E-W during the auction or by director - but I assume North explained during the auction "...a good hand..." According to this scenario , I"ll act as a TD : TD DECISION (IMHO): 1) E-W did't make any infraction - they alerted but North didn't use his rights to ask for the most detailed explanation.... 2) North didn't make any infraction when she explained the rdbl as a "..start of non-force .....". 3) There were no infractions .. so nothing more to check and score doesn't change...... I inform E-W and tell them they may appeal but warn them that the fact they didn't bid 5D or dbl south's last bid of 5Cl is very ..(choose an ugly word , frivolious ??) AC DECISION (if E-W appeal) It is a frivolious appeal , money lost and score stands. Dany N.B. -If I didn't understand the facts , as described in my scenario please correct them and should change the decisions. David Stevenson wrote: > > A correspondeent sent me the following situation and asked me to put > it on BLML. It arose in trials for Welsh ladies international teams: > > E/W vul A x x x x North East South West > Teams Q x x x x 2H (1) X (2) XX (3) pass > x pass 3D 5C pass > T x x x K J 9 x pass pass > A 9 x K J x > K J 9 x x A Q T x x > x x x Q x x > T x > x x > A K Q J x x x > > (1) The 2H bid was alerted. (Lucas, showing 6-10 points and 5+ Hearts > with another 4 card or longer suit.) > > (2) The X was alerted. (System agreement that this was a penalty double; > however, on the convention card the defence to weak two openers was > shown as 'Double for take-out'. The players had agreed that this should > apply to Benjamin type opening bids, but over a Lucas bid they would > play the double as penalties.) > > (3) The XX was intended as the start of a non-forcing take-out into > another suit, regardless of partners holding. Partner is forced to make > a relay bid of 2S (assuming the next hand passes) and then this relay > bid is converted to the final contract. > > North (who had consulted the opponents convention card) was under the > impression that E/W were playing the double as take-out, not penalties, > and didn't ask any questions. When asked the meaning of the redouble > North replied that it showed a good hand. > > The E/W pair called the director and claimed that they had been > damaged by Norths failure to give a correct explanation of the re- > double. If they had been aware that this was a rescue bid then they > would not have bid 3D. > > N/S claimed that they had been misled by their opponents convention > card, which did not contain the information about the different meaning > of a double when used over a Lucas bid. > > North said she would have bid 2S if the convention card had given the > opponents methods in full. > > -- > 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 Dec 26 23:19:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 23:19:10 +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 XAA00775 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 23:19:04 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013652; 26 Dec 97 12:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 11:33:53 +0000 To: John Probst Cc: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Edward Sheldon , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: <+AsOcrAhkto0Ew+S@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <+AsOcrAhkto0Ew+S@probst.demon.co.uk>, "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In message , Labeo ncanius.demon.co.uk> writes >>In message , >>"Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >>> >>>On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Edward Sheldon wrote: >>>> On Dec 22, 12:56pm, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >>>> > On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Elizabeth Anne Jones wrote: >>(cut) >>> >>and Henk states: >>>No, but (at least in this part of the world) >90% of the players use the >>>same defence against regular weak 2's and Muiderberg/Lucas. (cut) >>Labeo: If E/W alerted I defend them from accusations of >>misinforming N/S. (cut) > Probst: > The convention >card was mis-leading - NS screwed up because of it. Labeo: There was *nothing*, as I understand, on the card about defence to Lucas Twos. That is *not* misleading. It depends on the Conditions of Contest/Regulations as to whether it was a requirement to list such a defence on the CC (and whether the card is therefore incomplete). North has simply no inherent right to make the mental transfer of 'defence to Weak Two' to be also the defence to some conventional opening; that is faulty thinking on the part of North. Unless you know the conditions of contest for this event you have no grounds for your assertion and headstrong judgement. -- Labeo " Once the people begin to reason, all is lost " - Voltaire said it in French. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 27 02:09:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 02:09:10 +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 CAA03688 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 02:09:03 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2007660; 26 Dec 97 15:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 03:43:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: <+AsOcrAhkto0Ew+S@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Labeo you are asking S to ask W "why did you alert, if your double is >take-out". In practise S won't, she'll shrug her shoulders and *assume >the alert was a mistake. If one takes a course of action which one could >have known at the time might mislead I *will* adjust. The convention >card was mis-leading - NS screwed up because of it. I can assure you John, after all the time people like myself have put into alerting, that if S can't be bothered to ask about an alerted call because she assumes the alert was wrong, that is the end of her getting any chance of an adjustment. She can assume what she *expletives deleted* likes, but for an international standard player to do so is casual to the extent that it snaps the causal link. Any damage now is caused by her failure to follow the regulations. -- 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 Dec 27 03:19:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 03:19:25 +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 DAA03961 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 03:19:15 +1100 Received: from default (client86b4.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.180]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA03911; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 16:19:01 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 15:45:16 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd1215$436445a0$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 gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L188DJ -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: 25 December 1997 09:59 Subject: Re: Calculation of L25b2 >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>However, it now seems Grattan understands something else than Ton. > >I suspect there's a virtual boxing match going on now - do send us the >final result ! #### Now why would you think this? Ton and I have a much better relationship than that. What is more we are surely talking about two different things; I am discussing the meaning and intention of the law... the Netherlands directive has the force of a regulation and, although I believe it over-rides the effect for which Kaplan was aiming (and to which the Committee gave assent) - that of putting a cap on the score the player taking this option could achieve - I am not suggesting that if the Netherlands wants it that way the rest of us should raise an objection. I merely hope it will not become fashionable. Law 88, incidentally, has little relevance to this situation: that law had the purpose of ensuring that a non-offender did not suffer damage in his session score as the result of award of an arbitrary score on a board; it did not require the reduction of the score of any offender. There is consequently no parallel here where we are considering the score of an offender. ####Grattan#### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 27 05:57:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 05:57:24 +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 FAA04782 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 05:57:19 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic17.cais.com [207.226.56.17]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id NAA06568 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 1997 13:48:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971226140026.006b3034@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 14:00:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. In-Reply-To: <+AsOcrAhkto0Ew+S@probst.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:07 PM 12/25/97 +0000, John wrote: >Labeo you are asking S to ask W "why did you alert, if your double is >take-out". In practise S won't, she'll shrug her shoulders and *assume >the alert was a mistake. If one takes a course of action which one could >have known at the time might mislead I *will* adjust. The convention >card was mis-leading - NS screwed up because of it. Labeo is asking S to ask W about the alert without (necessarily) going out of her way to phrase the question so as to express the assumption that it was a mistake. I don't see how S, if she chooses for her own reasons to "assume the alert was a mistake", should be entitled to the protection of the laws when that turns out to be a wrong assumption. While the particular convention card or conditions of contest in use might lead to the opposite conclusion, I would, in general, have a hard time finding that "the convention card was misleading" because it made no mention whatsoever of a specific defense to a specific artificial method. A properly filled-out convention card is not the equivalent of a complete set of notes covering every agreement the partnership has, and one's opponents should not expect it to be. 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 Dec 27 08:37:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 08:37:04 +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 IAA05282 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 08:36:58 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1019289; 26 Dec 97 21:31 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:25:17 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: lawbook text In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >>>Grattan Endicott wrote: > (The interesting bits cut) > Despite what the dictionary says, I consider "deck" to be an >Americanism, and perhaps this was more in the nature of a translation >than anything else! > > However, the change in L12C3 from "to do equity" to "to achieve >equity" is a change of meaning, albeit minor, and that is much more >serious IMO. > Labeo: It is a little strange to describe a word as an Americanism when it (and the meaning) were common usage in C16 England and have since been adopted by our North American friends, not to the exclusion of its use in C20 U.K. However that may be, it does seem trivial in the mind to meddle with odd words in the laws where the original is universally accurate and the only apparent motivation a kind of linguistic insularity. -- Labeo " Once the people begin to reason, all is lost " - Voltaire said it in French. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 27 13:05:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 13:05:47 +1100 Received: from mail.compulink.co.uk (mail.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA05998 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 13:05:41 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id CAA04400 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 02:05:04 GMT Date: Sat, 27 Dec 97 02:04 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trials 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: Some thoughts: 1) The alert of the double of 2H does not necessarily mean that the double is penalty, just that it is not take-out (based on what I see of alerting habits rather than WBU alert rules). 2) I believe the majority view in this forum was that North is not allowed to inquire as to the meaning of the double except at his own turn to call - L20F1 (ie she may not ask when West seeks a meaning for the redouble, although doing so would not be regarded as a serious infraction). 3) It is not entirely clear to me whether East's double is "Penalty" or "card-showing - penalty oriented" and it is possible that the latter interpretation would make North's explanation correct. 4) Had East passed 2H** I would not adjust in favour of NS since I think North should have protected herself rather than assume a double of a Lucas 2H was TO. 5) East was gifted, by way of the NS misunderstanding, with a chance to get a huge score, this gift was rejected. East could (not necessarily should) have protected herself at this point. 6) Both East and West had an opportunity to bid over 5C. 7) East should also have had an opportunity to correct her final pass after South gave a correct explanation of the redouble (either this didn't happen or this opportunity was also refused). 8) I really hate giving "logically" impossible scores when "restoring equity." Ie it is only possible for East to pass out 2H** if North thinks the double shows "a good hand" rather than an escape bid and she cannot therefore be expected to explain it any other way. 9) Beating 2H by 3 tricks is very difficult, even holding North to -2 is tricky. So even if you do decide to adjust to 2H** a -200/-600 may be correct. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 27 13:58:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 13:58:21 +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 NAA06099 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 13:58:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011990; 27 Dec 97 2:56 GMT Message-ID: <9q78+EAG4Gp0EwEd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 02:55:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: lawbook text In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >In message , David Stevenson > writes >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>From: David Stevenson >>>>Grattan Endicott wrote: >> > (The interesting bits cut) > >> Despite what the dictionary says, I consider "deck" to be an >>Americanism, and perhaps this was more in the nature of a translation >>than anything else! >> >> However, the change in L12C3 from "to do equity" to "to achieve >>equity" is a change of meaning, albeit minor, and that is much more >>serious IMO. >> >Labeo: It is a little strange to describe a word as an Americanism when >it (and the meaning) were common usage in C16 England and have since >been adopted by our North American friends, not to the exclusion of its >use in C20 U.K. However that may be, it does seem trivial in the mind >to meddle with odd words in the laws where the original is universally >accurate and the only apparent motivation a kind of linguistic >insularity. Not at all: the *motivation* is to avoid a strange inconsistency. I think an Americanism is a word in common usage in America in the late 20th C, and not over here. I wasn't around in the 16th C, so I wouldn't know whether it was an Americanism then, so I bow to Labeo's knowledge, since it appears he was. :) -- 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 Dec 29 19:40:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 19:40:32 +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 TAA18172 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 19:40:18 +1100 Received: from default (cph41.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.41]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA08897 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:40:02 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712290840.JAA08897@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:40:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Use L12C3 here? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After having made a fool of myself in the Lady Milne Trials case, whose thread is still active, I would like to offer this case. It is from the Danish first devision and involves players at or just below the Bermuda Bowl level. This time I will force myself to listen to your opinions before offering my own. imp teams, 40 board matches with VP conversion, dealer South, love all T87542 KT942 Q8 - J96 A3 J3 N 75 K654 W E AJT32 T854 S 9763 KQ AQ86 97 AKQJ2 S W N E 1C - 2C(1) 2D X(2) - 2S(3) - 3D(4) -(5) 4D(6) - 4H - - - 10 tricks won, scoring 420 for NS. (1): 2C is forcing and shows clubs (6-9 or 16+) *or* 55 in the majors and 2-9. Alerted. (2): X not alerted. West asked. Explained as cooperative, showing diamonds, suggesting that a penalty can be extracted. (Consistent with alerting rules in force) (3): shows 6 spades and 5 hearts. (4): Alerted, general game force. (5): Alerted, pass shows a high diamond. (6): Not alerted (OK by Danish rules); never explained. S did not correct the explanation of the double before the opening lead. Everyone agrees that the correct explanation should have been "not clear; either cooperative showing diamonds or a general force showing additional values". This is obviously a case of *convention disruption*, but this was played in Denmark, where there is an explicit policy not to penalize convention disruption as such. W calls after the hand has been played, claiming damage due to misinformation: if the double had been explained correctly, he could have pre-empted in 3D or 4D, making it difficult for NS to find their right spot. The TD acknowledges West's claim and finds that the following auction is feasible: 1C(-)2C(2D); X(4D)-(-); X(-)4S(-); -(-) Since 4S is one off, the TD adjusts the score to EW 50. NS appeal. NS claim that it is too far-fetched to consider anything but 4H as a final spot even with a pre-empt. EW, on the other hand, feel that 4S down one is far from the most unfavorable result at all probable. ---- I would like your opinion of this as an appeals case. Please consider the following questions: 1) Does West forfeit protection by not calling earlier? 2) Should the TD have slapped S with L90 for not correcting North's explanation after the final pass? 3) Does West deserve protection, or should he have protected himself by raising 2Dx despite the ostensibly cooperative double? 4) If you find EW damaged, it is certainly fairly unclear what would have transpired after a pre-empt, so this might be a good case for assigning weights to several possible outcomes, using L12C3. If you agree, what scores would you assign, and what weights would you use? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 29 20:57:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA18308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:57:17 +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 UAA18303 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:57:07 +1100 From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Message-Id: <199712290957.UAA18303@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2106; Mon, 29 Dec 97 04:57:03 EST Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:56:58 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: USE L12C3 HERE? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens wrote: > After having made a fool of myself in the Lady Milne Trials case, > whose thread is still active, I would like to offer this case. It > is from the Danish first devision and involves players at or just > below the Bermuda Bowl level. This time I will force myself to > listen to your opinions before offering my own. > > imp teams, 40 board matches with VP conversion, > dealer South, love all > > T87542 > KT942 > Q8 > - > J96 A3 > J3 N 75 > K654 W E AJT32 > T854 S 9763 > KQ > AQ86 > 97 > AKQJ2 > > S W N E > 1C - 2C(1) 2D > X(2) - 2S(3) - > 3D(4) -(5) 4D(6) - > 4H - - - > > 10 tricks won, scoring 420 for NS. > > (1): 2C is forcing and shows clubs (6-9 or 16+) > *or* 55 in the majors and 2-9. Alerted. > (2): X not alerted. West asked. Explained as cooperative, showing > diamonds, suggesting that a penalty can be extracted. > (Consistent with alerting rules in force) > (3): shows 6 spades and 5 hearts. > (4): Alerted, general game force. > (5): Alerted, pass shows a high diamond. > (6): Not alerted (OK by Danish rules); never explained. > > S did not correct the explanation of the double before the opening > lead. Everyone agrees that the correct explanation should have been > "not clear; either cooperative showing diamonds or a general force > showing additional values". This is obviously a case of *convention > disruption*, but this was played in Denmark, where there is an > explicit policy not to penalize convention disruption as such. > > W calls after the hand has been played, claiming damage due to > misinformation: if the double had been explained correctly, he could > have pre-empted in 3D or 4D, making it difficult for NS to find > their right spot. > > The TD acknowledges West's claim and finds that the following > auction is feasible: > > 1C(-)2C(2D); X(4D)-(-); X(-)4S(-); -(-) > > Since 4S is one off, the TD adjusts the score to EW 50. NS appeal. > NS claim that it is too far-fetched to consider anything but 4H as a > final spot even with a pre-empt. EW, on the other hand, feel that 4S > down one is far from the most unfavorable result at all probable. > ---- > > I would like your opinion of this as an appeals case. Please > consider the following questions: > > 1) Does West forfeit protection by not calling earlier? > 2) Should the TD have slapped S with L90 for not correcting > North's explanation after the final pass? > 3) Does West deserve protection, or should he have protected > himself by raising 2Dx despite the ostensibly cooperative double? > 4) If you find EW damaged, it is certainly fairly unclear what would > have transpired after a pre-empt, so this might be a good case > for assigning weights to several possible outcomes, using L12C3. > If you agree, what scores would you assign, and what > weights would you use? My replies to his questions are: 1) No, West still deserves protection. 2) Yes, South should have corrected, and the TD should have stressed this. 3) West deserves protection. 4) There has been an infraction, IMO, but has there been damage ? IMO, NS will end up either in some heart contract or heavily defeating a doubled diamond contract. So it looks as if there has been no damage. However, what about 4D by North ? I am wondering why S didn't investigate the possibilites of 6H. If N indeed has 6-5 majors and 2-9 HCP (as discovered before the infraction), SA+HK+(1or0 diamond(s)) or SA+DA or HK+DA would suffice to make 6H an excellent contract. Yet South didn't even try. If 4D DENIED a diamond control, this would explain why S settled in 4H. If so, there is damage afterall, and in that case -50/+50 would seem to be a fair decision, as (even) 5H would have been down one. Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 00:09:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:09:03 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA18877 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:08:57 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA04167 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:08:19 +0100 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:08:18 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: USE L12C3 HERE? In-Reply-To: <199712290957.UAA18303@octavia.anu.edu.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com wrote: > Jens wrote: > > T87542 > > KT942 > > Q8 > > - > > J96 A3 > > J3 N 75 > > K654 W E AJT32 > > T854 S 9763 > > KQ > > AQ86 > > 97 > > AKQJ2 > > S W N E > > 1C - 2C(1) 2D > > X(2) - 2S(3) - > > 3D(4) -(5) 4D(6) - > > 4H - - - > > 10 tricks won, scoring 420 for NS. > > (1): 2C is forcing and shows clubs (6-9 or 16+) > > *or* 55 in the majors and 2-9. Alerted. > > (2): X not alerted. West asked. Explained as cooperative, showing > > diamonds, suggesting that a penalty can be extracted. > > (Consistent with alerting rules in force) > > (3): shows 6 spades and 5 hearts. > > (4): Alerted, general game force. > > (5): Alerted, pass shows a high diamond. > > (6): Not alerted (OK by Danish rules); never explained. > > > > S did not correct the explanation of the double before the opening > > lead. Everyone agrees that the correct explanation should have been > > "not clear; either cooperative showing diamonds or a general force > > showing additional values". This is obviously a case of *convention > > disruption*, but this was played in Denmark, where there is an > > explicit policy not to penalize convention disruption as such. > > W calls after the hand has been played, claiming damage due to > > misinformation: if the double had been explained correctly, he could > > have pre-empted in 3D or 4D, making it difficult for NS to find > > their right spot. > > The TD acknowledges West's claim and finds that the following > > auction is feasible: -- -- -- 1 C Pass 2 C 2 D X 4 D Pass Pass X Pass 4 S Pass Pass Pass With my limited understanding of the NS system, I'd think that south should bid 4H, rather than X, at his third turn, in order to end up playing 4H (if north has the majors) or 5C (if north has club support). NS have a 9 card heart fit, why give north a chance to put NS in an 7 or 8 card spade fit played by the weak hand? (The same applies to an auction that starts 1C-P-2C;2D;X-3D-P...). So, I'm going to rule that the table result stands, but south is penalized for failing to correct the explanation. > > 1) Does West forfeit protection by not calling earlier? I don't see how west could have called the director earlier, the bidding seems perfectly consistent with NS holding 6-5-0-2 opposite 2-3-4-4. Only when the dummy comes down, he can suspect something. > > 4) If you find EW damaged, it is certainly fairly unclear what would > > have transpired after a pre-empt, so this might be a good case > > for assigning weights to several possible outcomes, using L12C3. > > If you agree, what scores would you assign, and what > > weights would you use? > However, what about 4D by North ? > I am wondering why S didn't investigate the possibilites of 6H. > If N indeed has 6-5 majors and 2-9 HCP (as discovered before the > infraction), SA+HK+(1or0 diamond(s)) Wait a second. The infraction was the misexplanation of 2Dx, the 2S bid, showing 6-5 M came after that. > or SA+DA or HK+DA would suffice > to make 6H an excellent contract. Yet South didn't even try. But: east must have a decent diamond suit for his overcall, west has a top diamond (A/K) but not much diamond length (otherwise he'd have raised them), so it is unlikely that north has a diamond control. Playing him for Axxxxx/Kxxxx/x/x, looks a like playing him for the perfect hand, since Jxxxxx/Jxxxx/xx/-- is also possible. > If 4D DENIED a diamond control, this would explain why S settled in 4H. > If so, there is damage afterall, and in that case -50/+50 would seem > to be a fair decision, as (even) 5H would have been down one. I can't quite follow this: if 4D denies a diamond control, I'd think that the natural continuation of the auction is 4H by south, showing his preference for hearts and denying a diamond control, pass by north. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 01:30:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 01:30:33 +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 BAA21352 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 01:30:23 +1100 From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Message-Id: <199712291430.BAA21352@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 5471; Mon, 29 Dec 97 09:30:19 EST Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:30:14 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: USE L12C3 HERE? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com wrote: >> Jens wrote: > >> > T87542 >> > KT942 >> > Q8 >> > - >> > J96 A3 >> > J3 N 75 >> > K654 W E AJT32 >> > T854 S 9763 >> > KQ >> > AQ86 >> > 97 >> > AKQJ2 > >> > S W N E >> > 1C - 2C(1) 2D >> > X(2) - 2S(3) - >> > 3D(4) -(5) 4D(6) - >> > 4H - - - > >> > 10 tricks won, scoring 420 for NS. > >> > (1): 2C is forcing and shows clubs (6-9 or 16+) >> > *or* 55 in the majors and 2-9. Alerted. >> > (2): X not alerted. West asked. Explained as cooperative, showing >> > diamonds, suggesting that a penalty can be extracted. >> > (Consistent with alerting rules in force) >> > (3): shows 6 spades and 5 hearts. >> > (4): Alerted, general game force. >> > (5): Alerted, pass shows a high diamond. >> > (6): Not alerted (OK by Danish rules); never explained. >> > >> > S did not correct the explanation of the double before the opening >> > lead. Everyone agrees that the correct explanation should have been >> > "not clear; either cooperative showing diamonds or a general force >> > showing additional values". This is obviously a case of *convention >> > disruption*, but this was played in Denmark, where there is an >> > explicit policy not to penalize convention disruption as such. > >> > W calls after the hand has been played, claiming damage due to >> > misinformation: if the double had been explained correctly, he could >> > have pre-empted in 3D or 4D, making it difficult for NS to find >> > their right spot. > >> > The TD acknowledges West's claim and finds that the following >> > auction is feasible: > >-- -- -- 1 C >Pass 2 C 2 D X >4 D Pass Pass X >Pass 4 S Pass Pass >Pass > >With my limited understanding of the NS system, I'd think that south >should bid 4H, rather than X, at his third turn, in order to end up >playing 4H (if north has the majors) or 5C (if north has club support). NS >have a 9 card heart fit, why give north a chance to put NS in an 7 or 8 >card spade fit played by the weak hand? (The same applies to an auction >that starts 1C-P-2C;2D;X-3D-P...). > >So, I'm going to rule that the table result stands, but south is penalized >for failing to correct the explanation. > >> > 1) Does West forfeit protection by not calling earlier? > IMHO you snipped the text of Jens as well as mine here. >I don't see how west could have called the director earlier, the bidding >seems perfectly consistent with NS holding 6-5-0-2 opposite 2-3-4-4. Only >when the dummy comes down, he can suspect something. > >> > 4) If you find EW damaged, it is certainly fairly unclear what would >> > have transpired after a pre-empt, so this might be a good case >> > for assigning weights to several possible outcomes, using L12C3. >> > If you agree, what scores would you assign, and what >> > weights would you use? > IMHO, you snipped my reply here. I stated that I believed that S would very likely have ended up in 4H or defending against 4+D! anyway, so that it didn't look like there had been damage. >> However, what about 4D by North ? >> I am wondering why S didn't investigate the possibilites of 6H. >> If N indeed has 6-5 majors and 2-9 HCP (as discovered before the >> infraction), SA+HK+(1or0 diamond(s)) > >Wait a second. The infraction was the misexplanation of 2Dx, the 2S bid, >showing 6-5 M came after that. You're right there, South obtained knowledge about the character/shape of N's hand following the infraction. I overlooked that. > >> or SA+DA or HK+DA would suffice >> to make 6H an excellent contract. Yet South didn't even try. > >But: east must have a decent diamond suit for his overcall, west has a top >diamond (A/K) but not much diamond length (otherwise he'd have raised > them), so it is unlikely that north has a diamond control. Playing him >for Axxxxx/Kxxxx/x/x, looks a like playing him for the perfect hand, since >Jxxxxx/Jxxxx/xx/-- is also possible. > >> If 4D DENIED a diamond control, this would explain why S settled in 4H. >> If so, there is damage afterall, and in that case -50/+50 would seem >> to be a fair decision, as (even) 5H would have been down one. > >I can't quite follow this: if 4D denies a diamond control, I'd think that >the natural continuation of the auction is 4H by south, showing his >preference for hearts and denying a diamond control, pass by north. My final paragraphs were not too clearly phrased, I am afraid What I intended to say is, that I do think that over a 3D or 4D intervention by EW South would have ended in 4H anyway, UNLESS the bidding without that EW intervention has told him something more, and that something more made him refrain from making a slam try. So if 4D by North says something like "both the heart suit and spade suit lack top honours" or "no diamond control", South has gained knowledge that he couldn't have obtained had EW bid 3 or 4D. If so, and if that knowledge made South sign off in 4H, then there is damage. I did not believe there has been damage if South would not have made a slam try anyway. I am not as sure about that now as I was, Henk having pointed out that the confirmation that N had 5-5 majors came after the infraction. Yet, I am still inclined to think so. Jac From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 04:14:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 04:14:22 +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 EAA22012 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 04:14:15 +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 LAA14210 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:39:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA10219; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:39:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:39:26 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712291639.LAA10219@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: New Year's (was Christmas) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > There are two hundred of you, more or less, and I think of you all as > my friends. ... > Merry Christmas! Have a Happy New Year! Enjoy your Bridge! I'd like to thank David for putting everything so well, and I agree with every word he wrote. (Save this message; you are unlikely to see those words ever again! :-) ) At this season, perhaps newcomers would like a word or two about how BLML got started. David and I were both frequent posters about laws matters on RGB; he asked me whether there might be a newsgroup specifically for bridge laws. I replied that there probably wouldn't be enough support but suggested a mailing list instead. Markus Buchhorn was kind enough to set up the machinery (Thanks, Markus!), and here we are. There were about 60 early subscribers, IIRC. Now we have around 200 subscribers. This is a common threshold for converting a mailing list to a newsgroup. Personally, I think the list is working well, and I'd prefer to keep it as it is, but others (Markus in particular, if the load on his machine is too high) may have other opinions. Starting a new newsgroup is a lot of work, though, so unless there is strong sentiment in favor of doing so, it won't happen. Thanks once more to all the correspondents who have made BLML so useful and enjoyable. And especially thanks to David, who got the whole process started. While I often joke about disagreeing with him, I mean it in a friendly spirit, and I hope and believe he takes it that way. The truth is that we agree on far more questions than we disagree on, and even when we disagree, I have enormous respect for his experience and his views. We do read ambiguous passages in the Laws very differently. I tend to adopt an extremely literal, even mathematical, reading whenever possible. I should let David characterize his own views, but my impression is that tradition and experience influence his reading. My real hope is that the contrast between our viewpoints will be illuminating. It certainly has been to me. Best wishes and happy bridge to all. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 06:11:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 06:11:24 +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 GAA22658 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 06:11:17 +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 OAA18756 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10317; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:11:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:11:00 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712291911.OAA10317@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: change of score ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > There was also the case of the lady whose World Championship > opponent protested* that she would have got the defence right if she > had been given the info based on system, rather than the true meaning > of the calls (behind screens). In another World Championship case, the defenders on two sides of the screen were given different explanations. One explanation accurately described the hand held, while the other accurately described the true agreement. The former was deemed to be an infraction when it turned out that correct defense hinged on both defenders having heard the _same_ explanation (which they had not). What I can't remember is why this case went to appeal. In retrospect, the ruling seems automatic. > it is very dangerous to assume oneself must be right as to system and > partner's version must be wrong. Agreed, unless of course one is sure of having evidence to support one's opinion. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 06:44:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 06:44:01 +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 GAA22816 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 06:43:55 +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 OAA19842 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10340; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:43:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:43:39 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712291943.OAA10340@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lady Milne Trial. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > The convention card was mis-leading - NS screwed up because of it. It seems to me that this is the first of many key questions, not yet answered by the facts we have. Was the CC misleading or not? If it said something like, "Describe your defense to two-bids" and leaves a large blank space, failing to note the possibility of a penalty double seems to me a clear infraction. If, OTOH, the CC simply has "Double of two bid = T/O, penalty" and a couple of check boxes, checking the box that applies to _natural_ two-bids seems quite reasonable, even if a different agreement applies to artificial two-bids. Most likely, the real CC is somewhere in between (both check boxes and blanck space available). Is it? If so, the TD (and no doubt AC) has to judge whether the CC was or was not properly filled out. If it was not, EW have committed an infraction, and any damage is primarily their own fault. If the CC and alert are correct (and there is no other EW infraction relating to proper disclosure), we have some further questions about exactly what happened when, but there is potential for an adjustment because of NS misinformation about the meaning of the redouble. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 07:38:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 07:38:41 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA23115 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 07:38:31 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA10306 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Mon, 29 Dec 1997 21:37:55 +0100 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 21:37:54 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: USE L12C3 HERE? In-Reply-To: <199712291430.BAA21352@octavia.anu.edu.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com wrote: > >> > 1) Does West forfeit protection by not calling earlier? > IMHO you snipped the text of Jens as well as mine here. It's not only an opinion, it's a fact that I did cut a lot of text here. I wanted to limit my comments to Jens' question about calling the director, the auction that the table director came up with and your point about when the infraction occurred. I agreed with everything else, so didn't want to repeat it. Sorry if I cut too much. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 07:50:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 07:50:46 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA23159 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 07:50:41 +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 PAA23756 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 15:50:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10382; Mon, 29 Dec 1997 15:50:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 15:50:19 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199712292050.PAA10382@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Use L12C3 here? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jens & Bodil" > is from the Danish first devision and involves players at or just > below the Bermuda Bowl level. > S did not correct the explanation of the double before the opening > lead. Everyone agrees that the correct explanation should have been > ... So we have undoubted MI and failure to correct it. Moreover, the MI makes a diamond raise less attractive, so there is at least the potential for damage. > The TD acknowledges West's claim and finds that the following > auction is feasible: > > 1C(-)2C(2D); X(4D)-(-); X(-)4S(-); -(-) > > Since 4S is one off, the TD adjusts the score to EW 50. This would seem the normal ruling in the US, and I cannot really fault it in Denmark. However, as Henk said, 4H by South rather than the last double seems far more likely. I think the real worry is what Jac suggested: South will think North must have a diamond control and get to 5H. I definitely would want to consult on this hand, but I think I would advocate a split score: -50 to NS (in either 4S or 5H), -420 to EW (in 4H=). At least that encourages both sides to appeal. :-) > 1) Does West forfeit protection by not calling earlier? No. At most, the delay might influence our opinion of what results are likely or at all probable, but really West cannot call the TD until the South hand has been revealed. (He knows something is wrong upon seeing dummy's two diamonds but cannot say anything without giving East UI.) > 2) Should the TD have slapped S with L90 for not correcting > North's explanation after the final pass? I would think a PP automatic at this level of competition, regardless of whether the score is adjusted or not. > 3) Does West deserve protection, or should he have protected > himself by raising 2Dx despite the ostensibly cooperative double? Clearly the explanation made the raise less attractive, and the pass was not IMHO an egregious error, given the explanation. > 4) If you find EW damaged, it is certainly fairly unclear what would > have transpired after a pre-empt, so this might be a good case > for assigning weights to several possible outcomes, using L12C3. > If you agree, what scores would you assign, and what > weights would you use? This is a very tough case. One possible result is 4Dx, down four, and I really think this is quite likely if West says 4D. After 3D, things are much murkier, but I don't think either 4S or 5H is likely. I do think the chance of one of them is "at all probable," and without L12C3, I'd assign the split score as above. With L12C3, my probabilities might look something like 4H=50%, 4S-1=10%, 5H-1=25%, 4Dx-4=10%, 3Dx-3=5%. This is just a personal guess on insufficient information; the AC could no doubt do a better job if they knew the personalities involved. (Should, e.g. West's tendencies in competition be a factor, I wonder?) The AC should most certainly investigate the NS methods after a 3D bid. If they would obviously reach 4H with no problem, then there is no damage, and the score stands. Since the percentages are so poorly known and are really a matter of guesswork, I don't think one can say a weighted score is more equitable than the split score. If one takes my percentages seriously, 4S+5H=35%>33.3%, so (in the US -- is the Danish rule the same?) one would assign -50 to NS, +50 to EW. As I say, this disagrees with my qualitative opinion. (Perhaps I'm improperly influenced by my belief that "likely" means 50%, not 33%.) Basically, I think -50 to NS (and a PP) is equitable, and my real question is only about the EW score. If you give them a share of +50, shouldn't you give them a share of -800 as well? I'll be eager to see views from those more familiar with weighted scores. A very interesting case. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 14:12:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:12:30 +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 OAA24233 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:12:22 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1023912; 30 Dec 97 3:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:09:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: was Use L12C3 here?, now Stevenson over-ruled! In-Reply-To: <199712290840.JAA08897@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199712290840.JAA08897@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >After having made a fool of myself in the Lady Milne Trials case, >whose thread is still active, I would like to offer this case. It >is from the Danish first devision and involves players at or just >below the Bermuda Bowl level. This time I will force myself to >listen to your opinions before offering my own. > >imp teams, 40 board matches with VP conversion, >dealer South, love all > > T87542 > KT942 > Q8 > - > J96 A3 > J3 N 75 > K654 W E AJT32 > T854 S 9763 > KQ > AQ86 > 97 > AKQJ2 > > S W N E > 1C - 2C(1) 2D > X(2) - 2S(3) - > 3D(4) -(5) 4D(6) - > 4H - - - > >10 tricks won, scoring 420 for NS. > >(1): 2C is forcing and shows clubs (6-9 or 16+) > *or* 55 in the majors and 2-9. Alerted. >(2): X not alerted. West asked. Explained as cooperative, showing > diamonds, suggesting that a penalty can be extracted. > (Consistent with alerting rules in force) >(3): shows 6 spades and 5 hearts. >(4): Alerted, general game force. >(5): Alerted, pass shows a high diamond. >(6): Not alerted (OK by Danish rules); never explained. > >S did not correct the explanation of the double before the opening >lead. Everyone agrees that the correct explanation should have been >"not clear; either cooperative showing diamonds or a general force >showing additional values". This is obviously a case of *convention >disruption*, but this was played in Denmark, where there is an >explicit policy not to penalize convention disruption as such. > >W calls after the hand has been played, claiming damage due to >misinformation: if the double had been explained correctly, he could >have pre-empted in 3D or 4D, making it difficult for NS to find >their right spot. > >The TD acknowledges West's claim and finds that the following >auction is feasible: > > 1C(-)2C(2D); X(4D)-(-); X(-)4S(-); -(-) > >Since 4S is one off, the TD adjusts the score to EW 50. NS appeal. >NS claim that it is too far-fetched to consider anything but 4H as a >final spot even with a pre-empt. EW, on the other hand, feel that 4S >down one is far from the most unfavorable result at all probable. > >---- > >I would like your opinion of this as an appeals case. Please >consider the following questions: > >1) Does West forfeit protection by not calling earlier? >2) Should the TD have slapped S with L90 for not correcting > North's explanation after the final pass? >3) Does West deserve protection, or should he have protected > himself by raising 2Dx despite the ostensibly cooperative double? >4) If you find EW damaged, it is certainly fairly unclear what would > have transpired after a pre-empt, so this might be a good case > for assigning weights to several possible outcomes, using L12C3. > If you agree, what scores would you assign, and what > weights would you use? > This is bollocks. S knows they can play in 7NT or 4H after the response. North knows that S knows which contract will be sensible (whatever it is). They wouldn't play such *stupid* methods unless they could sort out the mess in a competitive auction. To rule 4S is perverse. 4H tick. Easy. Now to the meat course: Pairs: Love all K92 - xx AKxxxxxx You open 2C precision, 2D overcall, 2S from pard (NF8-11 5+S), 3H on your right. You bid 4C (NF) not expecting in a million years that this will be the last bid in the auction. You are trying to play in 4Sx or possible 6C to make. You are correct, the auction proceeds: 4H, P P, 4S, 5H, x, P. Your go. Let me make it easy: You Me 2C 2D 2S 3H 4C 4H P P 4S! 5H x P What the f***!!! He must be 4117 (didn't cross ? my mind yet he was ~3118) and having some fun. It's still your go, by the way ... For what it's worth *Me* was playing and [Mr.] Stevenson got called to the table. Yum Yum Yum! Enjoy, Enjoy, Enjoy. Your choices are 5S or pass, answers to Nanki Poo To be continued ....(It's a bit unfair - Me lives 2 miles from the Tourney & he is 200 miles from home & away from his PC). BTW I have bought him a whisky. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |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 Dec 30 19:06:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 19:06:20 +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 TAA24832 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 19:06:11 +1100 Received: from default (cph52.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.52]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA20798 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 09:06:00 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199712300806.JAA20798@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 09:06:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: was Use L12C3 here?, now Stevenson over-ruled! Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will return later with a description of the ruling arrived at by the National AC in Denmark. Still, I cannot resist an immediate rejoinder to John's suggested ruling. "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote > This is bollocks. S knows they can play in 7NT or 4H after the response. > North knows that S knows which contract will be sensible (whatever it > is). They wouldn't play such *stupid* methods NS are keen rubber bridge players, and they would like to meet you and your favorite partner on neutral ground in order to demonstrate just how stupid their methods are. Do bring plenty of money. > unless they could sort out > the mess in a competitive auction. To rule 4S is perverse. 4H tick. > Easy. NS like you very much; this is exactly the case they presented to the AC. However, some members of the AC seemed to mean that if they had not agreed on a meaning of the double of 2D, they might also not be able to recover after a diamond pre-empt. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 30 19:35:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 19:35:25 +1100 Received: from coconut.tc.pw.com (coconut-ext.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.104]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA24911 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 19:35:20 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id AAA24981; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:32:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from palm.us.pw.com(131.209.7.57) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma024961; Tue, 30 Dec 97 00:32:31 -0800 Received: by palm.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA13992; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:36:35 -0800 Message-Id: <199712300836.AAA13992@palm.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 30 Dec 97 08:27:41 GMT Subject: Re: was Use L12C3 here?, now Stevenson over-ruled! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk john @ probst.demon.co.uk said: >Pairs: Love all > >K92 >- >xx >AKxxxxxx > >You open 2C precision, 2D overcall, 2S from pard (NF8-11 5+S), 3H on >your right. >You bid 4C (NF) not expecting in a million years that this will be the >last bid in the auction. You are trying to play in 4Sx or possible 6C to >make. >You are correct, the auction proceeds: >4H, P P, 4S, 5H, x, P. Your go. >Let me make it easy: > >You Me >2C 2D 2S 3H >4C 4H P P >4S! 5H x P What the f***!!! He must be 4117 (didn't cross >? my mind yet he was ~3118) and having some fun. > >It's still your go, by the way ... > >For what it's worth *Me* was playing and [Mr.] Stevenson got called to >the table. Yum Yum Yum! Enjoy, Enjoy, Enjoy. > >Your choices are 5S or pass, answers to Nanki Poo I'd pass. Presumably, since there was a TD call, there was a hesitation or other UI at some stage, but I'll await the next instalment. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 31 00:28:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:28:59 +1100 Received: from malady.cais.net (malady.cais.net [199.0.216.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28046 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:28:53 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic24.cais.com [207.226.56.24]) by malady.cais.net (8.8.7/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA23151 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 08:31:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971230083232.006b368c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 08:32:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: was Use L12C3 here?, now Stevenson over-ruled! In-Reply-To: References: <199712290840.JAA08897@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:09 AM 12/30/97 +0000, John wrote: >Pairs: Love all > >K92 >- >xx >AKxxxxxx > >You open 2C precision, 2D overcall, 2S from pard (NF8-11 5+S), 3H on >your right. >You bid 4C (NF) not expecting in a million years that this will be the >last bid in the auction. You are trying to play in 4Sx or possible 6C to >make. >You are correct, the auction proceeds: >4H, P P, 4S, 5H, x, P. Your go. >Let me make it easy: > >You Me >2C 2D 2S 3H >4C 4H P P >4S! 5H x P What the f***!!! He must be 4117 (didn't cross >? my mind yet he was ~3118) and having some fun. > >It's still your go, by the way ... > >For what it's worth *Me* was playing and [Mr.] Stevenson got called to >the table. What for? There's no indication of any irregularity in the above. > Yum Yum Yum! Enjoy, Enjoy, Enjoy. > Your choices are 5S or pass, answers to Nanki Poo Given the above, 5S looks like an easy call. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 31 00:58:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:58:36 +1100 Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28176 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:58:31 +1100 From: KRAllison Message-ID: <43345e26.34a8fde0@aol.com> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 08:57:49 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Quoting Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems that in order to read virtually any posting on BLML these days, you have to scroll through the entire posting being responded to. Frankly, this is an effort that I think unnecessary as well as a lengthening of each message for those (not me) who pay for that. Isn't it possible to quote just enough of the relevant posting to bring the reader's attention to it and then to get on with the response? Karen From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 31 03:37:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 03:37:30 +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 DAA28861 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 03:37:23 +1100 Received: from cph60.ppp.dknet.dk (cph60.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.60]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA08292 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:37:14 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quoting Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:37:13 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34ab152f.1364842@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <43345e26.34a8fde0@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <43345e26.34a8fde0@aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 08:57:49 EST, KRAllison wrote: >Isn't it possible to quote just enough of the relevant posting to bring = the >reader's attention to it and then to get on with the response? Yes it is. One of the advantages of a mailing list over a Usenet newsgroup is that mail is much more reliable than news. There is generally no reason to doubt that all BLML subscribers have actually received the article you reply to. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://isa.dknet.dk/~jd (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 31 07:38:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 07:38:57 +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 HAA29790 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 07:38:50 +1100 Received: from mike (ip251.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.12.244.251]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA25290 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:38:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971230153849.006bdee4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:38:49 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Quoting In-Reply-To: <43345e26.34a8fde0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I quite agree. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 31 16:10:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 16:10:16 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01037 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 1997 16:10:09 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012778; 31 Dec 97 5:07 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:50:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Use L12C3 here? In-Reply-To: <199712300806.JAA20798@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199712300806.JAA20798@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >I will return later with a description of the ruling arrived at by >the National AC in Denmark. Still, I cannot resist an immediate >rejoinder to John's suggested ruling. > > S knows they can play in 7NT or 4H after the response. >> North knows that S knows which contract will be sensible (whatever it >> is). They wouldn't play such *stupid* methods > Funnily enough I wasn't suggesting the methods are prima facie stupid. If anything, on the contrary, what I'm saying is that when you play a really strange method you normally have very clear agreements about dealing with intervention etc. As for the challenge I reckon my edge is 2-3 points an hour in any but the very strongest game. (One doesn't play the after hours YC game lightly !) >NS are keen rubber bridge players, and they would like to meet you >and your favorite partner on neutral ground in order to demonstrate >just how stupid their methods are. Do bring plenty of money. > Of course high stake rubber bridge is played with very few conventions so I wouldn't have to worry about them wielding this one against me, and I would expect us to play cut-in Chicago or rubber. :) >> unless they could sort out >> the mess in a competitive auction. To rule 4S is perverse. 4H tick. >> Easy. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |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