From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 01:31:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 01:31:37 +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 BAA27718 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 01:31:28 +1100 Received: from default (client868a.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.138]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA20266; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:31:18 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conv Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:29:57 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd2e54$b45f0aa0$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: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 January 1998 23:41 Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conv >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> If as a matter of partnership agreement (partnership understanding) >> a bid makes a statement about denominations other than the one named, >> whether as the primary purpose of the bid or as a secondary matter, then >> the law is that such a bid is conventional. >... >> The effects were foreseen and intended. > >Thank you very much for the clarification. Does the last sentence >include the effects with regard to L27? (If so, it will certainly >simplify choosing between L27B1 and L27B2!) > #### You sound almost surprised, but the element that you quote is in fact unchanged from the definition of convention in the 1987 laws. Because of the change-round in the approach to defining what is and what is not conventional, it was necessary to define points 2 and 3 as 'not conventional'. Perhaps the point to grasp is that "conveys a meaning other than" is so worded that the meaning in question may be an agreed added-on meaning conveyed in parallel with the basic meaning to which the bid first speaks. We already had settled the definition of 'convention' at the time when we put Law 27 finally to bed. We had representations from a wide variety of sources that we should simplify Law 27 and we did operate on it with the surgeon's knife. Our object was simplicity. I cannot suggest that we spent much time examining the finer aspects of 'conventional' when we agreed what we would do, but we did intend that anything that was conventional, as defined, in an insufficient bid or the same denomination at the lowest legal level, should take the Director into 27B2. So your question is answered: yes. Concerning the definition of 'convention' let me say that I had no problem with (1) willingness to play in and (3) length (three cards or more). Long habit of mind caused me greater difficulty with (2) high card strength; my problem was with cue bids - it felt as if these ought all to be conventional, but Edgar persuaded me that cue bids which guarantee a top honour in the suit may reasonably be considered 'natural' in content (i.e. showing cards) and those which may be made on a singleton or void as conventional. It may be that such an arrangement is actually helpful; we will see. The primary thought had to do with actions probing for 3NT, and those showing cards in that context, but the chosen wording drew in cue bids.#### Grattan #### ; From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 04:28:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:28:04 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA28914 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:27:57 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015527; 31 Jan 98 17:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:29:21 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conventio In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980130094346.006bfd18@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980130094346.006bfd18@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 09:16 PM 1/26/98 +0000, Labeo wrote: > >>And where (Law 93C) those elected people are the final arbiters >>of the application of the laws the solution is to change them >>at the following election (if enough people agree)? > Eric Landau (extracts): >I think Labeo may be living in a dream world. He certainly isn't living in >the ACBL. Here's how it works in the ACBL: > >(1) ACBL members can vote for members of their unit boards. Even in my >unit, which is perhaps the most progressive in the ACBL, the member must >show up in person on election night (at a weekly unit game, not at a >tournament) to cast a ballot, and only a small minority of relative >insiders do so. >(2) Members of the unit boards vote for members of the district boards in >similarly staggered elections. >(3) Members of the district boards vote for members of the ACBL Board of >Directors, ditto. > >(4) The ACBL BoD elects its own officers and officials. > >The result of this process is that those near the top level of this power >structure are quite firmly entrenched; the ordinary voter has no leverage >whatsoever. > The 'American' Dream, I suppose. American practice is so often held out to the rest of us as the truly democratic method that we tend to think it is so, but if your description has a semblance of validity then I know places, including even England, that do better in the process of democratic government of the game. Experience is that to accuse Americans of democracy does tend to arouse a strong response from some! %>)) A la lanterne ....? {Of course, inertia is the problem but if enough like-minded people got together to make a change the same inertia could open the door for them at poorly attended meetings.} -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 04:32:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:32:35 +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 EAA28952 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:32:28 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1029443; 31 Jan 98 17:21 GMT Message-ID: <9fj0CGALqn00Ew$6@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:12:43 +0000 To: Michael Farebrother Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: reasonably or demonstrably? In-Reply-To: <199801301916.OAA00943@crypto2.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199801301916.OAA00943@crypto2.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael Farebrother writes > >This is a hand that confused me at the time of ruling (luckily it >wasn't important in the score) and has confused me ever since. > >Qx AKTx Kxx AQJx, KO match, students (but they are either Junior >Internationalists or will try next year), all V. > >RHO You LHO CHO >1NT(1) X -(2) - (1) 10-12; (2) forcing redouble, starts runout >XX(3) - 2C(4) - (3) forced (4) two suit runout including clubs >2D(5) - 2S(6) -* (5) other suit? (6) spades >- X AP. Could you say something about CHO's first pass, please? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 04:41:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:41:27 +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 EAA28995 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:41:22 +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 MAA06976 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:41:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06412; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:41:41 -0500 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:41:41 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199801311741.MAA06412@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conv X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Perhaps the point to grasp is that "conveys a > meaning other than" is so worded that the meaning in question > may be an agreed added-on meaning conveyed in parallel with the > basic meaning to which the bid first speaks. Thank you very much for all your clarifications. While we may not like the answer, and it certainly conflicts with our preconceived notions, I don't see how we can argue further about what is and is not conventional. We shall just have to figure out how to deal with the consequences. One consequence is that most real-life bidding systems are no longer licensed by the ACBL (except under the Superchart). I hope the authorities will soon update their convention charts. Other SO's may wish to reexamine their rules as well. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 04:51:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:51:17 +1100 Received: from zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA29034 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 04:51:10 +1100 Received: from compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.1]) by zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA12916 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:50:58 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03254 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:50:57 +0100 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 18:50:57 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199801311750.SAA03254@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Number of Bits Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: > 2. When dealing the n-th card, generate a 6-bit number, call it x. This can > be interpreted as an integer in the range 0-63. [A larger number of bits > can be used, but is irrelevant given the assumption above] > > 3. If x is greater than n-1, discard it and repeat Step 2. If we want to generate a number from 0-1 we only need 1 bit not 6. So it makes sense to use only as many bits as necessary. Besides saving precious random bits this also is faster, since there will be a lot of discards for small n. Even some more bits could be saved, if we e.g. generate the bits for n=3 and n=5 in parallel. With a resulting n=3*5=15 there is only a 1/16 chance for a (double) discard. A division with remainder will quickly seperate the two random values again. Of course this works only, if we know that we will need specific sets of random values. Steve Willner wrote: > As others have pointed out, 96 bits are sufficient to represent all > possible bridge hands. Moreover, not all 96 bits have to be generated > in a single iteration of the (pseudo)-RNG. As I already wrote: 52! = 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 (68 digits) 52! / ( 13! * 13! * 13! *13! ) = 53644737765488792839237440000 (28 digits) The rough equivalent of 68 digits is 226 bits, the rough equivalent of 28 digits is 93 bits. So it looks as if 93 bits are sufficient. But before we can sit down and play, we have to reconstruct our complete bridge hand from the generated random number! And I don't see how this can be done efficiently or sensible at all, despite: > That raises another thought from a discussion on RGB about a year ago - > somebody (Henk ? Hans ?) used a procedure to index all possible bridge > hands along with their layouts into a unique number, and then all a good > RNG had to do was generate that number. Ignore all shuffling/dealing > techniques entirely. This could possibly be "easier" to mathematically > prove as "perfect" (allowing for the lifetime of the Universe to be > unbounded, of course :-) ). While it is fairly easy to easy to write a program that e.g. permutes all cards step by step, and increments a counter if e.g. all card value codes are sorted, the CPU-time for calculating 53644737765488792839237440000/2 permutations (for an average) is ridiculous. So it looks as if a mathematical proper shuffling, as e.g. given in the books of Knuth, with the sucessive generation of random numbers from the intervals 1..1, 1..2, 1..3, ... is highly preferable to generating a single random number from the interval 1..53644737765488792839237440000. In fact, the algorithm as given by Knuth (read backwards) only adds another card randomly to a deck of already n-1 shuffled cards at one of the possible n positions. In a sense it is a step-by-step single card shuffling simulation. This could suggest, that the RNG should be capable of not only generating all combinations but all permutations. Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 08:20:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:20:48 +1100 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA29653 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:20:41 +1100 Received: from default (cph8.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.8]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA18160 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:20:32 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199801312120.WAA18160@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:51:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: computer generated hands Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > I just have a couple of things to say > about this...and it's a bit long. If you're not interested in niggling > details, none of which are really relevant to bridge-laws, you might > bail out now. These remarks also go for this response. However, before you leave us, the answer to Michael's last question is L6D2 (details below). > 1. Remember that the number of possible hand records is (in the > ACBL, anyway) 36*number of possible bridge hands, and that the program > should be able to produce any of them with equal* probability (I star > equal because we don't want *any* repetition - see below). That works > out to an extra 5.x bits of information required in our random number. That should, I do believe, be "raised to the 36th power", not "multiplied by 36". Hence it requires 36 times as many bits. > 2. If the system is truly random (and hardware TRNGs are available, > as someone pointed out - I even have the schematics for an "almost" > TRNG here, but you have to spend a long time working out the 0/1 > dividing line yourself, which the commercial ones should have done for > you), there is a 1/~100 quadrillion(US) chance of getting the same hands > through sheer blind chance. Yes, I know that's a lot better than we're > getting now. Also, it is irrelevant what the starting "pack" state is - > in a perfect system, there's an equivalent chance of getting any hand > record, and there's a hand record that is a transpositon of any specific > hand record for any specific starting order of the pack. Reasoning is right, but youmight be revising the number (to something so small that we don't have a name for it). > 3. We don't really need cryptographically secure RNG anyway - statistically > pure PRNGs will do. Amen. > That is, of course, unless you expect someone to try > duplicating the hand generation to get an advantage. Although I expect > someone to try that, now that I think about it - it's probably why people > are so loath to sell copies of the generator :-) Actually, in the DBF, our reason not to publish the hand generator is not that we think someone might do it, but rather that we think someone might accuse someone of having done it. Such accusations are easier to dismiss than if we had provided copies. > 4. Given PRNGs, once two generators start syncing, for whatever reason, > they will continue to. That's also not particularily nice... Exactly. So PRNG-based generators need to have very careful and proven methods for avoiding this. > 5. People have talked about creating unique seeds from time of day, > machine numbers and so on. If you do that, it is necessary to ensure > that "close" seeds ( ones that differ by 1, 2, or 3 bits) do not produce > "close" hand records (hands shifted by one position, one card, suit switches, > and so on - like the example brought up last week). Exactly. So ... (oops I just said that) > 6. What is the chance of a messup after generation? "Most failures in > security are not cryptographic failures, but protocol ones." How do we > protect against peeking after generation and during transit? The DBF uses sealed envelopes and sealed boxes of boards. The sealing is done in same way that international transports on the highways are sealed by customs. (This might not ring a bell in large countries). > How do we > protect against accidental (or deliberate, as in "ah no-one will be here that > was in Kingston, Canada last June") reuse of records? In the DBF we do this by having the operator identify the event before the cards are dealt, by repeating the operator's identification onthe hand records, and by requiring that the tournament director checks a board in each duplicate with the hand record as he opens the box. Not foolproof, but fairly good; we have had an incident after we started this approach. It turned out that an outside programmer had decided to improve on the layout of the hand records, throwing away the "extraneous" information about the intended event. The operator got confused and sent out the same boards to two different events (one on Friday, the other on Sunday). Yes, at least one player played in both events, or we would never have found out. > I am very likely > to believe that more than the Canberra "computer errors" was an error in > applying the protocol. I think so too. The software engineer should worry about building the system so that it helps the operator to avoid such errors. Sticking the details of the intended event on all files and all papers is the best I have been able to do. > I think a single seed generator would be fine, provided it was a TRNG > with backcheck against repetition. Client hand generators should be > "publicly" available (sold?) that will only generate hand records when > they call up the seed generator. Now, all we have to do is secure the > connection to the seed generator :-). But I'm at least willing to > trust DES transmission of the seed, with the DES key created by > a two-way public key exchange at the time of connection for the day > or so between transmission and play. We ship boards to events, often a week or two in advance. Does this make a difference? > I think we can trust the > tournament committees and directors to do their usual expert job of > securing the records after generation (1/2 :-). Of course. > It would have to be > possible to check after the fact that the hand record was in fact generated > by the tournament's generator within a day or two of play (by providing > the seed on the hand record,maybe? The DBF provides the seed on the hand records, except when "helpful" postprocessing software throws it away. It is a 48-bit seed, so this is tractable. Then, of course, we only allow this puny number (2**48) different hand records.The purpose of this is to be able to answer complaints of this sort: "Someone has tampered with these boards to make them more interesting!" It is now easy to say, "No, our program, which has been statistically proven to deal sequences that cannot be distinguished from random ones, dealt this in the normal manner. The seed used is on your hand record. Care to witness a rerun?" > After all, I've already required > storage of all seeds generated, plus identification of the program > that requested each one...) In principle, it is wrong not to allow the TRNG output (which you call the seed) to be reused, provided that it realy is a TRNG. Not allowing reuse is not going to skew things in any detectable manner, though. > Oh, and the hand generator should be proven to be a 1-1 translator > between seed and the set of possible hand records :-) Though I think with a > TRNG, the transition could be as simple as a "lookup function" as was > discussed before. Yes. > Sorry this was long-winded. Back to your regular arguments about > laws (so, which law do we break by repeating hand records, anyway?). L6D2. This law is cast in terms of manual shuffling, where the main point is that if someone forgot to shuffle a board so that we are playing last night's distribution again, then the results are to be canceled. Of course, if the cards *were* shuffled, and the same board turned up again, then everything would be all right. Who cares. Anyway, if we offer players hand records that have been played in another event earlier we are breaking L6D2 -- except of course when we do this intentionally as in the recent Nordic Simultaneous. Of course, if our TRNG dictated that the same hand record should be used for two consecutive sessions of an NABC, this would not really be in conflict with L6D2. But someone would have a hard time defending that the TRNG really is random. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 08:20:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:20:47 +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 IAA29652 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:20:39 +1100 Received: from default (cph8.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.8]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA18152; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:20:29 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199801312120.WAA18152@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: Paul@rbarden.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:51:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Sensible Random Number Generators Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A little teaser for BLML regulars who don't care about all this technical stuff: A player goes off to the toilet in mid-session. On the way, he deliberately finds board 29, takes out the hands, memorizes them with the intent to use his advantage in later play, and puts everything back. As TD, you find out about this. How do you rule. What law do you refer to. Can't be L16B, can it? Now for the mathematically inclined: Paul Barden wrote: > In message <199801300036.BAA11435@isa.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil > writes > [cut] > >B: A random number generator that fulfills requirement (2) needs to > >be able to generate at least 2**96 distinct values. If it is a > >conventional linear congruential type generator, it really needs to > >be at least 96 bits wide; otherwise it won't generate enough separate > >outcomes. You don't achieve this requirement by just concatenating > >several numbers from a narrower generator. > [cut] > > I outlined an algorithm on rgb which satisfies (2). More information on > request. I think the point where we disagree is this: Your algorithm can at most generate as many different sequences (what Michael Farebrother terms "hand records") as your random number generator has distinct seeds. Otherwise, it ain't no algorithm! This is just a paraphrase of the statement you quoted above. Do we still disagree? If we do, let us take it to e-mail. > One requirement you don't mention; it should not be possible to predict > the next deal by knowing the previous few deals. This is a real requirement. It follows, possibly somewhat indirectly, from the requirement that the sequences should not be statistically distinguishable from random sequences. But we don't need to use crypto methods to dissuade players from using a computer to crack the sequence given the first few boards they are dealt; legislation should suffice. Predicting the deals by means of knowledge of the random number generator is the technical variant of the case I offered for discussion at the beginning of this message. > This is of only > theoretical interest at present, but need not be in the future, > especially if computers are allowed to play. Chapter VII of the laws would need amendments for computer play, as would the footnote to L40E2. Such prediction should then be defined as cheating. Bridge should not change from a game to a war as a result of allowing computers to play. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 08:45:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:45:57 +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 IAA29739 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:45:46 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA09208 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06559; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:45:58 -0500 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:45:58 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199801312145.QAA06559@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Number of Bits X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We ought to be getting pretty close to exhausting this subject, so I'll keep it short. > From: Martin Kretschmar > 52! / ( 13! * 13! * 13! *13! ) = 53644737765488792839237440000 (28 digits) > the rough equivalent of 28 digits is 93 bits. The above is 29 digits; its binary logarithm is about 95.45. So we need 96 bits to represent all possible deals. > the CPU-time for calculating ... Mapping a number in the above range to a bridge deal is easy and quick. There is even a web page that does it: http://www.best.com/~thomaso/decode/ > From: "Jens & Bodil" > (3) The sequences of boards generated should be generated in such a > way that combinatorically predictable statistics of interest to a > bridge player collected from the output of the software do not > deviate significantly from their theoretical values. I agree that this is a sufficient requirement as long as we are talking about human players with no calculating aids. If we are worried about someone (human or computer) using the algorithm to predict future deals given knowledge of one, we have to use cryptographically secure methods. The simplest probably is a hardware RNG, but I suppose standard cryptographic techniques could be used. The deals are the "clear text," and the unique seed is the "cypher text." The requirement is that no one be able to go from cypher text to clear text without the secret key or be able to discover the secret key, even given both cypher and clear text. Then even given the seed for an unplayed deal, nobody who doesn't know the secret key can figure out the deal itself. (At least I think this works; perhaps I'm missing something. One would still have to guarantee that requirement 3 is met; some encryption schemes might fail. In particular, there can be a non-unique connection between clear and cypher text. And of course one would have to keep the secret key a secret. Hardware RNG sounds a lot simpler!) > The number of such sequences [of sets of deals] is fairly big - it > requires around 3800 bits to represent. Right. Over here deal sets usually have 36 deals or about 3456 bits. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 08:58:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:58:20 +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 IAA29763 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:58:14 +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 QAA08835 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06576; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:58:29 -0500 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:58:29 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199801312158.QAA06576@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: computer generated hands X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jens & Bodil" > Actually, in the DBF, our reason not to publish the hand generator > is not that we think someone might do it, but rather that we think > someone might accuse someone of having done it. Yes, this is a much better reason to make such shenanigans impossible. > The purpose of this is to be able to > answer complaints of this sort: "Someone has tampered with these > boards to make them more interesting!" This is a problem with TRNG's that use a separate generation for each deal. This is the first good reason I've heard for not using them (aside from unfamiliarity and general suspicion). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 09:47:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:47:28 +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 JAA29856 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:45:13 +1100 Received: from default (client86bb.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.187]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA05621; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:43:43 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conv Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:43:51 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd2e99$b3c75120$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: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 January 1998 18:27 Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conv >> From: "Grattan Endicott" > >Thank you very much for all your clarifications> >One consequence is that most real-life bidding systems are no longer >licensed by the ACBL (except under the Superchart). I hope the >authorities will soon update their convention charts. Other SO's may >wish to reexamine their rules as well. ####You do appear to take a rather gloomy view! I can't believe it really needs the ACBL or any other authority to suddenly make a vast revision of their licensing arrangements - surely it is enough just to say that you may continue to play what you have played hitherto? In fact it seems to me that is de facto the position reached and maybe it is, for once, a score for inertia! Although Edgar was well aware of the nature of the move he did not express any anxieties in this regard. ####Grattan#### P.S. Could you just expand for me, maybe in a private email, what are the 'preconceived notions' - I would have said that, for the careful reader, the meaning of the definition in question was quite plain, naive fellow that I am! From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 13:37:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 13:37:02 +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 NAA00612 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 13:36:56 +1100 Received: from default (client86bb.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.187]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA05613; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:43:40 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a convention? Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 22:10:52 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd2e95$185a0740$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: Mlfrench@aol.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 31 January 1998 09:29 Subject: When does a treatment become a convention? >Grattan Endicott writes: > >> If as a matter of partnership agreement (partnership understanding) >> a bid makes a statement about denominations other than the one named, >> whether as the primary purpose of the bid or as a secondary matter, then >> the law is that such a bid is conventional. > Mlfrench: >This sounds like the old definition in the Laws, not the new one, which says: > >"A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than >willingness to play in the denomination named...or high card strength or >length (three cards or more) there." > >Jeff Rubens and others interpret this as saying that a call is a convention if >it conveys some information in addition to "williingness to play in the >denomination." Surely the intent was that a call is a convention if it does >not convey "willingness to play in the denomination named...or, etc." > ####Surely not! You have failed to read carefully; the question is whether a message is conveyed that does not conform to any of the three conditions for 'non-conventionality'; any message, not merely the principal message.#### #### I have replied to the main point in a parallel posting. The intent is quite unmistakeable: if a message is passed which does not have to do with a named denomination in which the bidder is willing to play (or either of the other two qualifications for a non-conventional call) that message is a conventional agreement in the partnership and the call is conventional. Example: Two Hearts showing at least five Hearts and four Spades; the first message is about Hearts, a suit in which the bidder is willing to play; that message does not make the bid conventional. The second message is about Spades, not the named denomination; it is this second message, the meaning conveyed by it being other than those listed as non-conventional in the definition, that makes the bid a conventional bid. The same principle extends to other secondary meanings that might be conveyed as part of the message which a bid carries to partner; the laws say "a call that by partnership agreement conveys a meaning other than...." etc. - the laws do not say this has to be the main meaning conveyed, nor the only meaning conveyed: it can be any one of two or more messages the bid conveys. It is still a meaning conveyed. Although the wording was slightly different in the 1987 Laws the same principle applied. In fact I think (but then as instigator of the 1997 method of definition, I would, wouldn't I?) but I do think the 1997 definition is more tightly drawn so that the ambiguity is removed if there was one. A player knows that a bid is conventional unless the whole of its meaning lies within the territory defined as 'not conventional', and since the default position is that way round the onus is to show that a bid is not conventional. ####Grattan#### From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 19:26:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:26:40 +1100 Received: from terminator2.xtra.co.nz (terminator2.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA01299 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 19:26:32 +1100 Received: from notebook (p57-m13-wn4.dialup.xtra.co.nz [203.96.105.57]) by terminator2.xtra.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id VAA06821 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:25:13 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <34D42F92.303D5BBA@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 21:17:22 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en]C-XTRA (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conventio X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > >Perhaps my logic is flawed but I reason as follows: > > > > The bidding procedes: > > > > Opp Me > > > > 1S P > > snipped ... > > Therefore according to the definition a call of pass, as played by > most > > bridge players, in this auction is a convention because it does not > > fulfil the criteria to be not a convention. > > > I try not to get angry at post, especially not on mailing lists > such as this, where we are often discussing angles and the heads of > pins. This one is ridiculous. > > If you pass one spade you have said that you are content if the > auction now proceeds pass-pass. > -- > Richard Lighton | There are two rules for ultimate > (lighton@idt.net) | success in life: > Wood-Ridge NJ | > USA | 1. Never tell everything you know. I am willing, excuse the pun, to defend my position regarding the logic of the laws definition of a conventional call. Here is another example from actual play. On the weekend my partner held xxxx xxxx Qxxx x and heard me open 1C she bid 1D and we found a playable partscore and scored up most of the matchpoints... but that is another story. Me if I had held her cards and she mine, I would have passed. But my pass would not be because I was willing to play in clubs - quite the contrary as you can see I would have been willing to play in diamonds, hearts and spades NOT clubs (the last named denomination). Rather the reason for my pass would have been that I was unwilling to risk increasing the level of the contract and said little if anything about the denomination. In a similar way, a pass over the opponent's 1S opening is constrained by partnership agreement to describe my hand so that if necessary we can later have a useful dialogue to find our best contract. If we choose to pass at any stage it is because we are unwilling to act not because we are willing to play (defend) the opponent's contract. It occurs to me that in most cases early in the auction the call pass shows a willingness to play at the current level (or at least not to increase the level) much more than it shows a willingness to play in the named denomination. In the above example the only willingness I have to play in clubs could be compared to my willingness to be slave to the man who holds a gun to my head. I'm not willing I just don't have the power to alter the situation. Give me a couple hundred dollars or perhaps just a gun and some way to get out of there and I'd be gone. In the bridge hand give me an Ace or a King and I'd start telling partner where I'd be willing to play. After the opponent's 1S give me a decent five card heart suit and 13 points or even five good spades and decent hand and an agreement to play penalty doubles and I'll start telling you where I'm willing to play. But playing takeout doubles and with a weakish hand my pass just says I'm unwilling to suggest playing at a higher level. In a more general sense IMHO calls in the early stages of an auction, by partnership agreement, are descriptive in the first instance and while most bids would show a willingness to play in the named denomination there are many bids and other calls that in a popular sense would not be considered conventional that by definition should now be considered conventional. In another hand from my unsuccessful weekend of bridge my partner opened 1H and I held: AK Qxxxxx J Axxx fortunately we had 'conventional' methods to handle this hand and bid to a cold Grand. Other players in the field who neither played splinters nor had a forcing heart raise available were forced to respond 2C. While 2C in itself promises nothing but clubs and so would be considered by most to have been a natural (or non-conventional) bid I am sure that few if any of these players thought that they were showing a willingness to play clubs. In fact even with repeated club raises by partner they would be preferring hearts right to the bitter end, unwilling to play clubs. Therefore this 2C bid thought to be non-conventional has become conventional. In conclusion IMHO there are many situations, these and others, in which calls that would be considered 'natural' by most bridge players have been classified as conventional given that a call is non-conventional if it fails to meets any of three conditions: 1. Willing to play in last named denomination; 2. High card strength in named denomination; 3. Length in named denomination. So I think that there is a problem with the wording of the definition of conventional call if it is to be interpreted as violating any of these three conditions. More puns. I've had unconventional ideas before so Richard feel free to shoot me down again. I am a relatively inexperienced bridge director - I prefer to play. However I am an NZCBA qualified tournament director and as a player a relatively young NZCBA Grandmaster and I take a keen interest in the laws of bridge and enjoy reading BLML including the "angles and heads of pins" discussions and probably will not take offence if you disagree with my opinions. -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 20:41:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:41:58 +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 UAA01453 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:41:53 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004117; 1 Feb 98 9:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:28:30 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conv In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980126094106.006975d8@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980126094106.006975d8@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 01:29 PM 1/23/98 -0500, Richard wrote: > >>I guess I'm going to remain a minority of one on this topic I guess. >>>From what I can tell, I have a very different view about what information >>is imparted explicitly as opposed to inferentially. >> >> Eric Landau: > >Richard makes a very good argument, one that proves that we are not talking >about an easy distinction here. Nevertheless, I do think that there is a >distinction, and that it needs to be made. Labeo: Since there is an overriding definition of 'convention' in the law book perhaps the distinction lies in the field of regulation (i.e.which conventions should be regulated and which not)? That would then become a question for each SO to resolve for itself, something that you might perhaps not be totally happy about if in your judgement an SO over-regulates? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 20:47:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:47:30 +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 UAA01472 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:47:24 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018120; 1 Feb 98 9:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:34:10 +0000 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conventio In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Labeo wrote: >> In message , Tim West-meads >> writes >> >In-Reply-To: <199801231948.OAA00938@cfa183.harvard.edu> >> >> .....(cut)..... >> >> Yes, indeed, quite scandalous; we elect these people to run the game >> and in no time they are telling us how it is going to be played. > >Just as scandalous as allowing the European Court of Human Rights to >overrule the elected governments of European countries, or having the >supreme court overrule the federal government. If L40D was changed then >it would be appropriate for SOs to make the determination, as it is >written they are answerable to a higher authority in this area. > God? Who else? 93C makes the national authority the arbiter. As I understand it, the ACBL (as SO) could refer things to the national authority, and the ACBL as the national authority would, if necessary, refer things upwards to the Zonal Authority, which is the ACBL? In Europe a national authority can refer to the EBL as Zonal Authority, and it has happened - just about once, I believe, in twenty years..... -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 1 20:50:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:50:31 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA01488 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:50:26 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004116; 1 Feb 98 9:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:35:20 +0000 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Strong club: Alert everything? In-Reply-To: <199801281937.OAA04494@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199801281937.OAA04494@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Richard Lighton >> I know in EBUland the rule is to alert the transfer acceptance, >> but that is because the EBU has a simple alert rule. If it's conventional, >> alert it. > >Is this going to change, now that the definition of convention has >changed? If the transfer acceptance shows "willingness to play" and >nothing else special, it is clearly not conventional under the 1997 >Laws. > Labeo: I do not think that what is not conventional is necessarily not alertable; and I think the EBU alerting requirements are not so simple as you suggest. Alertable calls are:- 1. Those which are not 'natural' ['natural' is then defined.] 2. Natural but forcing/non-forcing in a way opponents may not anticipate. 3. Natural but its meaning affected by other agreements which opponents are unlikely to anticipate. 4. Inferences drawn from experience of the partnership which opponents may not expect. Actually the alerting regulation does not use the word 'conventional' at all; calls are related to an EBU definition of 'natural', a word that the law book avoids and does not define and which is available therefore for any RA to take up and define for its purposes. *RA = regulating authority, whoever is doing the regulating* -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 2 11:53:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:53:14 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07463 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:52:50 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac1029102; 2 Feb 98 0:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 23:32:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strong club: Alert everything? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >In message <199801281937.OAA04494@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>> From: Richard Lighton >>> I know in EBUland the rule is to alert the transfer acceptance, >>> but that is because the EBU has a simple alert rule. If it's conventional, >>> alert it. >> >>Is this going to change, now that the definition of convention has >>changed? If the transfer acceptance shows "willingness to play" and >>nothing else special, it is clearly not conventional under the 1997 >>Laws. >> >Labeo: I do not think that what is not conventional is necessarily not >alertable; and I think the EBU alerting requirements are not so simple >as you suggest. Alertable calls are:- ... will be? These are future regulations that you are quoting I believe, not the current ones. > 1. Those which are not 'natural' ['natural' is then defined.] > 2. Natural but forcing/non-forcing in a way opponents > may not anticipate. > 3. Natural but its meaning affected by other agreements > which opponents are unlikely to anticipate. Well, these three are! > 4. Inferences drawn from experience of the partnership > which opponents may not expect. Where did this one come from? >Actually the alerting regulation does not use the word 'conventional' >at all; calls are related to an EBU definition of 'natural', a word >that the law book avoids and does not define and which is available >therefore for any RA to take up and define for its purposes. Again, this comment is what will be, n'est-ce-pas? -- 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 Feb 2 11:55:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:55:20 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07500 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:55:13 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1029104; 2 Feb 98 0:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:02:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Nice and easy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer cashes a club, then another one, but .... Unfortunately he did not win the previous trick, his RHO did. So now declarer is leading a club and his RHO is leading a spade. Which first? Not sure! Anyway, spade from RHO, club from declarer [he has a spade, BTW], LHO plays a spade, intending to follow suit to his partner's lead after [he thinks] declarer's discard! After some confusion, the players work out what has happened. They call the TD [me, this weekend, Llandrindod Wells]. How should I rule if: [a] Declarer's club was led first? [b] RHO's spade was led first? [c] The were led simultaneously? -- 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 Feb 2 13:10:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:10:49 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA07918 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:10:39 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2004251; 2 Feb 98 1:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 01:53:05 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nice and easy In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > Declarer cashes a club, then another one, but .... > > Unfortunately he did not win the previous trick, his RHO did. > > So now declarer is leading a club and his RHO is leading a spade. >Which first? Not sure! > > Anyway, spade from RHO, club from declarer [he has a spade, BTW], LHO >plays a spade, intending to follow suit to his partner's lead after [he >thinks] declarer's discard! After some confusion, the players work out >what has happened. They call the TD [me, this weekend, Llandrindod >Wells]. How should I rule if: > Law 60, Play after illegal play does NOT apply here. >[a] Declarer's club was led first? 53B refers the TD to 53C. This implies to me that the Director must establish whether RHO was playing to the irregular lead, or making his proper lead. From the info given the latter is true, thus I apply 53C. The proper lead stands, all cards are withdrawn without penalty and the defenders are authorised 16C2 >[b] RHO's spade was led first? This I think is simple, 45C2 applies, Declarer has played his club after the proper lead. The revoke did not get established and when the card is corrected LHO has the right to change his card under 47D, and restore it to his hand 62C1 >[c] The were led simultaneously? > I apply 58A and this converts to [b] above WTP 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 Tue Feb 3 00:57:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 00:57:59 +1100 Received: from x400link.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (outmail.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12404 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 00:57:39 +1100 Received: from compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.1]) by x400link.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA03646 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:57:24 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA24216 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:57:15 +0100 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:57:15 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199802021357.OAA24216@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: (Last) RNG Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > We ought to be getting pretty close to exhausting this subject, so I'll > keep it short. Yes, I have send my request to rec.games.bridge only to later realize, that the very similar thread "Grossly inadequate ACBL pseudo-random number generator" is just running in parallel. > The deals are the "clear text," and the unique seed is the "cypher text." I have trouble agreeing with that one. Since the RNG should be presupplied, the seed value is the valuable object. And for transports via e.g. public nets it should be secured for transport. On the other hand most clubs would not like to constantly depend on external seed makers, but rather use seeds of their own. Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 3 03:22:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 03:22:19 +1100 Received: from crypto2.uwaterloo.ca (mfare@crypto2.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.12.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA13355 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 03:22:08 +1100 Received: (from mfare@localhost) by crypto2.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA24060 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:21:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:21:56 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Farebrother Message-Id: <199802021621.LAA24060@crypto2.uwaterloo.ca> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: reasonably or demonstrably? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In response to several people (this is my best guess, but I play the same cardwith both of "you" and "CHO" as they do together), CHO's first pass isn't necessarily strength-showing, merely waiting (most rescue systems in this part of the world have a pass forces redouble, so he will get another chance to bid - I'm beginning to believe that it should show "some" defense, thanks to your comments). The double institutes a force to 2NT (this has been discussed, but not written anywhere). I am surprised bythe failure to double 2s, as he did have four of them - maybe he didn't think he had the defence. LHO's methods - pass shows either a desire to play 1NTxx or any two-suited runout, direct bids are to play, and xx starts a scramble. 1NT can be bid with a 5cM, especially if 10 or a bad 11. Helps? Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 3 03:39:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 03:39:19 +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 DAA13411 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 03:39:12 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA05261; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:38:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from 208.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.208) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma005165; Mon Feb 2 10:37:26 1998 Received: by 208.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD2FCE.DA71C720@208.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:36:51 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD2FCE.DA71C720@208.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'CHYAH E BURGHARD'" Subject: RE: Strong club: Alert everything? Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:36:48 -0500 Encoding: 54 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the Harrisburg PA sectional Sunday Feb 1st, our other half was a pair of very pleasant ladies with between 300 and 400 ACBL master points. They became upset and enraged in the final round by what they misunderstood to be improper bidding by their opponents, a good pair on a good team that had been having an awful day. (Low flight A players). To start with one of them opened 1 club, alerted. She enquired and was told that was 17 or more high card points, says nothing about clubs. Her partner passed and RHO bid one no trump, alerted. "Please explain." "She has no more than three high card points and a balanced or semi-balanced hand." Our lady competed at the two level, it proceeded to RHO who said 2NT. "What does that mean?" "She still promises no more than 3 HCP". After further bidding the "less than 3 point hand" played the contract in 3NT. Dummy came down, and our lady led a spade that rode around to the king in the closed hand. Later in the hand she placed the diamond queen with partner since it was neither in her hand nor dummy, played the suit and the hand accordingly, and when declarer turned up with it, making the contract, she was very bent out of shape. The director was called, determined that 0-3 HCP for declarer's bid(s) was exactly their partnership agreement...she had just chosen to violate it this hand. My teammate was so incensed she made an unsound double of a 5D contract on the next hand, perhaps bothered by the fact that a 1 diamond opening had been alerted as not promising any diamonds."You mean he could have opened 1D with a void in the suit?" "Yes" She confided in me in the post mortem "I don't understand their system." She says she DOES understand simple precision and Schencken to some degree. The pair involved are from out of state and had not played with their teammates before. We lost the match by 58 IMPS, more because of excellent play by OUR at the table opponents who bid very effectively with standard methods to two very close games and a close slam, then played the hands very well. The problems at the other table did not affect with match win and of course had no effect on the overalls, so no appeal was filed...everyone just wanted to go home at that point. Three questions arise. First, do we have a UI situation here where declarer may have been awakened by partner's alert or explanation to having bid incorrectly? Would pass then have been an LA at later calls with an actual 5 point hand, knowing that partner might not act? If this was a psych(e) or "startegic bid" rather than a misbid, how often would such a bid be permitted without becoming a CPU (concealed partnership understanding)? My teammate originally was incensed that the strong hand went to 3NT with only 18 HCP. When she wrote out the hand, however, she had neglected to count a singleton king, so there were 21 HCP. Would the rule of coincidence apply for a 18 pointer to go to 3NT opposite a 3 point maximum hand? What about a 21 pointer with a stiff king? I am not stating the hand because the boards had been put away before I could record them and teammate's recollection was both imperfect and incomplete. I'm not upset...teammate obviously was overreacting to some degree. But I am curious how the laws could apply to the situation described to me (whether or not it was exactly what really happened...the directors on hand were experienced though rather brusque at times with the non A-flight players). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 3 05:07:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 05:07:41 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13843 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 05:07:34 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2004576; 2 Feb 98 17:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 17:29:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Bizarre ethical question MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Matt Ginsberg wrote on RGB: Playing IMPs, you pick up KTx AKQx Qxx Jxx at game all. You dealt, playing weak no trumps, so you open 1D. Double on your left, 2NT from partner, showing a weak raise to 3D. RHO now bids 3S. Your call. 1. Do you double? 2. Do you double if you know that three hearts are cashing? 3. Do you double if, when you pulled your cards from the tray, the bottom four were the H AKQx, in that order? 4. In order for you to decide (3) correctly, is it permissible for you to ask what your counterparts at the other table lead from AK against a suit contract? -- 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 Feb 3 06:12:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 06:12:58 +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 GAA14318 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 06:12:51 +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 LAA17286 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:12:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA01819; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:15:08 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 11:15:08 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199802021915.LAA01819@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: |Matt Ginsberg wrote on RGB: | |Playing IMPs, you pick up KTx AKQx Qxx Jxx at game all. You dealt, |playing weak no trumps, so you open 1D. Double on your left, 2NT |from partner, showing a weak raise to 3D. RHO now bids 3S. Your call. | |1. Do you double? No, not close, at least in my style of preemptive raises. With some partners it'd be right. |2. Do you double if you know that three hearts are cashing? No. Getting close, but we are not getting 500, so the upside isn't worth the risk. |3. Do you double if, when you pulled your cards from the tray, the |bottom four were the H AKQx, in that order? No. |4. In order for you to decide (3) correctly, is it permissible for |you to ask what your counterparts at the other table lead from AK |against a suit contract? No, I don't think so. The laws do not require that one disclose anything but partnership understandings. Knowledge of teammates isn't such an understanding. That the HAKQx were ordered is AI..."opponents' mannerisms and the like." Note that if they were cashed in that order, they'd be HxQKA, not AKQx. --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 Tue Feb 3 06:13:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 06:13:06 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA14325 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 06:12:58 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008269; 2 Feb 98 18:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:22:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strong club: Alert everything? In-Reply-To: <01BD2FCE.DA71C720@208.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Three questions arise. First, do we have a UI situation here where >declarer may have been awakened by partner's alert or explanation to having >bid incorrectly? Would pass then have been an LA at later calls with an >actual 5 point hand, knowing that partner might not act? UI is present. If the player with 5 HCP forgot what he is playing then he is not allowed to remember because of what partner said, and his actions should be looked at in this light. > If this was a psych(e) or "startegic bid" rather than a misbid, how >often would such a bid be permitted without becoming a CPU (concealed >partnership understanding)? Once in Southern California! But it is a little like saying "How long is a piece of string?". I think you have to judge it the other way round. How often is something similar happening: does that sound like an agreement? > My teammate originally was incensed that the strong hand went to 3NT >with only 18 HCP. When she wrote out the hand, however, she had neglected >to count a singleton king, so there were 21 HCP. Would the rule of >coincidence apply for a 18 pointer to go to 3NT opposite a 3 point maximum >hand? What about a 21 pointer with a stiff king? The RoC is a guide only. This sort of hand does sound a litlle surprising, but we have not seen the full hand [nor the auction]. However, as a Director I would ask the partner to explain the action. If there are any problems with a Misbid in England/Wales we fill in a form designed for Psyches, Misbids and other CPU problems, and one section is for the partner of the psycher/misbidder to explain his actions. We classify psyches/misbids as to whether there is any evidence of a CPU, and classifications are often based on this precise section. -- 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 Feb 3 08:09:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:09:18 +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 IAA14795 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:08:52 +1100 Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet6.carleton.ca [134.117.136.26]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v2.02) with ESMTP id QAA26011 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id QAA18864; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:08:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:08:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802022108.QAA18864@freenet6.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >David Stevenson wrote: >|Matt Ginsberg wrote on RGB: >|4. In order for you to decide (3) correctly, is it permissible for >|you to ask what your counterparts at the other table lead from AK >|against a suit contract? > >No, I don't think so. The laws do not require that >one disclose anything but partnership understandings. >Knowledge of teammates isn't such an understanding. > >That the HAKQx were ordered is AI..."opponents' mannerisms >and the like." Note that if they were cashed in that >order, they'd be HxQKA, not AKQx. > --Jeff I don't think we can have it both ways. If the order of the played cards are AI, then disclosing the opponents methods must be permitted, even if they aren't at the same table. After all, we are considering them our opponents, aren't we? On the other hand, if they are not considered our opponents as far as system disclosure is concerned, then I don't see how this information could be anything but UI. If this information is so critical as to taint the board, the board should be thrown out and an adjusted score should be assigned, as well as the oppropriate procedural penalty. If this were a pair rather than a team game, would we even think twice about calling the director to inform him that an irregularity has taken place? Given this, I am for the latter arguement: call the director and have the matter sorted out (and if this hand turns out to be unplayable, and we finish a board early, last one to the coffee and cookies is a rotten egg!). Tony (aka ac342) ps. in case I didn't make it clear: IMHO any information derived from a board in its presentation (sorted/unsorted hands, boxed, cards in sequence, cards ripped in half/ spat upon, and any blood, sweat and tears are NOT AI. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 3 09:01:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:01:18 +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 JAA15180 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:01:13 +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 OAA05673 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:01:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA02064; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:03:51 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:03:51 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199802022203.OAA02064@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The order in which opponents put cards back into the board has to be AI, simply because of the extreme restrictions placed on use of UI. If it were UI, they could gain an advantage, albeit probably not a significant one, by choosing the order of their cards in the box. That only applies to team games. In matchpoint events, it's far less clear. If matchpoint card order were AI, then I could have the pair I'm following intentionally help me out by arranging their cards. I'm sure there's some other rule that prohibits this, but 73B2 only applies to partnerships, and I don't see any other that expressly covers such a case. The general rules on sportsmanship in ACBL events might be invoked; certainly Kaplan/The Bridge World(TBW)'s guidelines cover that situation. Anyway, it seems to me that the only reasonable choice is that the order is AI and that it's illegal to try to help someone else out by arranging your cards. (This does not bar helping vision-impaired players or being a pain in the neck by, say, arranging one's cards in rank order.) I wonder if it covers deception...let's say my boards are going to a known slimeball. On a marginal hand, perhaps I might want to sort my cards before putting them back to try to tell him that the board was passed out, when that's to his disadvantage? Probably also illegal...but much more fun! ...what if the player who was being deceived wasn't a slimeball? As to whether teammates' methods should be disclosed: practically, the answer is easy. "I don't know," is a perfectly valid answer, and the other pair cannot go to the other table to ask. Since finding out more about one's teammates would be disadvantageous if asking were permitted, the answer would always be, "I don't know." I see no reason to encourage bridge players to be more distant from each other, and no one could prove that one actually did know anything about teammates, so in practice, those questions are not going to have to be answered. --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 Tue Feb 3 10:44:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:44:03 +1100 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA15558 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:43:55 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@CSB.BU.EDU [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id SAA28259 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:43:21 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id SAA22827; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:43:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802022343.SAA22827@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Nice and easy To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:43:18 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >> Declarer cashes a club, then another one, but .... >> Unfortunately he did not win the previous trick, his RHO did. >> So now declarer is leading a club and his RHO is leading a spade. >>Which first? Not sure! >> Anyway, spade from RHO, club from declarer [he has a spade, BTW], LHO >>plays a spade, intending to follow suit to his partner's lead after [he >>thinks] declarer's discard! After some confusion, the players work out >>what has happened. They call the TD [me, this weekend, Llandrindod >>Wells]. How should I rule if: >> >>[a] Declarer's club was led first? >>[b] RHO's spade was led first? >>[c] The were led simultaneously? >> I thought I should give this one a whirl, because I think it has some interesting elements to it. [Case a] Declarer's club was led first. Either defender *may* accept the club lead out of turn by making a statement to that effect (L53A). However, neither RHO's spade lead nor the play by his partner (which was intended as following suit to RHO's lead) constitute acceptance of the irregular lead (L53C). If the club lead is accepted, then I feel that since both defenders were playing to a trick which did not occur due to a play by declarer, they should both be allowed to withdraw their spade plays (and neither should become a penalty card). I can't quite find a precise law to justify this view, however - the situation is just not covered in the laws. The withdrawn cards are AI to the defenders (L16C1) but UI to declarer (L16C2). If the club lead is not accepted, then RHO's spade play is deemed the proper lead (L53C). Declarers club and LHO's spade may be withdrawn w/o penalty (L55B1, L47D). The withdrawn cards are AI to the defenders (L16C1) but UI to declarer (L16C2). [case b] RHO's spade was led first Since it has been determined by the director that the club play was an attempted lead, I would treat it more as a lead out of turn than as a revoke. Since L53C states that "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead", I would rule on this basis that either defender may accept the club lead, and in either case revert to case [a] above. If the club lead is not accepted, it turns out that my ruling has the same effect as treating the club play as a revoke, not yet established (L63A). Declarer must withdraw his club play and play a spade (L62B2). LHO's spade may be withdrawn without penalty (L62C1). LHO's withdrawn card is UI for declarer, AI for defenders (L16C). [case c] simultaneous plays An illegal play simultaneous to a legal play is deemed to be subsequent to it (L58A). Thus this reverts to case [b]. David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 3 11:01:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:01:12 +1100 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA15661 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:01:07 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-069.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.74]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA06145; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:00:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34D51F1E.598B@lightspeed.net> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 17:19:26 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Goldsmith CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question References: <199802022203.OAA02064@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > The order in which opponents put cards back into > the board has to be AI, simply because of the > extreme restrictions placed on use of UI. If it > were UI, they could gain an advantage, albeit > probably not a significant one, by choosing the > order of their cards in the box. > > Huh? Double huh? What extreme restrictions? Certainly not the Law 16A restrictions, which apply only when partner is the miscreant. Law 16B (covering extraneous information) clearly allows "normal play." Calling the director when you've reverse engineered the hand seems to me to be not too Draconian. If the sorting were such that it made the hand unplayable, I'd rule average minus for the card-reader and average (team) or average plus (MP) to the the other side. Look, the order of the cards is not a mannerism, unless you stretch the word beyond recognition. Players have an obligation not to use extraneous information. Players should condition themselves not to notice the order of the cards as they pick them up, or if that's not possible to shuffle them before picking them up. If it were AI I'd feel compelled to use it. You've got an obligation to the game to try to win. But, it isn't. It's not included in what is laid out as AI. Since I usually agree with Jeff, I took a second look to see what I missed. I feel confident, though, that if I did miss something, the group will bring it to my attention. :) --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 3 11:47:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:47:22 +1100 Received: from chairfacechippendale.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@[141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA15837 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:47:16 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by chairfacechippendale.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07879 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 19:36:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 19:42:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802030042.TAA22877@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199802022203.OAA02064@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> (jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV) Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith writes: > The order in which opponents put cards back into > the board has to be AI, simply because of the > extreme restrictions placed on use of UI. If it > were UI, they could gain an advantage, albeit > probably not a significant one, by choosing the > order of their cards in the box. > That only applies to team games. In matchpoint > events, it's far less clear. In either case, this would seem to be UI, but under Law 16B rather than Law 16A. Such information, unlike UI from partner, does not place the receiver at a disadvantage but should be brought to the director's attention, and if the director determines that it will cause a problem, he may award an adjusted score. This type of information usually results in an A+/A+ if neither side is at fault. I've had this happen to me several times, usually when I sat down at a table and the opponents were still arguing about the previous hand, allowing me to overhear a result. -- 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 Feb 3 11:54:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:54:12 +1100 Received: from chairfacechippendale.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@[141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA15867 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:54:07 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by chairfacechippendale.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA07933 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 19:44:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 19:49:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802030049.TAA22883@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <34D51F1E.598B@lightspeed.net> (redouble@lightspeed.net) Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Mayne writes: > If the sorting were such that it made the hand unplayable, I'd rule > average minus for the card-reader and average (team) or average plus (MP) > to the the other side. > Look, the order of the cards is not a mannerism, unless you stretch the > word beyond recognition. Players have an obligation not to use extraneous > information. Players should condition themselves not to notice the order > of the cards as they pick them up, or if that's not possible to shuffle > them before picking them up. It's hard not to notice a sorted hand, though, unless you always shuffle. If the sorted hand causes a problem (for example, you're in third seat and you know that the hand was passed out at the other table), should you really be penalized with an average-minus? And at what point should you call the director if you pick up a sorted hand? Half the time, it was sorted after play and gives only the UI that there was a post-mortem or director ruling requiring a sorted hand at the last table. -- 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 Feb 3 15:01:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA16309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:01:38 +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 PAA16304 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 15:01:31 +1100 Received: from mike (ip174.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.174]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19705 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:00:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980202230035.00686b5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 23:00:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:29 PM 2/2/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Matt Ginsberg wrote on RGB: > >Playing IMPs, you pick up KTx AKQx Qxx Jxx at game all. You dealt, >playing weak no trumps, so you open 1D. Double on your left, 2NT >from partner, showing a weak raise to 3D. RHO now bids 3S. Your call. > >1. Do you double? No! > >2. Do you double if you know that three hearts are cashing? > No! >3. Do you double if, when you pulled your cards from the tray, the >bottom four were the H AKQx, in that order? > No! >4. In order for you to decide (3) correctly, is it permissible for >you to ask what your counterparts at the other table lead from AK >against a suit contract? > Although I consider the information to be irrelevant (I am not doubling 3S at IMPs with these cards, opposite a presumptive "weak diamond raise", no matter what), I take your point that in theory, it might be relevant. I see nowhere in the laws that allows me to ask such a question, and certainly nothing which commands an answer (especially an honest answer) from the opponents. A related issue is about what right I have to true and correct information about my counterparts' methods in general in a team setting. If I ask the opponents what their teammates play, they lie to me about it, and I subsequently base a critical tactical decision in part on this minsinformation, do I have any recourse under law? My assumption is that I do not, but I would be curious (as ever) to hear what others think. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 01:38:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:38:15 +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 BAA20623 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:38:07 +1100 Received: from [192.168.3.9] ([192.168.3.9]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.03/64) id 6622600 ; Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:41:48 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: bills@cshore.com (Bill Segraves) Subject: Disclosure obligations/general bridge knowledge Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:41:48 EST Message-Id: <199802031441.6622600@cshore.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear BLML Participants, In conjunction with a review of alert and explanation procedures for on-line bridge, I am interested in gathering your views on disclosure obligations, particularly as they relate to low level doubles which may potentially carry several different meanings. For a variety of reasons (which I am happy to discuss but won't broach here, for the sake of brevity), most on-line players have found self alerts and explanations (privately communicated to the opponents) to be the most effective way of meeting disclosure obligations. I will ask you to accept self alerts and explanations as the de facto standard in responding to the issues raised here. Thus, the most appropriate model for alerts and explanations is probably the communication of information to one's screen-mate in play utilizing screens. This raises two important questions: 1) what doubles, if any, should be alerted under WBF guidelines (I will not reprint the WBF guidelines here, but would like to emphasize that the proscription of alerts of doubles does not apply when screens are in use), 2) under what circumstances must the meaning of a double be communicated to a screen-mate upon request. If one assumes a certain obligation of self-protection through appropriate inquiry, and the simultaneous delivery of preceding bids, so as to preclude most tempo-related UI problems resulting from the inquiry, the latter question is clearly the more important question, so I will focus the attention to question 2. There is, in practice (as opposed to theory), both in on-line bridge and face-to-face bridge, some conflict between the perceived obligations under laws 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with..." and law 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40)...." and the perceived limitations to those obligations under law 75C: "... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge or experience." Usually the arguments break down into two camps with the disclosers pointing to the words "whether explicit or implicit" and the non-disclosers pointing to the words "*special* partnership agreements" and "general bridge knowledge". Use of self alerts and explanations occasionally exacerbates this conflict, since the player being asked to provide information may feel that he is being asked to provide information beyond that which is readily available to his partner, particularly when there may not be an explicit partnership agreement, and that the questioner is attempting to gain advantage not provided under the laws. While this condition (lack of explicit agreement) likely does not arise often at the level of international competition, I will ask you to consider the hypothetical situation where illness or other conditions results in the formation of a new pairing for an international event being played with screens. By virtue of their lack of explicit agreement, would a pair be freed from their obligations of disclosure on certain auctions? Who is to judge whether their decisions are being made based on general bridge knowledge? Is general bridge knowledge invariant over time and space, or might it vary from country to country and over time? Does general knowledge of partner's bridge background (e.g., location and time of experience, preferred authors and bridge magazine subscriptions, general knowledge of peripheral agreements that tend to go along with a given system) lead to meaningful implicit agreement? In my experience, the most difficult questions relating to disclosure obligations arise in conjunction with low level doubles that could be takeout, penalty or other, by partnership agreement or under certain interpretations of "bridge logic" or "general bridge knowledge". I recently posed a set of questions to a small panel of mostly U.S. experts. Some questions clearly fell under the realm of "general bridge knowledge", at least as reflected by this panel. An example of one such question was the following: (P) P (1D) P (1H) P (1S) X All respondents considered the standard meaning of this double as takeout of spades. If anyone on BLML disagrees, please let me know, as I am trying to determine the limitations of "general bridge knowledge". Perhaps in some quarters, standard is takeout of hearts. It seems likely that two U.S. players would not need to have explicit agreement about this sequence to be fairly certain of its correct interpretation; if playing against two players from Uqbar or Tsai Khaldun (where the standard meaning may not be takeout of spades), would the fact that the U.S. players had never discussed the sequence relieve them of their disclosure obligations? Does "general bridge knowledge" include knowledge of what is "standard" in all other countries which may be represented in an international competition? The first one was easy, in comparison. Following are 6 questions which are potentially far more problematic. 1. (1D) P (1H) P (2D) P (2H) P (P) X 2. (1D) P (1H) P (1N) P (P) X 3. (1C) P (1H) P (1N) X 4. (1C) P (1N) P (P) X 5. (1C) P (1D) P (1N) P (P) X 6. (1D) P (1N) P (2D) X I am very interesting in hearing your thoughts on disclosure obligations as they relate to these questions, and more generally to the balance between full disclosure and reliance on general bridge knowledge. Thank you in advance for your responses. Sincerely, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 02:03:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 02:03:20 +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 CAA20876 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 02:03:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2010922; 3 Feb 98 13:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 03:31:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question In-Reply-To: <199802022203.OAA02064@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >As to whether teammates' methods should be disclosed: >practically, the answer is easy. "I don't know," is >a perfectly valid answer, and the other pair cannot >go to the other table to ask. Since finding out more >about one's teammates would be disadvantageous if asking >were permitted, the answer would always be, "I don't know." >I see no reason to encourage bridge players to be more >distant from each other, and no one could prove that >one actually did know anything about teammates, so in >practice, those questions are not going to have to be >answered. This answer flabbergasts me. If anyone asks me what team-mates are playing, and I know, then I cannot say "I don't know" for one simple reason: it would be lying. I am not going to gain an advantage at bridge by lying. It does not need to be provable: people can rely on my personal ethics. Now I might say "I am not going to tell you": that comes back to whether they have a right to know. But they can rely on me not to lie. -- 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 Feb 4 04:57:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 04:57:51 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA21867 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 04:57:44 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA01903 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:57:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from 15.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net(12.68.179.15) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001868; Tue Feb 3 11:56:20 1998 Received: by 15.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD30A3.135E6DC0@15.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:55:59 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD30A3.135E6DC0@15.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: When does a treatment become a conventio Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:55:58 -0500 Encoding: 138 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Unless MY logic is flawed, to be non-conventional a call must meet one or more of the 3 conditions and NOT give specific information other than that relating to those 3. The call need not fulfill all three conditions. Thus you can bid 3H over a 1H open with Ax xxxx Qxx QJxx non-conventionally even though you do NOT have high card strength in the denomination. Partner may then bid 4D with KQx AKJxx A xxxx non-conventionally even though he is certainly not expressing a willingnes to play the hand in diamonds and is not showing length in that denomination. It is possible that such a cue bid could be deemed conventional by some hair splitting however because it infers an absence of a club control. Your example of the 2C bid over 1H would not be conventional in my understanding because it does show both length and strength in the denomination even though it is certainly not showing willingness to play at 2C. As you point out it is an inferior bid...but not a conventional one. -- Craig Senior ---------- From: Wayne Burrows[SMTP:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 1998 3:17 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conventio Richard Lighton wrote: > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > >Perhaps my logic is flawed but I reason as follows: > > > > The bidding procedes: > > > > Opp Me > > > > 1S P > > snipped ... > > Therefore according to the definition a call of pass, as played by > most > > bridge players, in this auction is a convention because it does not > > fulfil the criteria to be not a convention. > > > I try not to get angry at post, especially not on mailing lists > such as this, where we are often discussing angles and the heads of > pins. This one is ridiculous. > > If you pass one spade you have said that you are content if the > auction now proceeds pass-pass. > -- > Richard Lighton | There are two rules for ultimate > (lighton@idt.net) | success in life: > Wood-Ridge NJ | > USA | 1. Never tell everything you know. I am willing, excuse the pun, to defend my position regarding the logic of the laws definition of a conventional call. Here is another example from actual play. On the weekend my partner held xxxx xxxx Qxxx x and heard me open 1C she bid 1D and we found a playable partscore and scored up most of the matchpoints... but that is another story. Me if I had held her cards and she mine, I would have passed. But my pass would not be because I was willing to play in clubs - quite the contrary as you can see I would have been willing to play in diamonds, hearts and spades NOT clubs (the last named denomination). Rather the reason for my pass would have been that I was unwilling to risk increasing the level of the contract and said little if anything about the denomination. In a similar way, a pass over the opponent's 1S opening is constrained by partnership agreement to describe my hand so that if necessary we can later have a useful dialogue to find our best contract. If we choose to pass at any stage it is because we are unwilling to act not because we are willing to play (defend) the opponent's contract. It occurs to me that in most cases early in the auction the call pass shows a willingness to play at the current level (or at least not to increase the level) much more than it shows a willingness to play in the named denomination. In the above example the only willingness I have to play in clubs could be compared to my willingness to be slave to the man who holds a gun to my head. I'm not willing I just don't have the power to alter the situation. Give me a couple hundred dollars or perhaps just a gun and some way to get out of there and I'd be gone. In the bridge hand give me an Ace or a King and I'd start telling partner where I'd be willing to play. After the opponent's 1S give me a decent five card heart suit and 13 points or even five good spades and decent hand and an agreement to play penalty doubles and I'll start telling you where I'm willing to play. But playing takeout doubles and with a weakish hand my pass just says I'm unwilling to suggest playing at a higher level. In a more general sense IMHO calls in the early stages of an auction, by partnership agreement, are descriptive in the first instance and while most bids would show a willingness to play in the named denomination there are many bids and other calls that in a popular sense would not be considered conventional that by definition should now be considered conventional. In another hand from my unsuccessful weekend of bridge my partner opened 1H and I held: AK Qxxxxx J Axxx fortunately we had 'conventional' methods to handle this hand and bid to a cold Grand. Other players in the field who neither played splinters nor had a forcing heart raise available were forced to respond 2C. While 2C in itself promises nothing but clubs and so would be considered by most to have been a natural (or non-conventional) bid I am sure that few if any of these players thought that they were showing a willingness to play clubs. In fact even with repeated club raises by partner they would be preferring hearts right to the bitter end, unwilling to play clubs. Therefore this 2C bid thought to be non-conventional has become conventional. In conclusion IMHO there are many situations, these and others, in which calls that would be considered 'natural' by most bridge players have been classified as conventional given that a call is non-conventional if it fails to meets any of three conditions: 1. Willing to play in last named denomination; 2. High card strength in named denomination; 3. Length in named denomination. So I think that there is a problem with the wording of the definition of conventional call if it is to be interpreted as violating any of these three conditions. More puns. I've had unconventional ideas before so Richard feel free to shoot me down again. I am a relatively inexperienced bridge director - I prefer to play. However I am an NZCBA qualified tournament director and as a player a relatively young NZCBA Grandmaster and I take a keen interest in the laws of bridge and enjoy reading BLML including the "angles and heads of pins" discussions and probably will not take offence if you disagree with my opinions. -- Wayne Burrows mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz World Juggling Day 20 June 1998 http://www.juggle.org/wjd From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 05:15:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:15:39 +1100 Received: from inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com (inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com [192.86.155.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21935 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:15:30 +1100 Received: from mailsun2.us.oracle.com (mailsun2.us.oracle.com [144.25.88.74]) by inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA25497; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:11:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from dlsun565.us.oracle.com by mailsun2.us.oracle.com with ESMTP (SMI-8.6/37.8) id KAA11633; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:23:05 -0800 Received: (from jboyce@localhost) by dlsun565.us.oracle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA02835; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:13:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:13:49 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Boyce Message-Id: <199802031813.KAA02835@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:02:18 +0000) Subject: Re: Nice and easy Reply-to: jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, I have been reading a lot of old The Bridge World magazines over the last few months. (My parents moved to a smaller place and I volunteered to give those magazines a new home.) In the Editorial in the Sept '71 issue, there is a discussion of the newly appointed Laws Commission and they ask for specific situations where the (current) laws do not seem correct. The example in the Editorial of a situation that the Laws did not treat "properly" in 1971 is just this one: Declarer leads out of turn, while RHO is pondering his lead. RHO doesn't notice Declarer's play and leads a different suit. (RHO has a card of the suit the declarer played.) Under the 1971 Laws, 1) RHO has not led to a trick, instead, he has condoned declarer's LOOT. 2) Furthermore, RHO has played out of turn, which allows declarer some say about LHO's play to the trick. Declarer can require LHO to play his highest or his lowest card in the suit lead. 3) RHO has revoked. He will be able to correct his play, but the card that he attepmted to lead will be treated as a penalty card. In the carefully constructed hand in the Editorial, Declarer makes the most of these various penalties. (5C doubled) "... Making six, instead of down three, and all because *he* led out of turn!" ----- The discussion so far about the current hand makes it sound like the this particular corner of the Laws is in better shape than it was in 1971. -jim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 05:44:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:44:25 +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 FAA22222 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:44:14 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA01994 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:43:32 -0600 (CST) Received: from 15.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net(12.68.179.15) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001960; Tue Feb 3 12:43:03 1998 Received: by 15.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD30A9.9EAD3680@15.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:42:50 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD30A9.9EAD3680@15.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Bizarre Ethical Question Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:42:46 -0500 Encoding: 48 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good on you! If somehow all bridge players behaved with similar morals and ethics we could eliminate many problems. In any case I suspect you and the other like minded readers of this group derive considerable personal satisfaction from knowing you are doing what is right. As wonderfully interesting and enjoyable as bridge is, it yet remains only a game. One's personal integrity is far more important than any victory at bridge; any victory obtained by lying would be so tainted as to be without value. -- Craig Senior ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, February 02, 1998 10:31 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >As to whether teammates' methods should be disclosed: >practically, the answer is easy. "I don't know," is >a perfectly valid answer, and the other pair cannot >go to the other table to ask. Since finding out more >about one's teammates would be disadvantageous if asking >were permitted, the answer would always be, "I don't know." >I see no reason to encourage bridge players to be more >distant from each other, and no one could prove that >one actually did know anything about teammates, so in >practice, those questions are not going to have to be >answered. This answer flabbergasts me. If anyone asks me what team-mates are playing, and I know, then I cannot say "I don't know" for one simple reason: it would be lying. I am not going to gain an advantage at bridge by lying. It does not need to be provable: people can rely on my personal ethics. Now I might say "I am not going to tell you": that comes back to whether they have a right to know. But they can rely on me not to lie. -- 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 Feb 4 06:22:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 06:22:52 +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 GAA22323 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 06:22:35 +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 LAA22589 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id LAA03031; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:24:14 -0800 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:24:14 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199802031924.LAA03031@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A couple of folks have put forth the proposition that card order in the pockets is incidental UI (16B). That seems reasonable in matchpoint events or multiple team events, where the offender isn't directly competing against the players at which table the problem occurs. The ruling is easy; if, indeed, the information makes the board unplayable, the director gives Ave+ to each side and a procedural penalty of about 20% to the person who didn't shuffle his cards before replacing them. This, note, is a real procedural penalty. A minor error in procedure has caused a board to become unplayable at another table. No intent is assumed, just carelessness. That's what PPs are for. 16B, however, fails to restore equity in a head-to-head team game. Let's say you call the director and he rules that no real result can be obtained due to the "UI" you have from your opponent's replacing of the cards. He can't give each side Ave+, so he just throws out the board and carries on. You go back and compare with your teammates, "Average." "WHAT???? We were +1400 on a partscore board!!! What did you do?" "Uh, nothing...it was our opponent." Could the opponent have known at the time that failing to shuffle his cards might cause the board to be thrown out at the other table? Of course not---who'd ever dream of it? We can give the "offending side" a procedural penalty of some sort to try to restore equity, but if we deem that he really couldn't have known, that's just patching a hole in the rules---we could do that for anything and wouldn't need any other rule but "the director restores equity in case of infraction." We don't want that---we want a set of rules that works. Treating card order as incidental UI doesn't, at least in team matches. Re: David Stevenson's outrage at hearing that some bridge player out there might actually lie to their opponents...I'm sorry if you don't believe that's a possible occurrance. It's great to know that there exists one player who wouldn't, but that really doesn't have anything to do with rule-making or interpreting. Rules of a game need to consider the possibility of dishonest players. Rules that only work for honest players give dishonest ones an advantage. We want rules that do not have that characteristic. So, I'll continue to assume that some players will lie and describe scenarios in which they can lie to their advantage---the point is not to say that all bridge players will lie, but that if the rules reward them for it, that's bad. --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 Feb 4 06:47:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 06:47:01 +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 GAA22437 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 06:46:53 +1100 Received: from mike (ip79.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.79]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA08020 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:46:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980203144642.006a31bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:46:42 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question In-Reply-To: References: <199802022203.OAA02064@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:31 AM 2/3/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > >>As to whether teammates' methods should be disclosed: >>practically, the answer is easy. "I don't know," is >>a perfectly valid answer, and the other pair cannot >>go to the other table to ask. Since finding out more >>about one's teammates would be disadvantageous if asking >>were permitted, the answer would always be, "I don't know." >>I see no reason to encourage bridge players to be more >>distant from each other, and no one could prove that >>one actually did know anything about teammates, so in >>practice, those questions are not going to have to be >>answered. > > This answer flabbergasts me. If anyone asks me what team-mates are >playing, and I know, then I cannot say "I don't know" for one simple >reason: it would be lying. > > I am not going to gain an advantage at bridge by lying. It does not >need to be provable: people can rely on my personal ethics. > > Now I might say "I am not going to tell you": that comes back to >whether they have a right to know. But they can rely on me not to lie. > This is an interesting argument. Good bridge players understand that there are many situations in the game in which deception is a perfectly appropriate tactic, as well as other situations (e.g., misinformation, deliberate hesitation to mislead declarer) in which deceptive techniques are explicitly deprecated by the Laws. The question, then, is not whether lying at the bridge table is unethical per se; it clearly is not. The question is only whether a particular deceptive technique, either lying about your knowledge of teammates' methods or about the methods themselves, is unethical and perhaps redressable under the Laws. David obviously has strong feelings about this issue. Are they universally shared? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 08:41:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:41:25 +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 IAA22697 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:41:20 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA13691 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:41:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:41:12 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980203144642.006a31bc@pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > The question, then, is not whether lying at the bridge table is unethical > per se; it clearly is not. The question is only whether a particular > deceptive technique, either lying about your knowledge of teammates' > methods or about the methods themselves, is unethical and perhaps > redressable under the Laws. David obviously has strong feelings about this > issue. Are they universally shared? > I don't know whether they are universally shared, but I agree wholeheartedly with David's position. In the case in point, I'm fairly certain that it's irrelevant, because I can just say I don't have to tell him about team mates' system. I would hate team mates have to try and explain our system at the other table! They might insult it. If you make a claim when you have forgotten a trump and don't mention it in your line of play, do you tell the director that you have of course remembered it? Be honest! And for the directors among us, do you ever believe the player who says he has, even if it's irrelevant to the ruling? -- Richard Lighton lighton@idt.net Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 09:20:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:20:09 +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 JAA22874 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:20:03 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA23819 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:18:11 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199802032218.QAA23819@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Lying at the Bridge Table To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 16:18:11 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As opposed, I guess, to lying _on_ the bridge table, which is the province of cats. [Since the LawBook makes no mention of this being forbidden.] > >>As to whether teammates' methods should be disclosed: Perhaps this was an unfortunate choice of words here, but notice that Jeff G. asked whether those methods _should_ be disclosed. > >>distant from each other, and no one could prove that > >>one actually did know anything about teammates, so in > >>practice, those questions are not going to have to be > >>answered. > > > > This answer flabbergasts me. If anyone asks me what team-mates are > >playing, and I know, then I cannot say "I don't know" for one simple > >reason: it would be lying. > > > > I am not going to gain an advantage at bridge by lying. It does not > >need to be provable: people can rely on my personal ethics. > > > > Now I might say "I am not going to tell you": that comes back to > >whether they have a right to know. But they can rely on me not to lie. > > > This is an interesting argument. Good bridge players understand that there > are many situations in the game in which deception is a perfectly > appropriate tactic, as well as other situations (e.g., misinformation, > deliberate hesitation to mislead declarer) in which deceptive techniques > are explicitly deprecated by the Laws. > > The question, then, is not whether lying at the bridge table is unethical > per se; it clearly is not. The question is only whether a particular Really, is it that clear? I would have said that lying at the bridge table _is_ clearly unethical per se, but that some sorts of deception do not constitute lying [I assume you have in mind falsecarding and such]. > deceptive technique, either lying about your knowledge of teammates' > methods or about the methods themselves, is unethical and perhaps > redressable under the Laws. David obviously has strong feelings about this > issue. Are they universally shared? I strongly doubt if anything is _universally_ shared. But I am emphatically on David's side here. Either we judge that opponents _are_ entitled to information about our teammates' methods, in which case it would be ethically wrong to lie _and_ would in addition be am offense for which they might seek redress, or else we judge that they are _not_ so entitled in which case we need not lie and pretend we don't know them--we can merely say "I'm sorry but you are not entitled by law to that information". The opponents are entitled to know the agreements of my partnership, and it would be unethical [and a violation] to lie about them. OTOH, they are not entitled to know the things that I can infer about partners' holdings based solely on my judgement and my own hand. If an opponent asks me, [and sometimes opponents do ask what I am taking a bid to mean in a situation where we have no agreement] I do not lie, I just say that I am not required to answer that question. {Phrasing depending on who is asking and why. :)} > Mike Dennis > Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 13:24:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:24:13 +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 NAA23590 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:23:54 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023534; 4 Feb 98 1:19 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 09:58:41 +0000 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Labeo Subject: Re: When does a treatment become a conventio In-Reply-To: <34D42F92.303D5BBA@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <34D42F92.303D5BBA@xtra.co.nz>, Wayne Burrows writes >Richard Lighton wrote: >> > Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >Perhaps my logic is flawed but I reason as follows: >> > > >I am willing, excuse the pun, to defend my position regarding the logic >of the laws definition of a conventional call. > > > >In the above example the only willingness I have to play in clubs could >be compared to my willingness to be slave to the man who holds a gun to >my head. I'm not willing I just don't have the power to alter the >situation. > Labeo: Selected statements above and much cut. In the position you adopt you will say, of course, that the definition of a conventional pass is contained, bizarrely, in Law 30C, and if a pass does not fit this it is not conventional. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 14:50:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 14:50:09 +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 OAA23834 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 14:49:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010587; 4 Feb 98 3:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 19:06:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While the hand may be interesting it does tend to obscure the main points IMO, especially for people who would make the same call with or without additional AI [if it is AI!]. This has happened with a couple of threads recently, so i hope you will forgive me if I ask what I believe to be the underling questions. [1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? [1a] If the answer to [1] is AI then is it ethical to fake the order of cards before passing them on? [1b] Is there any difference in the two answers dependent on whether it is Pairs or KO teams? [2] Is it permissible to ask your opponents what system their team- mates are playing? [2a] If the answer to [2] is yes are they required to give you an answer? [2b] If the answer to [2a] is yes are they required to give you an honest answer? -- 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 Feb 4 15:15:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA23954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:15:46 +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 PAA23949 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:15:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015789; 4 Feb 98 4:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 04:04:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Email replies MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There have been two threads, perhaps three, recently where I have received replies by email. While there are some replies that have to be this way [ones containing private remarks about another member of BLML, or ones that are trying to be tactful, or whatever] most of *these* replies were not of this type. While I am happy to discuss matters by email I do not consider it suitable in most cases to discuss BLML subjects this way. Why should others not be involved? Why should they not be consulted? How do you expect to get a consensus if the rest of BLML does not see the replies? In the general way of things I would much prefer such replies to be made to BLML. At least one subject recently was not resolved on BLML, but I have several emails that could be added. However, Netiquette forbids that I should quote them. Please could you post replies to BLML. If you do not like to post to BLML because of not liking your name to be seen that is different. I am always prepared to post another person's opinions if they do not like to, but it is important that in such cases you give me permission to post because I will not and may not otherwise. I shall quote freely from any email marked FFTQFTE [feel free to quote from this email]. So: I am happy to receive emails. But if the rest of BLML would like a look, please post here, or send to me and ask me to post. BTW, Nanki Poo sharpened his claws in a new way yesterday: on my wife's skirt, which she was wearing at the time. I thought it was very funny! That is, until today, when I felt a stabbing pain, and looked down to find him sharpening his claws on my jeans! -- 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 Feb 4 15:22:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA23982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:22:15 +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 PAA23977 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:22:07 +1100 Received: from mike (ip125.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.125]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA03143 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:22:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980203232159.006a2c68@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:21:59 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980203144642.006a31bc@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:41 PM 2/3/98 -0500, Richard wrote: >If you make a claim when you have forgotten a trump and don't mention >it in your line of play, do you tell the director that you have of >course remembered it? Be honest! And for the directors among us, do >you ever believe the player who says he has, even if it's irrelevant >to the ruling? > As a matter of fact I would not make such a claim, partly because I would not be comfortable doing so but mostly because it should be quite irrelevant to the ruling. As with so many other irregularity situations, the Laws stipulate that the ruling be made without respect to my assertion in this regard. Of course, some directors are ignorant of the correct application of the Laws and it might be to my advantage to protest my "real" intentions with a pliable director, but I would not do so. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 15:41:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA24099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:41:40 +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 PAA24094 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 15:41:29 +1100 Received: from mike (ip125.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.125]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA22150 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:41:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980203234122.006a2c68@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:41:22 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lying at the Bridge Table In-Reply-To: <199802032218.QAA23819@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:18 PM 2/3/98 -0600, Grant wrote: >> The question, then, is not whether lying at the bridge table is unethical >> per se; it clearly is not. The question is only whether a particular > > Really, is it that clear? I would have said that lying at the >bridge table _is_ clearly unethical per se, but that some sorts of >deception do not constitute lying [I assume you have in mind falsecarding >and such]. > >> deceptive technique, either lying about your knowledge of teammates' >> methods or about the methods themselves, is unethical and perhaps >> redressable under the Laws. David obviously has strong feelings about this >> issue. Are they universally shared? > > I strongly doubt if anything is _universally_ shared. But I am >emphatically on David's side here. Either we judge that opponents _are_ >entitled to information about our teammates' methods, in which case it >would be ethically wrong to lie _and_ would in addition be am offense for >which they might seek redress, or else we judge that they are _not_ so >entitled in which case we need not lie and pretend we don't know them--we >can merely say "I'm sorry but you are not entitled by law to that >information". The opponents are entitled to know the agreements >of my partnership, and it would be unethical [and a violation] to lie >about them. OTOH, they are not entitled to know the things that I can >infer about partners' holdings based solely on my judgement and my own >hand. If an opponent asks me, [and sometimes opponents do ask what I am >taking a bid to mean in a situation where we have no agreement] I do not >lie, I just say that I am not required to answer that question. {Phrasing >depending on who is asking and why. :)} > You seem to be on the verge of agreeing that the Laws do not entitle the opponents to information about our teammates' methods. Clearly if they are so entitled, then they are entitled to correct information and it is not merely distasteful or unseemly but a legal infraction (on the order of MI, one supposes) to mislead them. Please understand, I do not advocate lying in any case. I am merely raising a technical question about the application of the Laws. If I ask the opponents about their counterparts' methods, receive a misleading response (intentionally or otherwise), and subsequently base a tactical decision upon that information, am I entitled to redress as a matter of Law? I have assumed that the answer is "No". If I am right, then the laws at least tolerate this particular form of lying to obtain advantage. That doesn't mean I would endorse such an action, or ever take it myself. But it does mean that individual ethical strictures, rather than legal sanction, must be relied upon in such situations. In the case at hand, I don't have any problem with that. If a player asks for information to which he is not entitled, and relies upon the response to his detriment, tough cookies, as far as I am concerned. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 20:18:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:18:23 +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 UAA24876 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:18:14 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id BAA05130; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:14:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma005123; Wed, 4 Feb 98 01:14:03 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA07031; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 04:17:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199802040917.EAA07031@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 09:10:51 GMT Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > While the hand may be interesting it does tend to obscure the main >points IMO, especially for people who would make the same call with or >without additional AI [if it is AI!]. This has happened with a couple >of threads recently, so i hope you will forgive me if I ask what I >believe to be the underling questions. > >[1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? > >[1a] If the answer to [1] is AI then is it ethical to fake the order of >cards before passing them on? > >[1b] Is there any difference in the two answers dependent on whether it >is Pairs or KO teams? > >[2] Is it permissible to ask your opponents what system their team- >mates are playing? > >[2a] If the answer to [2] is yes are they required to give you an >answer? > >[2b] If the answer to [2a] is yes are they required to give you an >honest answer? I missed out on the first round of this: now that David has re-started it, I'd like to join in. But I'm afraid I'd like to take a step back. 1) Where is authorised information defined? My first thought was the first sentence of L16, but that's clearly not intended to be an exhaustive definition, not least since the 13 cards one holds at the start, and cards subsequently played, are not included. 2) Is all unauthorised information all that which is not "authorised"? L16 (second sentence) and L16A use "extraneous information" as the complement of "authorised information", yet L16B at least implies that "unauthorised information" is the complement of "authorised information". In case non-one has mentioned it recently, it might be helpful to remember a Bridge World editorial from several years ago in which the question (in a head-to-head teams-of-four match) of sweat on the cards from the other table was discussed. The editorial suggested that if the sweat was the opponents', then it was AI: but if it was teammates' it was UI. Whilst the comment might have been intended as flippant: but I think the principle was not. Yet I have difficulty reconciling this with the Laws. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 4 23:08:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:08:05 +1100 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25414 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:07:46 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:07:18 GMT Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 12:07:15 GMT Message-Id: <610.9802041207@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > A couple of folks have put forth the proposition > that card order in the pockets is incidental UI (16B). > That seems reasonable in matchpoint events or multiple > team events, where the offender isn't directly competing > against the players at which table the problem occurs. > The ruling is easy; if, indeed, the information makes > the board unplayable, the director gives Ave+ to each > side and a procedural penalty of about 20% to the > person who didn't shuffle his cards before replacing them. > This, note, is a real procedural penalty. A minor error > in procedure has caused a board to become unplayable at > another table. No intent is assumed, just carelessness. > That's what PPs are for. > > [snip] Why is not shuffling your cards worthy of a procedural penalty? What procedure (in the laws) has been violated. From a quick search of the laws, the only relevant laws are L7C and L22A [quoted below]. Of course, sponsoring organisations may regulate how hands are returned to the board, and violation of such regulations may deserve a procedure penalty. Do any NCBOs have such regulations? Robin LAW 7 - CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS C. Returning Cards to Board Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. LAW 22 - PROCEDURE AFTER THE AUCTION HAS ENDED After the auction period has ended, A. No Player Has Bid if no player has bid, the hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal. 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 Feb 4 23:34:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:34:43 +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 XAA25490 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:34:31 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:34:25 GMT Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 12:34:24 GMT Message-Id: <628.9802041234@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: looking at boards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject changed: was Re: Sensible Random Number Generators > From: "Jens & Bodil" > Organization: Alesia Software > To: Paul@rbarden.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 21:51:10 +0100 > Subject: Re: Sensible Random Number Generators > > A little teaser for BLML regulars who don't care about all this > technical stuff: > > A player goes off to the toilet in mid-session. On the way, he > deliberately finds board 29, takes out the hands, memorizes them > with the intent to use his advantage in later play, and puts > everything back. As TD, you find out about this. How do you rule. If I have established the facts laid out above, I throw out the contestant. > What law do you refer to. I try not to. However, I expect to be seen as "doing the right thing". > Can't be L16B, can it? Doesn't look like L16B, ".. a player accidently .." It is close to being L7C, "Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present." If it weren't for the word "Thereafter". Common practice is that players do not take their hand from the board until a member of the opposition is present a the table. But I do not think this is in the laws. (Although both sides must be present for the deal, L6.) Looking at L7B, "Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position.", I think the player has failed to follow correct procedure by taking hands from pockets which do not correspond to his compass position. This particular problem and the common practice (above) would both be covered by deleting "Thereafter" from L7C. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 01:29:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:29:12 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27899 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:29:04 +1100 Received: from mike (ip220.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.220]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA17320 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:28:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980204092856.006a3e90@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:28:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:06 PM 2/3/98 +0000, David S wrote: > > While the hand may be interesting it does tend to obscure the main >points IMO, especially for people who would make the same call with or >without additional AI [if it is AI!]. This has happened with a couple >of threads recently, so i hope you will forgive me if I ask what I >believe to be the underling questions. > >[1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? AI, but buyer beware, see 1a. > >[1a] If the answer to [1] is AI then is it ethical to fake the order of >cards before passing them on? > Ethics are a matter of individual conscience. IMO, there is nothing in the Laws or proprieties which condemns this behavior. It is probably a waste of time (see [1]). >[1b] Is there any difference in the two answers dependent on whether it >is Pairs or KO teams? > Nope. >[2] Is it permissible to ask your opponents what system their team- >mates are playing? > Probably not, technically, in the sense of L74B ("gratuitous comments"). But at worst a very mild offense. Of course such a question hypothetically could give UI to partner, suggesting your interest in a particular line of bidding or defense. In any case, since the opponents are not obliged to give you an honest answer (see 2a and 2b), there is probably no point to such a question. >[2a] If the answer to [2] is yes are they required to give you an >answer? No, although simple courtesy demands at least an acknowledgement of the question. > >[2b] If the answer to [2a] is yes are they required to give you an >honest answer? Even though I have answered 'no' to [2a], this is still a valid question, perhaps even more than if the answer is 'yes' (i.e., it would be silly to argue that the opponents are obliged to answer the question, but not obliged to do so honestly). IMO, you may refuse to answer the question or you may answer it in any way you see fit, honestly or otherwise, as a matter of law. The ethics of lying, either in denying knowledge that you in fact have or actually lying about the substance of the question, are certainly questionable (as we have seen). But I can find nothing in the Laws that makes such behavior redressable. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 02:25:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:25:43 +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 CAA28361 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:25:37 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2029275; 4 Feb 98 13:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:44:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Lying at the Bridge Table In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980203234122.006a2c68@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >If a player asks for information to which he is not >entitled, and relies upon the response to his detriment, tough cookies, as >far as I am concerned. If he does not know that he is not entitled? After all, the case that brought this up, teammates' methods, has not been resolved here yet. If we don't know, how do we expect others to know? I do not believe that lying at the bridge table is legal or ethical. LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE A. Proper Attitude 2. Etiquette of Word and Action A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player, or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. I believe that lying causes annoyance or embarrassment by design. -- 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 Feb 5 02:39:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:39:19 +1100 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA28484 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:39:14 +1100 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil ([131.158.13.27]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA10838 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:44:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980204103906.007a0a90@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:39:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Lying at the Bridge Table In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980203234122.006a2c68@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199802032218.QAA23819@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:41 PM 2/3/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: [snip] >Please understand, I do not advocate lying in any case. I am merely raising >a technical question about the application of the Laws. If I ask the >opponents about their counterparts' methods, receive a misleading response >(intentionally or otherwise), and subsequently base a tactical decision >upon that information, am I entitled to redress as a matter of Law? I have >assumed that the answer is "No". If I am right, then the laws at least >tolerate this particular form of lying to obtain advantage. That doesn't >mean I would endorse such an action, or ever take it myself. But it does >mean that individual ethical strictures, rather than legal sanction, must >be relied upon in such situations. In the case at hand, I don't have any >problem with that. If a player asks for information to which he is not >entitled, and relies upon the response to his detriment, tough cookies, as >far as I am concerned. > >Mike Dennis > Would the answer to such a question consistute a "remark" under Law 73? I believe it does, and would rule so under 73D2 and 73F2 as needed. Am I wrong here? Hirsch LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION [snip] D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 2. Intentional Variations A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made. F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 03:38:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:38:43 +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 DAA28923 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:38:32 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:38:28 GMT Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 16:38:26 GMT Message-Id: <683.9802041638@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Did anyone see this response? It did not get back to me. Robin ----- Begin Included Message ----- From rmb1 Wed Feb 4 12:07:09 1998 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Content-Length: 1726 > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > A couple of folks have put forth the proposition > that card order in the pockets is incidental UI (16B). > That seems reasonable in matchpoint events or multiple > team events, where the offender isn't directly competing > against the players at which table the problem occurs. > The ruling is easy; if, indeed, the information makes > the board unplayable, the director gives Ave+ to each > side and a procedural penalty of about 20% to the > person who didn't shuffle his cards before replacing them. > This, note, is a real procedural penalty. A minor error > in procedure has caused a board to become unplayable at > another table. No intent is assumed, just carelessness. > That's what PPs are for. > > [snip] Why is not shuffling your cards worthy of a procedural penalty? What procedure (in the laws) has been violated. From a quick search of the laws, the only relevant laws are L7C and L22A [quoted below]. Of course, sponsoring organisations may regulate how hands are returned to the board, and violation of such regulations may deserve a procedure penalty. Do any NCBOs have such regulations? Robin LAW 7 - CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS C. Returning Cards to Board Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side, or the Director, is present. LAW 22 - PROCEDURE AFTER THE AUCTION HAS ENDED After the auction period has ended, A. No Player Has Bid if no player has bid, the hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal. ----- End Included Message ----- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 03:58:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:58:55 +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 DAA29047 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:58:47 +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 IAA07297 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA01145; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:01:11 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:01:11 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199802041701.JAA01145@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Robin Barker |> From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) |> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au |> |> A couple of folks have put forth the proposition |> that card order in the pockets is incidental UI (16B). |> That seems reasonable in matchpoint events or multiple |> team events, where the offender isn't directly competing |> against the players at which table the problem occurs. |> The ruling is easy; if, indeed, the information makes |> the board unplayable, the director gives Ave+ to each |> side and a procedural penalty of about 20% to the |> person who didn't shuffle his cards before replacing them. |> This, note, is a real procedural penalty. A minor error |> in procedure has caused a board to become unplayable at |> another table. No intent is assumed, just carelessness. |> That's what PPs are for. |> |> [snip] | |Why is not shuffling your cards worthy of a procedural penalty? |What procedure (in the laws) has been violated. From a quick |search of the laws, the only relevant laws are L7C and L22A |[quoted below]. L90B7 says that if any error in procedure causes an adjusted score to be assigned for another contestant the player who caused that adjusted score is liable to PP. |Of course, sponsoring organisations may regulate how hands |are returned to the board, and violation of such regulations |may deserve a procedure penalty. Do any NCBOs have such |regulations? I don't know. --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 Feb 5 04:01:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:01:15 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA29076 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:01:10 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008481; 4 Feb 98 16:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:22:16 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Email replies In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > BTW, Nanki Poo sharpened his claws in a new way yesterday: on my >wife's skirt, which she was wearing at the time. I thought it was very >funny! That is, until today, when I felt a stabbing pain, and looked >down to find him sharpening his claws on my jeans! > I've always considered that Gnipper, who spends most of her time sleeping on the pile of towels on the shelf at the end of our bed, is just keeping an eye on her future dinner while she waits to get big enough to eat us. Clearly Nanki Poo has got to the stage of sharpening his carving knife :) (I am typing this while Gnipper is out looking for her dinner). I think that this email definitely qualifies for BLML. -- 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 Thu Feb 5 04:09:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:09:36 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA29116 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:09:30 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2013004; 4 Feb 98 16:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:29:16 +0000 To: Robin Barker Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question In-Reply-To: <610.9802041207@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <610.9802041207@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >> >> [snip] > >Why is not shuffling your cards worthy of a procedural penalty? >What procedure (in the laws) has been violated. From a quick >search of the laws, the only relevant laws are L7C and L22A > IMO the cards should be restored to the board in the same order they were found, ie as a result of a random deal. Hence shuffling is an appropriate action (or for that matter sorting them provided one always does - and is what I was taught to do) before restoring them to the board. It's nit-picking I know. I think the law should be extended to include a phrase such as "in such an order as not to indicate the sequence of play" which would allow for both practices. > > >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 -- 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 Thu Feb 5 04:29:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:29:50 +1100 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA29225 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:29:39 +1100 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.73.73.90] by helium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0y08em-0002wT-00; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:30:40 +0000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.27] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0y08eV-0002Ht-00; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:30:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bd3192$52485420$1b2e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:26:33 -0000 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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't usually get involved in this kind of thread - other people tend to say all I want to say rather better than I would say it. But I have come to the conclusion that I must be completely out of step with the way the rest of the world thinks. In order to test this hypothesis, I submit the following: Michael Dennis wrote: >At 07:06 PM 2/3/98 +0000, David S wrote: >> >> While the hand may be interesting it does tend to obscure the main >>points IMO, especially for people who would make the same call with or >>without additional AI [if it is AI!]. This has happened with a couple >>of threads recently, so i hope you will forgive me if I ask what I >>believe to be the underling questions. >> >>[1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? > and DWS replied: >AI, but buyer beware, see 1a. I do not see any moral or legal basis for this assertion. In my view, to attempt to deduce from the order of cards in the board anything about what happened on the board when it was played at the other (teams) or the previous (pairs) table is unethical behaviour of a very high order. I see no moral difference between doing this and listening to the post mortem at the next table up in a duplicate in order to maximise your chances on the boards they are about to pass you. Legally, I would think that such information fell into the "unauthorised" category under L16B - but of course, this would be impossible to enforce. MD: >> >>[1a] If the answer to [1] is AI then is it ethical to fake the order of >>cards before passing them on? >> DWS: >Ethics are a matter of individual conscience. IMO, there is nothing in the >Laws or proprieties which condemns this behavior. It is probably a waste of >time (see [1]). > I have always sorted my hand before returning it to a duplicate board. If I did not sort it, then I would (as I have seen players do) shuffle it. But I don't do this in order to prevent my opponents from cheating! It's a courtesy to the next player, no more. MD: >>[1b] Is there any difference in the two answers dependent on whether it >>is Pairs or KO teams? >> DWS: >Nope. > At last, I have found something in this thread with which I agree. Admittedly, one word out of about half a million isn't much. But it's a start. MD: >>[2] Is it permissible to ask your opponents what system their team- >>mates are playing? >> DWS: >Probably not, technically, in the sense of L74B ("gratuitous comments"). >But at worst a very mild offense. Of course such a question hypothetically >could give UI to partner, suggesting your interest in a particular line of >bidding or defense. In any case, since the opponents are not obliged to >give you an honest answer (see 2a and 2b), there is probably no point to >such a question. > I don't see what "gratuitous comments" have to do with anything. As a matter of course, before an important teams match I will familiarise myself with the methods of all the opposing pairs (this is routine, for example, in European or World Championships). Suppose that the other team (or more likely our team) arrive just in time for a match, so that I don't have a chance to know who is in the other room or what they are playing. While we are exchanging details of our methods with our opponents at the table, I will ask: "What system do your other pair play?" and - if the pair at my table know - I would expect them to tell me. MD: >>[2a] If the answer to [2] is yes are they required to give you an >>answer? DWS: >No, although simple courtesy demands at least an acknowledgement of the >question. What is your legal basis for this? The only scenario in which I can imagine a ruling being sought on the point would be in a tournament where pre-disclosure of methods is required (say, an Olympiad). Suppose a team had changed its line-up at the last minute, so that a new pair was playing in the other room who had not filed a convention card in advance of the tournament - or indeed in advance of this match. If I asked to have a look at it (or merely for a description of their basic method), I cannot imagine being refused on any legal ground. MD: >> >>[2b] If the answer to [2a] is yes are they required to give you an >>honest answer? DWS: > >Even though I have answered 'no' to [2a], this is still a valid question, >perhaps even more than if the answer is 'yes' (i.e., it would be silly to >argue that the opponents are obliged to answer the question, but not >obliged to do so honestly). IMO, you may refuse to answer the question or >you may answer it in any way you see fit, honestly or otherwise, as a >matter of law. The ethics of lying, either in denying knowledge that you in >fact have or actually lying about the substance of the question, are >certainly questionable (as we have seen). But I can find nothing in the >Laws that makes such behavior redressable. > I can find nothing in the Laws which renders any of your answers comprehensible. Certainly, if my opponents asked me what system my team-mates were playing, I would answer to the best of my ability, but it would be clearly understood that the answer came with no guarantees (so that no redress would be expected). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 04:51:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:51:13 +1100 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA29352 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:51:01 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:50:14 GMT Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 17:50:12 GMT Message-Id: <745.9802041750@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:01:11 -0800 > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question > > L90B7 says that if any error in procedure causes > an adjusted score to be assigned for another contestant > the player who caused that adjusted score is liable to PP. However that doesn't mean that anything that causes an adjusted score for another contestant is necessarily an error in procedure. If a player at one table says (quietly) "so that's +2220" just as a player from the next table to play this board returning from the toilet walks close to this table and so overhears. We may award an adjusted score on this board at the next table under L16B while finding no player at either table has made an error in procedure. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 04:52:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:52:48 +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 EAA29377 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:52:41 +1100 Received: from default (client868d.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.141]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA21954; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:51:59 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , Subject: Re: looking at boards Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:50:33 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3195$645c4a60$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: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 04 February 1998 13:33 Subject: looking at boards >> A player goes off to the toilet in mid-session. On the way, he >> deliberately finds board 29, takes out the hands, memorizes them >> with the intent to use his advantage in later play, and puts >> everything back. As TD, you find out about this. How do you rule. \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ >If I have established the facts laid out above, I throw out the contestant #### The information obtained is extraneous and derives from an action which the laws and regulations do not authorise. Players require the positive authorisation of stated law or regulation for their actions. "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws" (72A1) - what the laws (or regulations made under the laws) do not authorise is an unauthorised action; such is the case with this player's examination of board 29. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 05:21:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:21:25 +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 FAA29493 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:21:15 +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 KAA17925 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:21:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id KAA01373; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:23:52 -0800 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:23:52 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199802041823.KAA01373@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Robin Barker |> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:01:11 -0800 |> From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) |> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au |> Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question |> |> L90B7 says that if any error in procedure causes |> an adjusted score to be assigned for another contestant |> the player who caused that adjusted score is liable to PP. | |However that doesn't mean that anything that causes an adjusted score |for another contestant is necessarily an error in procedure. | |If a player at one table says (quietly) "so that's +2220" just as a |player from the next table to play this board returning from the toilet |walks close to this table and so overhears. We may award an adjusted |score on this board at the next table under L16B while finding no |player at either table has made an error in procedure. The difference is the cause. The director judges whose action caused the need for an adjusted score. In the latter case, it's the walker's. If he was deemed to be walking such that he should have known that he'd overhear results, then he might well get a penalty, although, of course, if he knew he'd overhear results, he wasn't going to tell the director that he did, since he was probably doing it intentionally :( ...in the case of putting one's cards back without shuffling---that's carelessness on the player's part that may directly lead to an adjusted score. "Error in procedure" isn't carefully defined in the laws, and since everyone knows that sorted cards, for example, can transmit information, players are expected to be careful about this in tournaments. For what it's worth, after playing bridge for over 20 years, I have never yet been dealt a sorted hand. I've been passed many. --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 Feb 5 05:41:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:41:50 +1100 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA29619 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:41:44 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-158.access.net.il [192.116.198.158]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id UAA16359; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:39:41 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34D8B6D5.C24F8499@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 20:43:33 +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: Email replies References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Nanki poo You are a very polite and thrifty cat ........ My whole cat-family uses the cloth of our armchairs , sofas ; the carpets etc. , etc ..... We renew them every 3-3&1/2 years ..... I am not sure what David's wife think about politeness ( in spite of David's funny thoughts !!!!) but you may tell her that their is no doubt about thrift !!!!!!!!! Have your fun too and go on sharpening and renewing your claws .... Shobo David Stevenson wrote: > > BTW, Nanki Poo sharpened his claws in a new way yesterday: on my > wife's skirt, which she was wearing at the time. I thought it was very > funny! That is, until today, when I felt a stabbing pain, and looked > down to find him sharpening his claws on my jeans! > > -- > 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 Feb 5 06:48:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 06:48:39 +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 GAA29939 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 06:48:33 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2028412; 4 Feb 98 17:51 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD3195.0549E960@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:47:54 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Bizarre Ethical Question Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:47:49 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 29 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Michael writes: > >SNIP > > >This is an interesting argument. Good bridge players understand that there >are many situations in the game in which deception is a perfectly >appropriate tactic, as well as other situations (e.g., misinformation, >deliberate hesitation to mislead declarer) in which deceptive techniques >are explicitly deprecated by the Laws. > >[David Martin] > >IMO legal deception is *not* the same as lying. > >The question, then, is not whether lying at the bridge table is unethical >per se; it clearly is not. The question is only whether a particular >deceptive technique, either lying about your knowledge of teammates' >methods or about the methods themselves, is unethical and perhaps >redressable under the Laws. David obviously has strong feelings about this >issue. Are they universally shared? > >[David Martin] >IMO lying is *clearly* always unethical. > >(PS Apologies to Michael as I sent the first version of this E-mail to him >personally in error.) > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 08:03:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:03:16 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA00308 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:03:08 +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 QAA09948 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:03:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09016; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:03:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:03:14 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802042103.QAA09016@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lying at the Bridge Table Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > You seem to be on the verge of agreeing that the Laws do not entitle the > opponents to information about our teammates' methods. Some time ago, I had a letter from Edgar Kaplan addressing this question. Unfortunately, I do not remember the exact question I posed or details of his reply. I'll look for the letter, but it won't be before next week at the earliest. I do remember that the upshot of Kaplan's reply was that players are not, in law, entitled to know the methods being played at the other table. In particular, there is no obligation for me to know my teammates methods. One other relevant thought comes from a BW editorial. Kaplan (one assumes) addressed the case of a team that was behind and decided that EW would play "straight down the middle" while NS would "shoot" in hopes of recovering. He thought each pair was obliged to disclose its own strategy to its opponents at the respective table (or at least the "shooting" pair was obliged to disclose), but there was no obligation to disclose the strategy adopted at the other table. This hardly answers all questions -- and of course Kaplan is not the only authority -- but his comments bear consideration. One other thought occurs to me. Suppose you, in good faith, disclose what you think your teammates' methods are. But unknown to you, they have changed methods, or perhaps (perish the thought!) you were just mistaken. Your opponents rely on your disclosure for some tactical decision and later find they have got it wrong. How will everyone involved feel? I don't think I would like to be involved in any part of such a situation. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 08:10:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:10:17 +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 IAA00343 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:10:11 +1100 Received: from mike (ip159.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.159]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02791 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:10:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:09:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <000201bd3192$52485420$1b2e63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:26 PM 2/4/98 -0000, David Burn wrote: >Michael Dennis wrote: >>>[1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? >>AI, but buyer beware, see 1a. > >I do not see any moral or legal basis for this assertion. In my view, >to attempt to deduce from the order of cards in the board anything >about what happened on the board when it was played at the other >(teams) or the previous (pairs) table is unethical behaviour of a very >high order. I see no moral difference between doing this and listening >to the post mortem at the next table up in a duplicate in order to >maximise your chances on the boards they are about to pass you. >Legally, I would think that such information fell into the >"unauthorised" category under L16B - but of course, this would be >impossible to enforce. > When you say that such behaviour is highly unethical, I assume you are speaking about your own moral evaluation of such an act. To my knowledge, nothing in the Laws suggests that you may not notice the order of the cards as you pick them up, nor denies you the right to act upon such information. L16B makes no mention of this as potential UI, perhaps because it is so intrinsically unreliable. >MD: > >>> >>>[1a] If the answer to [1] is AI then is it ethical to fake the order >of >>>cards before passing them on? >>> > > > >>Ethics are a matter of individual conscience. IMO, there is nothing >in the >>Laws or proprieties which condemns this behavior. It is probably a >waste of >>time (see [1]). >> > > >I have always sorted my hand before returning it to a duplicate board. >If I did not sort it, then I would (as I have seen players do) shuffle >it. But I don't do this in order to prevent my opponents from >cheating! It's a courtesy to the next player, no more. > >>>[2] Is it permissible to ask your opponents what system their team- >>>mates are playing? > >>Probably not, technically, in the sense of L74B ("gratuitous >comments"). >>But at worst a very mild offense. Of course such a question >hypothetically >>could give UI to partner, suggesting your interest in a particular >line of >>bidding or defense. In any case, since the opponents are not obliged >to >>give you an honest answer (see 2a and 2b), there is probably no point >to >>such a question. >> > > >I don't see what "gratuitous comments" have to do with anything. As a >matter of course, before an important teams match I will familiarise >myself with the methods of all the opposing pairs (this is routine, >for example, in European or World Championships). Suppose that the >other team (or more likely our team) arrive just in time for a match, >so that I don't have a chance to know who is in the other room or what >they are playing. While we are exchanging details of our methods with >our opponents at the table, I will ask: "What system do your other >pair play?" and - if the pair at my table know - I would expect them >to tell me. > Fine, but do your expectations in this respect have any legal backing? Are your opponents allowed (as a legal matter, as opposed to ethics and/or courtesy), to either refuse to tell you, lie about their knowledge, or lie about the actual system? In the end, it seems as though we are in agreement that the answer is yes, although that is not completely clear from your response. >MD: > >>>[2a] If the answer to [2] is yes are they required to give you an >>>answer? > > > >>No, although simple courtesy demands at least an acknowledgement of >the >>question. > > >What is your legal basis for this? It's hard to prove a negative, but I'm pretty sure there is no Law which requires you to answer this question. Do you know of one? > >>> >>>[2b] If the answer to [2a] is yes are they required to give you an >>>honest answer? > >> >>Even though I have answered 'no' to [2a], this is still a valid >question, >>perhaps even more than if the answer is 'yes' (i.e., it would be >silly to >>argue that the opponents are obliged to answer the question, but not >>obliged to do so honestly). IMO, you may refuse to answer the >question or >>you may answer it in any way you see fit, honestly or otherwise, as a >>matter of law. The ethics of lying, either in denying knowledge that >you in >>fact have or actually lying about the substance of the question, are >>certainly questionable (as we have seen). But I can find nothing in >the >>Laws that makes such behavior redressable. >> > > >I can find nothing in the Laws which renders any of your answers >comprehensible. Certainly, if my opponents asked me what system my >team-mates were playing, I would answer to the best of my ability, but >it would be clearly understood that the answer came with no guarantees >(so that no redress would be expected). > I apologize if my answers are obtuse or difficult to follow. I will restate them without the folderol: 1.Nothing in the Laws prevents a player from noticing the order of the cards when he takes the hand from the board, nor from acting upon that observation, though he does so at his own risk. 2. Nothing in the Laws stipulates any requirement for how the cards must be returned to the board, whether shuffled or sorted, nor the intention underlying such an action. I routinely shuffle the hand before I put it back, but I rather like your idea of sorting it. 3. Nothing in the Laws entitles you to information about your counterparts' methods in a team game. You may ask such a question, I suppose, but the opponents may either answer or not, and in the former case may answer either truthfully or dishonestly. If you subsequently rely upon such information to your detriment, you have no legal basis for redress. You may have noticed a pattern in these points, echoing your "I see nothing in the Laws" comment. I agree, there is "nothing in the Laws" which makes my assertions comprehensible (whatever you may mean by that). But there is also nothing in the Laws which contradicts any of these assertions, as far as I can see. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 08:17:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:17:31 +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 IAA00377 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:17:26 +1100 Received: from mike (ip159.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.159]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA12801 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 16:17:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980204081716.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:17:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lying at the Bridge Table In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980203234122.006a2c68@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 2/4/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>If a player asks for information to which he is not >>entitled, and relies upon the response to his detriment, tough cookies, as >>far as I am concerned. > > If he does not know that he is not entitled? After all, the case that >brought this up, teammates' methods, has not been resolved here yet. If >we don't know, how do we expect others to know? > > I do not believe that lying at the bridge table is legal or ethical. > >LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE >A. Proper Attitude > 2. Etiquette of Word and Action > A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that > might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player, or > might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. > > I believe that lying causes annoyance or embarrassment by design. No, the situation at issue is one in which a player might lie to obtain an advantage. The purpose would not be to either embarass or annoy, although that certainly could be the result. But then many actions could be equally annoying to the opponents (e.g., a successful psyche, a double squeeze) and would not be considered unethical or illegal. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 09:31:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:31:58 +1100 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA00675 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:31:52 +1100 Received: from hdavis (207-172-53-152.s152.tnt4.brd.erols.com [207.172.53.152]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA21622 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:31:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980204173138.007fddf0@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 17:31:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> References: <000201bd3192$52485420$1b2e63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:09 AM 2/4/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: [snip] >> >I apologize if my answers are obtuse or difficult to follow. I will restate >them without the folderol: > >1.Nothing in the Laws prevents a player from noticing the order of the >cards when he takes the hand from the board, nor from acting upon that >observation, though he does so at his own risk. > [snip] Law 16 clearly describes the sources of information that are authorized. The order of the cards in the board is not so listed. Law 16B gives a non-comprehesive list of examples of extraneous information requiring a Director call. IMO the order of the cards in the board, if it conveys information to the player, belongs in this category. There may be no way to enforce this if a player is not sufficiently ethical to call the director, but that is true of many of the situations in 16B. However, that does not mean that the situation is not covered by Law. IMO Law 16 clearly applies here. LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. [snip] B. Extraneous Information from Other Sources When a player accidentally receives unauthorised information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may: 1. Adjust Positions if the type of contest and scoring permit, adjust the players' positions at the table, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; or, 2. Appoint Substitute with the concurrence of all four players, appoint a temporary substitute to replace the player who received the unauthorised information; or, 3. Award an Adjusted Score forthwith award an artificial adjusted score. >2. Nothing in the Laws stipulates any requirement for how the cards must be >returned to the board, whether shuffled or sorted, nor the intention >underlying such an action. I routinely shuffle the hand before I put it >back, but I rather like your idea of sorting it. > Agreed. >3. Nothing in the Laws entitles you to information about your counterparts' >methods in a team game. You may ask such a question, I suppose, but the >opponents may either answer or not, and in the former case may answer >either truthfully or dishonestly. If you subsequently rely upon such >information to your detriment, you have no legal basis for redress. > Agreed that the Laws do not entitle you to info about counterparts' methods, but IMO Law 73 requires that answers made must be truthful. My assumption is that the answer to a question qualifies as a "remark" under that Law. Allowable deception is clearly defined as occurring through a call or play (in the absence of a CPU). >You may have noticed a pattern in these points, echoing your "I see nothing >in the Laws" comment. I agree, there is "nothing in the Laws" which makes >my assertions comprehensible (whatever you may mean by that). But there is >also nothing in the Laws which contradicts any of these assertions, as far >as I can see. > >Mike Dennis > > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 09:32:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:32:32 +1100 Received: from imo30.mail.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA00682 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:32:27 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id DVTUa08050; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:14:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49458b67.34d8e853@aol.com> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:14:41 EST To: msd@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Regarding this question: << [1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? >> Does anyone else remember a Bols Tip regarding just this subject? Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 11:11:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:11:28 +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 LAA00979 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:11:21 +1100 Received: from cph57.ppp.dknet.dk (cph57.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.57]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA13776 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:11:13 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 01:11:13 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34df0252.2217628@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199802022203.OAA02064@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> <3.0.1.32.19980203144642.006a31bc@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980203144642.006a31bc@pop.mindspring.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, 03 Feb 1998 14:46:42 -0500, "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: >The question, then, is not whether lying at the bridge table is = unethical >per se; it clearly is not. The question is only whether a particular >deceptive technique, either lying about your knowledge of teammates' >methods or about the methods themselves, is unethical and perhaps >redressable under the Laws. David obviously has strong feelings about = this >issue. Are they universally shared? They are shared by me. It seems to me that such a lie is in conflict with L74A1 and L74A2. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 11:35:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:35:20 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA01012 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:35:09 +1100 Received: from mike ([38.30.134.48]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA06755 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:34:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980204193521.006a94e0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 19:35:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980204173138.007fddf0@pop.erols.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> <000201bd3192$52485420$1b2e63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:31 PM 2/4/98 -0500, Hirsch wrote: >At 08:09 AM 2/4/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >[snip] >>> >>I apologize if my answers are obtuse or difficult to follow. I will restate >>them without the folderol: >> >>1.Nothing in the Laws prevents a player from noticing the order of the >>cards when he takes the hand from the board, nor from acting upon that >>observation, though he does so at his own risk. >> >[snip] >Law 16 clearly describes the sources of information that are authorized. >The order of the cards in the board is not so listed. Law 16B gives a >non-comprehesive list of examples of extraneous information requiring a >Director call. IMO the order of the cards in the board, if it conveys >information to the player, belongs in this category. There may be no way to >enforce this if a player is not sufficiently ethical to call the director, >but that is true of many of the situations in 16B. However, that does not >mean that the situation is not covered by Law. IMO Law 16 clearly applies >here. > Interesting. So when you pick up a hand that has been sorted, your habit is to call the director? I'm afraid I just don't buy that. As to your contention that L16 lists all authorized sources of information, that is patently false. Among other glaring omissions are the actual cards in your hand. Surely you're legally allowed to draw inferences from the actual hand, despite its omission from the list of authorized sources of information. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 12:10:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:10:34 +1100 Received: from relay2.bt.net (picnic.ukcore.bt.net [194.72.6.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01089 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:10:28 +1100 Received: from (snow.btinternet.com) [194.73.73.90] by relay2.bt.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0y0FqP-0002Yd-00; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:11:09 +0000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.122] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0y0FqO-00024g-00; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:11:09 +0000 Message-ID: <000501bd31d2$ae69bba0$7a3363c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Advance grovelling Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:09:10 -0000 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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Looking back, it appears to me that my previous message confused matters to the extent that I attributed David Stevenson's perfectly reasonable questions to Michael Dennis, and Michael's replies to DWS. This ought to have been the other way round. Apologies to all concerned (DWS will be able to collect whiskies from me for the foreseeable future - please treat this message as an IOU!) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 12:50:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:50:24 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01262 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:50:16 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2014521; 5 Feb 98 1:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:47:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Nice and easy In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>[a] Declarer's club was led first? > >53B refers the TD to 53C. This implies to me that the Director must >establish whether RHO was playing to the irregular lead, or making his >proper lead. From the info given the latter is true, thus I apply 53C. >The proper lead stands, all cards are withdrawn without penalty and the >defenders are authorised 16C2 > >>[b] RHO's spade was led first? > >This I think is simple, 45C2 applies, Declarer has played his club after >the proper lead. The revoke did not get established and when the card is >corrected LHO has the right to change his card under 47D, and restore it >to his hand 62C1 > >>[c] The were led simultaneously? >> >I apply 58A and this converts to [b] above David Metcalf said approximately the same as the above, and I consider it correct. I like the refence to L45C2 which proves it was a played card in scenario b. I said it was nice and easy - but would YOU have found it at the table? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 12:51:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:51:43 +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 MAA01272 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:51:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2014522; 5 Feb 98 1:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 23:53:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <000201bd3192$52485420$1b2e63c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >I don't usually get involved in this kind of thread - other people >tend to say all I want to say rather better than I would say it. But I >have come to the conclusion that I must be completely out of step with >the way the rest of the world thinks. In order to test this >hypothesis, I submit the following: Please have a little care with your attributions. I did not write one single item of the ones marked DWS. I merely asked the questions, and to date have not given any opinions. -- 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 Feb 5 13:26:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:26:41 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA01449 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:26:31 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2017506; 5 Feb 98 2:19 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:09:24 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Nice and easy In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>>[a] Declarer's club was led first? >> >>53B refers the TD to 53C. This implies to me that the Director must >>establish whether RHO was playing to the irregular lead, or making his >>proper lead. From the info given the latter is true, thus I apply 53C. >>The proper lead stands, all cards are withdrawn without penalty and the >>defenders are authorised 16C2 >> snip >> >>I apply 58A and this converts to [b] above > > David Metcalf said approximately the same as the above, and I consider >it correct. I like the refence to L45C2 which proves it was a played >card in scenario b. > > I said it was nice and easy - but would YOU have found it at the >table? > Probably not :) I'd have come looking for you :) -- 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 Thu Feb 5 13:47:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:47:01 +1100 Received: from relay2.bt.net (picnic.ukcore.bt.net [194.72.6.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA01527 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:46:47 +1100 Received: from (snow.btinternet.com) [194.73.73.90] by relay2.bt.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0y0HLA-00047J-00; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:47:00 +0000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.51.233] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0y0HL9-0000S8-00; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:47:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000901bd31e0$1252e620$e93363c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:45:06 -0000 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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What follows is strictly off the record. At the latest European Championships in Montecatini, the British captain gave the following advice to his players in the second half of a match: "If you pick up your hand, and it's sorted, sort it again in a different order." So far is this off the record that I will leave you to draw your own conclusions. But - there ought to be a Law. I suppose that the simplest would be to require players to sort (or shuffle) before putting their cards back in the board. But, as I tried to imply in my previous post, if the game has reached the point where this kind of question is being considered with an atom of seriousness, then it's simply not worth playing. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 14:11:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:11:03 +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 OAA01654 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:10:33 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1029993; 5 Feb 98 2:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:08:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Advance grovelling In-Reply-To: <000501bd31d2$ae69bba0$7a3363c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Looking back, it appears to me that my previous message confused >matters to the extent that I attributed David Stevenson's perfectly >reasonable questions to Michael Dennis, and Michael's replies to DWS. >This ought to have been the other way round. Apologies to all >concerned (DWS will be able to collect whiskies from me for the >foreseeable future - please treat this message as an IOU!) > Wahey! -- 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 Feb 5 14:19:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:19:06 +1100 Received: from relay2.bt.net (picnic.ukcore.bt.net [194.72.6.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA01687 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:18:38 +1100 Received: from (snow.btinternet.com) [194.73.73.90] by relay2.bt.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0y0HqH-0004MI-00; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:19:09 +0000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.47.44] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0y0HqG-0003O4-00; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:19:08 +0000 Message-ID: <000201bd31e4$8fdbe7a0$2c2f63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 03:16:14 -0000 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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen >Regarding this question: > ><< [1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? > >> > >Does anyone else remember a Bols Tip regarding just this subject? > Certainly. But I thought it was a joke. Its author has confirmed to me that it was "obviously supposed to be a joke", and knowing Toine van Hoof as I do, I am prepared to believe him. He, and I, would be staggered at the degree of seriousness that this "debate" has reached. As I understand it, people are honestly questioning whether: (a) it is legitimate to attempt to draw inferences from the order in which you pick up your cards; (b) it is incumbent upon you to reveal to your opponents what your team-mates' methods are; (c) whether there is some way in which it is acceptable, or at any rate "in accordance with the rules", to tell deliberate lies at the table. Now, there have been many comments on BLML about the despicability of "bridge lawyers", with almost all of which I have agreed. But I have watched this debate consume more bandwidth than Monica Whatshername and Saddam combined, and my credulity has been stretched to breaking point. If it got about that we were seriously considering these points, then we would rightly be a laughing stock from the Four-Mile Radius roughly to the plains of Hindustan. The answers to the above are: (a) no; (b) yes; (c) no. That is all I know on earth, and all I need to know. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 19:27:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:27:17 +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 TAA02409 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:27:11 +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 CAA11362 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:27:07 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 02FQ804R Thu, 05 Feb 98 01:44:04 Message-ID: <9802050144.02FQ804@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 05 Feb 98 01:44:04 Subject: The best of the ACBL To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have just had a series of meetings with the ACBL and this is the upshot: The ACBL has demanded that I alert all of my suit opening bids at the one level and when asked to explain I must give a thorough explanation of the opening bid structure. This is what I have come up with- Natural. Unlimited. Non-forcing. Natural means that 1 club or 1 diamond promises three. 1 heart and one spade promise five. We can and will open with four if it suits the hand. Unlimited means that we can and do open with 5 or 6 or more quick tricks. We may also open at a high level if it suits the hand. There are no artificial conventions to identify such situations. Non-forcing means that we do not strain to keep the auction open with miniscule values. Typical minimum responding hands a contain a king and queen plus. Minimum opening hands tend to be sound and may be shaded for the situation. No opening bids are explicitly forcing. It looks like NAmerica now has a truly improved game. Cheers all. R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 20:00:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:00:17 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02477 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:00:11 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA08284 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:00:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34D83D98.60740B63@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:06:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hope my e-mail will work again soon and my answer will not reach you when you have long forgotten what this was all about. David Stevenson wrote: > > While the hand may be interesting it does tend to obscure the main > points IMO, especially for people who would make the same call with or > without additional AI [if it is AI!]. This has happened with a couple > of threads recently, so i hope you will forgive me if I ask what I > believe to be the underling questions. > I like the way this is put and that is why I propose an answer. > [1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? > UI of course. (not included in the list of AI) > [1a] If the answer to [1] is AI then is it ethical to fake the order of > cards before passing them on? > I always shuffle them before I put them back. Is that cheating ? > [1b] Is there any difference in the two answers dependent on whether it > is Pairs or KO teams? > No > [2] Is it permissible to ask your opponents what system their team- > mates are playing? > Of course, you can always ask what you want. The real question is : > [2a] If the answer to [2] is yes are they required to give you an > answer? > No. I don't see in the rules why they should answer this. However, in many championships, you are allowed to read opp's CC before the match. So IMO knowledge of the opponents' system is AI. Sometimes this can be useful, not just for this case (I always like to know if my opp's are using a similar system to mine or not, in order to know how best to take advantage of my system) > [2b] If the answer to [2a] is yes are they required to give you an > honest answer? > No, but I would find it unsportsmanlike to lie if they do answer. A reply of "I don't recall" or "I'm not required to tell you" is far more suitable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium new e-mail and URL coming From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 20:00:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:00:18 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02478 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:00:12 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-150.uunet.be [194.7.13.150]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA08288 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:00:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34D83EAA.8925C698@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:10:50 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Email replies 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: > > There have been two threads, perhaps three, recently where I have > received replies by email. I was guilty of one of these and it is solely because I forgot to change the "to". I urge the administrator once again to put bridge-laws in the reply-to address, so that this will be automatic. I have now been on the flags-of-the-world e-mail list for almost a year, and they do it that way. (and they have an average of 50 messages a day!) I all that time there has been one occasion of bouncing, and we got perhaps a hundred double (and even triple) messages. PLease change this and David will not see this problem again ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 21:00:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:00:08 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02679 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:00:01 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-174.uunet.be [194.7.13.174]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA09588 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:59:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34D98348.F2FC4C7C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 10:15:52 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am completely in agreement with David Burn on this issue and so I'll propose an answer to the following : Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > 1.Nothing in the Laws prevents a player from noticing the order of the > cards when he takes the hand from the board, nor from acting upon that > observation, though he does so at his own risk. > Nothing except L16. > 2. Nothing in the Laws stipulates any requirement for how the cards must be > returned to the board, whether shuffled or sorted, nor the intention > underlying such an action. I routinely shuffle the hand before I put it > back, but I rather like your idea of sorting it. > Correct, and if we knew all other players would follow L16, there would be no need for this practice. > 3. Nothing in the Laws entitles you to information about your counterparts' > methods in a team game. You may ask such a question, I suppose, but the > opponents may either answer or not, and in the former case may answer > either truthfully or dishonestly. If you subsequently rely upon such > information to your detriment, you have no legal basis for redress. > But in tournaments where prior knowledge of opponent's system is made available, this would follow from the regulations. See the example in David's post, where he deals with late minute changes at the other table. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 21:09:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:09:11 +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 VAA02752 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:09:02 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id KAA28924 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:08:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 5 Feb 98 10:07 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question 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: <3.0.1.32.19980204193521.006a94e0@pop.mindspring.com> Mike Dennis Wrote: > 3. Nothing in the Laws entitles you to information about your > counterparts' > methods in a team game. You may ask such a question, I suppose, but the > opponents may either answer or not, and in the former case may answer > either truthfully or dishonestly. If you subsequently rely upon such > information to your detriment, you have no legal basis for redress. When playing in teams matches I have been known to use my knowledge of team-mates methods to decide on how to bid/play and I expect my partners to do the same. Since team methods are not a matter of general bridge knowledge I believe we would be guilty of operating a concealed partnership understanding if we refused to disclose such methods. If one knows one is obliged to give an honest answer, if not one must say so. As to redress that is a matter for TD judgement - I would be very dubious of a pair who didn't know their team-mates played precision for instance! Tim West-Meads (Who forgot to change the To: address when replying the first time, apologies to Mike for wasted bandwith) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 5 21:51:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:51:16 +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 VAA02874 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:51:06 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id CAA29600; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 02:46:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma029590; Thu, 5 Feb 98 02:46:31 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA12550; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:49:36 -0500 Message-Id: <199802051049.FAA12550@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 5 Feb 98 10:43:01 GMT Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote: >I am completely in agreement with David Burn on this issue and so I'll >propose an answer to the following : Like at least one or two others, I don't think much of the idea of using the information from the order of the cards on arrival from the previous table. None-the-less it is reasonable to ask what Law says the information is UI. >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >> 1.Nothing in the Laws prevents a player from noticing the order of the >> cards when he takes the hand from the board, nor from acting upon that >> observation, though he does so at his own risk. > >Nothing except L16. Which part, please? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 00:48:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:48:42 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05834 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:48:35 +1100 Received: from mike (ip217.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.217]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA24996 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:48:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980205084853.006afc54@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 08:48:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <000201bd31e4$8fdbe7a0$2c2f63c3@david-burn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:16 AM 2/5/98 -0000, David Burn wrote: >As I understand it, people are honestly >questioning whether: (a) it is legitimate to attempt to draw >inferences from the order in which you pick up your cards; (b) it is >incumbent upon you to reveal to your opponents what your team-mates' >methods are; (c) whether there is some way in which it is acceptable, >or at any rate "in accordance with the rules", to tell deliberate lies >at the table. > >Now, there have been many comments on BLML about the despicability of >"bridge lawyers", with almost all of which I have agreed. But I have >watched this debate consume more bandwidth than Monica Whatshername >and Saddam combined, and my credulity has been stretched to breaking >point. If it got about that we were seriously considering these >points, then we would rightly be a laughing stock from the Four-Mile >Radius roughly to the plains of Hindustan. The answers to the above >are: (a) no; (b) yes; (c) no. That is all I know on earth, and all I >need to know. > All quite respectable as personal opinion, obviously, but unsupported by the text of the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 00:54:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:54:48 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA05860 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:54:41 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000262; 5 Feb 98 13:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:36:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <000201bd31e4$8fdbe7a0$2c2f63c3@david-burn> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >He, and I, would be staggered at the degree of seriousness that this >"debate" has reached. As I understand it, people are honestly >questioning whether: (a) it is legitimate to attempt to draw >inferences from the order in which you pick up your cards; (b) it is >incumbent upon you to reveal to your opponents what your team-mates' >methods are; (c) whether there is some way in which it is acceptable, >or at any rate "in accordance with the rules", to tell deliberate lies >at the table. > >Now, there have been many comments on BLML about the despicability of >"bridge lawyers", with almost all of which I have agreed. But I have >watched this debate consume more bandwidth than Monica Whatshername >and Saddam combined, and my credulity has been stretched to breaking >point. If it got about that we were seriously considering these >points, then we would rightly be a laughing stock from the Four-Mile >Radius roughly to the plains of Hindustan. The answers to the above >are: (a) no; (b) yes; (c) no. That is all I know on earth, and all I >need to know. The trouble is, David, that while this answer may seem obvious to you, when we are trying to apply it to other people it is in the nature of the beast to require an authority. After all, no authority is needed for yourself, because you police your own ethics. We need an authority for people who do not see it as being quite as obvious as you do, either in case they ever have to rule on this subject, or for their own ethical position, or as an intellectual exercise. Instinctively, I agree with you about [a] and [c]. I am not so sure about [b], since L75A refers to opponents [where it could easily have said the other contestant]: before you all jump on me about team-mates of opponents are opponents, try reading the Definitions: no, I agree that they are ambiguous too! But instinct has been shown to be a poor guide in other cases, and I would like to see authorities. -- 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 Feb 6 01:22:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 01:22:11 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA05965 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 01:22:04 +1100 Received: from mike (ip217.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.217]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12479 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:21:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980205092222.00687aa8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 09:22:22 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <34D98348.F2FC4C7C@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:15 AM 2/5/98 +0100, you wrote: >I am completely in agreement with David Burn on this issue and so I'll >propose an answer to the following : > >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> >> 1.Nothing in the Laws prevents a player from noticing the order of the >> cards when he takes the hand from the board, nor from acting upon that >> observation, though he does so at his own risk. >> > >Nothing except L16. > To Herman, the Davids, et al, who have made roughly this same point: L16 does not purport to define an exhaustive list of the sources of information one may legitimately use in making decisions at the bridge table. Here are some factors which are notable by their absence from L16's "definition" of AI: 1. The actual cards in your hand. 2. Your judgement of the opponents' skill level. 3. Your assessment of the skill and methods of the rest of the field. 4. Your assessment of the state of the game or the current match, combined with your overall objectives for the present event. 5. Your evaluation of how well you or your partner are playing today. 6. Instructions from a TD which may have limited your or your opponents' options. I assume that everyone in this debate will agree that all of these (and numerous others as well) are legitimate sources of information which will inform a good player's decision-making. In fact, any one of them is almost certainly more useful than the dubious inferences to be drawn from the order of the cards in the board. Note that none of these is covered by the language in L16 ("legal calls or plays and from mannerisms of opponents"). The fact is that the Laws are mute on the subject at hand, which is probably OK, precisely because the information is of such dubious utility. You may legitimately choose to ignore it yourself (this is not likely to hurt your game), or condemn as unethical scoundrels those who try to exploit it. But to argue that anything in L16 (or any other law, as far as I can tell) forbids this essentially meaningless activity is simply specious. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 01:59:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 01:59:46 +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 BAA06129 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 01:59:41 +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 JAA147652 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:59:37 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id JAA12926 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:58:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199802051458.JAA12926@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:58:51, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The best of the ACBL Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk R Pewick wrote: Natural means that 1 club or 1 diamond promises three. 1 heart and one spade promise five. We can and will open with four if it suits the hand. ================ For the general population The majors depend on the way your card is marked. If you are played a 4 card major system and have your card marked that way, you do not alert an opening 1H or 1S bid. (I guess I must have missed the original note on this.) -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 02:53:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 02:53:51 +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 CAA06454 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 02:53:45 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA18379 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:51:52 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199802051551.JAA18379@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Lying at the Bridge Table To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:51:52 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk {Regarding card-order and UI: Maybe I have missed something, but those who argue that this order is UI do not yet seem to have replied to the problem that has been raised. If it is UI, that means that, for example, I am ethically required to summon the director if it looks to me as though my AKQ may be cashing. Is this your position?} > You seem to be on the verge of agreeing that the Laws do not entitle the > opponents to information about our teammates' methods. Clearly if they are > so entitled, then they are entitled to correct information and it is not > merely distasteful or unseemly but a legal infraction (on the order of MI, > one supposes) to mislead them. I was only intending to argue that one cannot ethically lie regardless of what one thought about whether they were entitled to such information. In fact, I think they are, for reasons pointed out by others: a) My own decisions may be based in part upon knowledge of their methods. [How often do people base an r.g.b. argument on "I think my teammates will be in X, so all I have to do is beat this one trick" or similar?] b) It is sometimes part of the tournament organization that CC's are required. I do not find either of these arguments to be overwhelmingly powerful--nor do I find the opposing arguments compelling. > Please understand, I do not advocate lying in any case. I am merely raising > a technical question about the application of the Laws. If I ask the > opponents about their counterparts' methods, receive a misleading response > (intentionally or otherwise), and subsequently base a tactical decision > upon that information, am I entitled to redress as a matter of Law? I have If you are entitled to that information, then the answer may well be 'yes'. Obviously, damage and redress would have to be evaluated in each case. > assumed that the answer is "No". If I am right, then the laws at least This begs the question. You can only assume the answer is "no" if the information is not something to which they are legally entitled. > tolerate this particular form of lying to obtain advantage. That doesn't What this would mean, if true, is that there are some unethical actions for which the laws provide no punishment. [But if lying does violate 74A2, then a case for intervention could be made even if they are not entitled to the information. In fact, I think it does violate that law, although such a violation would be more likely to lead to a penalty for the offender rather than an adjustment for you.] > mean I would endorse such an action, or ever take it myself. But it does > mean that individual ethical strictures, rather than legal sanction, must > be relied upon in such situations. In the case at hand, I don't have any Perhaps. > problem with that. If a player asks for information to which he is not > entitled, and relies upon the response to his detriment, tough cookies, as > far as I am concerned. Not as far as I'm concerned. I would agree with you only if I thought the questioner _should have known_ that he was not entitled to the information. Since it is not at all obvious in the present case whether he is so entitled or not, I would be strongly inclined to interpret the [sometimes ambiguous] laws in his favor. > Mike Dennis > Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 03:53:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 03:53:43 +1100 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA06690 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 03:53:36 +1100 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil ([131.158.13.27]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02254 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:59:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980205115315.0079b590@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 11:53:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Point of Law, was: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980205092222.00687aa8@pop.mindspring.com> References: <34D98348.F2FC4C7C@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:22 AM 2/5/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 10:15 AM 2/5/98 +0100, you wrote: >>I am completely in agreement with David Burn on this issue and so I'll >>propose an answer to the following : >> >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>> >>> 1.Nothing in the Laws prevents a player from noticing the order of the >>> cards when he takes the hand from the board, nor from acting upon that >>> observation, though he does so at his own risk. >>> [SNIP] > >The fact is that the Laws are mute on the subject at hand, which is >probably OK, precisely because the information is of such dubious utility. >You may legitimately choose to ignore it yourself (this is not likely to >hurt your game), or condemn as unethical scoundrels those who try to >exploit it. But to argue that anything in L16 (or any other law, as far as >I can tell) forbids this essentially meaningless activity is simply specious. > >Mike Dennis > > It's clear that Mike and I are going to continue to disagree on this, as I believe that this is adequately covered in Law 16, particularly 16B. However, this creates another question in my mind. Let's say I'm playing in a game in which an opponent uses the information from the order of cards in the board to his advantage. Somehow we find this out and summon the director, who happens to be Mike. As Mike believes that this info is not UI, he would have to rule that the result stands. I would appeal this, and we eventually find ourselves in front of a committee. Mike, as director, makes the assertion that the info from the order of the cards in the board is AI. Would this be considered a point of law, under Law 93, in which case the committee would have no authority to overturn the ruling (as long as the facts of the incident were agreed on)? Or would a committee have the authority to hear both of our interpretations of Law 16 and make it's own determination as to which is correct? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 05:31:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 05:31:08 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07085 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 05:31:02 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA12149; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:30:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from 47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.47) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012089; Thu Feb 5 12:29:49 1998 Received: by 47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD323A.14EFE540@47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:29:27 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD323A.14EFE540@47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: Bridgelaws , "'Grant C. Sterling'" Subject: RE: Lying at the Bridge Table Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:29:24 -0500 Encoding: 18 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a team game it would seem that an IMP penalty would be to your benefit as well as to his detriment. Are you perhaps suggesting a penalty in VP's for his side? Craig Senior ---------- From: Grant C. Sterling[SMTP:cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 4:51 AM To: Bridgelaws Subject: Re: Lying at the Bridge Table (snip) What this would mean, if true, is that there are some unethical actions for which the laws provide no punishment. [But if lying does violate 74A2, then a case for intervention could be made even if they are not entitled to the information. In fact, I think it does violate that law, although such a violation would be more likely to lead to a penalty for the offender rather than an adjustment for you.] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 05:59:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 05:59:51 +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 FAA07183 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 05:59:45 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA13940 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:57:53 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199802051857.MAA13940@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: RE: Lying at the Bridge Table To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:57:53 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > In a team game it would seem that an IMP penalty would be to your benefit > as well as to his detriment. Are you perhaps suggesting a penalty in VP's > for his side? I seem to be uncharacteristicly incoherent on this List. All I meant was that even _if_ there is no legal provision for awarding an adjusted score in the case of "damage" due to an untruthful description of teammates' methods, there might still be a case for a PP. I didn't intend to claim [or deny] that the NOS would receive no benefit from the penalty. I wrote: > (snip) > What this would mean, if true, is that there are some unethical > actions for which the laws provide no punishment. [But if lying does > violate 74A2, then a case for intervention could be made even if > they are not entitled to the information. In fact, I think it does > violate that law, although such a violation would be more likely to lead > to a penalty for the offender rather than an adjustment for you.] > -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 06:05:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 06:05:09 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07207 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 06:05:04 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-207.uunet.be [194.7.13.207]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA21755 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:04:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34D9F1D8.33A0A7EF@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 18:07:36 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Lying at the Bridge Table X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199802051551.JAA18379@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > > {Regarding card-order and UI: Maybe I have missed something, but > those who argue that this order is UI do not yet seem to have replied to > the problem that has been raised. If it is UI, that means that, for > example, I am ethically required to summon the director if it looks to me > as though my AKQ may be cashing. Is this your position?} > I think L16B is of application. However this begins, "when a player RECEIVES UI". If you don't look at your cards in a particular fashion, you cannot receive information, so you are not bound to call the TD. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 06:57:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 06:57:37 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA07488 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 06:57:30 +1100 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA21343; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:55:34 -0900 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:55:34 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" Reply-To: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Lying at the Bridge Table In-Reply-To: <01BD323A.14EFE540@47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > What this would mean, if true, is that there are some unethical > actions for which the laws provide no punishment. [But if lying does > violate 74A2, then a case for intervention could be made even if > they are not entitled to the information. In fact, I think it does > violate that law, although such a violation would be more likely to lead > to a penalty for the offender rather than an adjustment for you.] The laws provide for the TD to impose a penalty of his choosing if the laws and the SO's regulations do not specify how the situation is to be handled, do they not? I suppose this depends on whether we think that lying constitutes an "irregularity" or not. I certainly think that lying is contrary to the spirit of the game -- if nothing else, it casts an unpleasant mood over the game and sets a precedent for worse offences to follow. My inclination would be to permit a pair to politely decline to comment on their teammates system, or to offer information honestly for their opponents to use their own risk, but to disallow deliberately misleading answers and to not offer redress if a good-faith answer led to a bad decision by the opponents. One more minor wrinkle in the team-game situation comes to mind. At the start of each match, one team or the other has seating rights. Can the team with seating rights inspect the opposing team's CCs before deciding which seats to take? I am inclined to think that the answer is yes... which would mean that at least half the time, information about the other table's system is available for the asking before play whether published system notes are required or not. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 07:40:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:40:22 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA07592 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:40:15 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-174.uunet.be [194.7.13.174]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA25540 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:40:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34DA1023.A8E4752@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 20:16:51 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Point of Law, was: Bizarre ethical question X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <34D98348.F2FC4C7C@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.5.32.19980205115315.0079b590@pop.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > It's clear that Mike and I are going to continue to disagree on this, as I > believe that this is adequately covered in Law 16, particularly 16B. > > However, this creates another question in my mind. Let's say I'm playing > in a game in which an opponent uses the information from the order of cards > in the board to his advantage. Somehow we find this out and summon the > director, who happens to be Mike. As Mike believes that this info is not > UI, he would have to rule that the result stands. I would appeal this, and > we eventually find ourselves in front of a committee. Mike, as director, > makes the assertion that the info from the order of the cards in the board > is AI. Would this be considered a point of law, under Law 93, in which > case the committee would have no authority to overturn the ruling (as long > as the facts of the incident were agreed on)? Or would a committee have > the authority to hear both of our interpretations of Law 16 and make it's > own determination as to which is correct? > > Hirsch Great problem. I would say that the AC should decide that : a- it is a matter of Law b- they think the Law is like you (and I) say c- advise Mike to change his ruling I would guess that then : d- Mike would not change his ruling (he seems rather stubborn) e- You do not get the correct (IMO) result And I would agree with that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 07:40:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:40:24 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA07593 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:40:18 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-174.uunet.be [194.7.13.174]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA25544 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 21:40:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34DA1213.F023A1D9@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 20:25:07 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Obliged to listen to UI, am I ? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday this occured to me : Whenever a particular bidding sequence is not clear in my head, or in other instances where I suspect I might be about to receive UI from partner, I close my eyes, look away or something. I have been heard to ask after the bidding, "did my partner alert that bid ?" because I don't know if he did. This way, I think, I avoid getting UI. However, it might prove impossible to convince a director of that. Besides, L16A starts "if a player _makes available_ to his partner. There is no word of the UI actually reaching partner! Consequently, although not in possesion of UI, I may well take an action that might be suggested by the UI. If I do, I will be subject to a AS which is the worst of all ... OTOH, if I do take in the UI, I know which action will be judged "suggested over LA", and I will take another one. In which case we will score better than "the worst of all" (maybe not as good as what we can get without UI, but it cannot be worse than the AS). This suggests to me that it is unwise for me not to look at partner's alerts. Strange ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 07:45:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:45:00 +1100 Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA07624 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:44:56 +1100 Received: from acrobat (acrobat.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.55]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA03219 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:44:55 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980206074426.00913100@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:44:26 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Email replies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman suggested, nay urged: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> There have been two threads, perhaps three, recently where I have >> received replies by email. > >I was guilty of one of these and it is solely because I forgot to change >the "to". > >I urge the administrator once again to put bridge-laws in the reply-to >address, so that this will be automatic. I don't have much of a problem with this - at this stage I am not aware of a single bounce making it onto the mailing list in the almost two years of BLML. Back to the sender, yes, Back to me, YES!, but not to the list. I will offer this ("Reply-To: BLML") to BLML members now - if you are seriously concerned speak up (Steve ?), or if you prefer the current approach to avoid more personal/tactless messages appearing on BLML by accident (I think a david raised that once) then speak up. Subject to votes I will modify the list config next week. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 07:50:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:50:53 +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 HAA07652 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:50:48 +1100 Received: from mike (ip163.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.163]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA21277 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:50:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980205155058.006b2d70@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:50:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Point of Law, was: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980205115315.0079b590@pop.erols.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980205092222.00687aa8@pop.mindspring.com> <34D98348.F2FC4C7C@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:53 AM 2/5/98 -0500, Hirsch wrote: >It's clear that Mike and I are going to continue to disagree on this, as I >believe that this is adequately covered in Law 16, particularly 16B. > >However, this creates another question in my mind. Let's say I'm playing >in a game in which an opponent uses the information from the order of cards >in the board to his advantage. Somehow we find this out and summon the >director, who happens to be Mike. As Mike believes that this info is not >UI, he would have to rule that the result stands. I would appeal this, and >we eventually find ourselves in front of a committee. Mike, as director, >makes the assertion that the info from the order of the cards in the board >is AI. Would this be considered a point of law, under Law 93, in which >case the committee would have no authority to overturn the ruling (as long >as the facts of the incident were agreed on)? Or would a committee have >the authority to hear both of our interpretations of Law 16 and make it's >own determination as to which is correct? > >Hirsch > I think the issue of whether sort-order is UI is a point of law, and thus not subject to AC adjudication. But your scenario raises a slightly different issue in my mind, so consider this variation on your theme: Let's say you're defending a 7H contract holding the stiff K of trumps behind the declarer. At trick 2, having won your lead in dummy, declarer leads a trump and pauses for thought when partner follows low, eventually playing the A. After drawing 2 more rounds of trumps (!), declarer claims. With time on your hand at the end of the round, you casually ask why declarer played for the stiff K missing four trumps. "Well you know, I read my horoscope this morning and it said, 'Unlikely strategy yields big dividends.' I was about to finesse, of course, when suddenly I flashed big-time on that prediction, and decided this was the hand. Amazing, huh?" Naturally you summon the director, since according to L16, astrological predictions are not an authorized source of information upon which a bid or play may be based. Do you have a good case here? With apologies to any astrological true believers on the list, I think not. Declarer was simply very lucky, IMO. Horoscopes are neither AI nor UI, because they are not actually any type of I at all. It is not illegal to rely on them in making bridge decisions, merely foolish. And the same can be said of drawing inferences from the sort order of the cards in the board. Players who are inclined to rely on either type of "information" are welcome at my table any time. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 07:59:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:59:56 +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 HAA07695 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:59:48 +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 MAA14537 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:59:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA11644; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:02:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:02:07 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199802052102.NAA11644@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Point of Law, was: Bizarre ethical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > It's clear that Mike and I are going to continue to disagree on this, as I > believe that this is adequately covered in Law 16, particularly 16B. > > However, this creates another question in my mind. Let's say I'm playing > in a game in which an opponent uses the information from the order of cards > in the board to his advantage. Somehow we find this out and summon the > director, who happens to be Mike. As Mike believes that this info is not > UI, he would have to rule that the result stands. I would appeal this, and > we eventually find ourselves in front of a committee. Mike, as director, > makes the assertion that the info from the order of the cards in the board > is AI. Would this be considered a point of law, under Law 93, in which > case the committee would have no authority to overturn the ruling (as long > as the facts of the incident were agreed on)? Or would a committee have > the authority to hear both of our interpretations of Law 16 and make it's > own determination as to which is correct? > > Hirsch If Mike happens to be the Chief Director, the AC is allowed to overturn his ruling, because it's reasonable to claim that the first appeal was already to the DIC and was rejected, and this is an appeal of that rejected appeal. Otherwise, I'd suspend the committee hearing, have the DIC hear the appeal, then allow the AC to overturn the DIC's ruling if they were so inclined. They'd hear the DIC's explanation first, of course. --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 Feb 6 07:59:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:59:52 +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 HAA07691 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:59:35 +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 MAA14529 for <@eis-msg-005.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:59:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id MAA11623; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:57:45 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:57:45 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199802052057.MAA11623@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Obliged to listen to UI, am I ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday this occured to Herman: |Whenever a particular bidding sequence is not clear in my head, or in |other instances where I suspect I might be about to receive UI from |partner, I close my eyes, look away or something. |I have been heard to ask after the bidding, "did my partner alert that |bid ?" because I don't know if he did. | |This way, I think, I avoid getting UI. | |However, it might prove impossible to convince a director of that. I could have been able to convince directors of that once. When I was in Israel, my partner explained her bids in Hebrew. After the auction, I always had to ask her, "what did you say my bids meant?" in order to determine if a misexplanation had occurred. Why? Because I don't speak Hebrew! |Besides, L16A starts "if a player _makes available_ to his partner. |There is no word of the UI actually reaching partner! I think your case is not good enough; you can't refuse UI. But if you can't understand it, you're OK, because it's not available to you! |This suggests to me that it is unwise for me not to look at partner's |alerts. I think you are right, but if you were blind, say, and partner didn't say, "alert," but just indicated it visually, then you'd be OK. You'd have to ensure at the end of each auction that all bids were alerted properly or be in danger of misinforming the opponents. --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 Feb 6 08:55:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:55:47 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07845 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:55:41 +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 QAA05346 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:55:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10148; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:55:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:55:06 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802052155.QAA10148@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Email replies X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Markus Buchhorn > I will offer this ("Reply-To: BLML") to BLML members now - if you are > seriously concerned speak up (Steve ?), or if you prefer the current > approach I am somewhat concerned and would prefer no change, but I'll go along if outvoted. I have had problems on at least two other mailing lists, where in one case several hundred and in another about one hundred auto-generated messages came to all list recipients. I have heard of cases involving several thousand messages to each recipient. These can be generated by something as seemingly innocent as the "vacation" function of one reader. When replying, I find it no trouble to hit "Reply to All" and delete unwanted addresses. Could the software turn off the list after sending out, say, 100 messages in one day? I can tolerate that many with no problem (annoyance, yes, but nothing worse), but several thousand would be a major disaster for me. I depend on email for work and cannot afford to have a full mailbox. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 09:29:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:29:36 +1100 Received: from chairfacechippendale.math.lsa.umich.edu ([141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07987 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:29:31 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by chairfacechippendale.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22131 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:17:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:28:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802052228.RAA15380@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19980206074426.00913100@acsys.anu.edu.au> (message from Markus Buchhorn on Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:44:26 +1100) Subject: Re: Email replies Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus writes: > I will offer this ("Reply-To: BLML") to BLML members now - if you are > seriously concerned speak up (Steve ?), or if you prefer the current > approach to avoid more personal/tactless messages appearing on BLML by > accident (I think a david raised that once) then speak up. Subject to votes > I will modify the list config next week. I was the David. (Tactless wasn't my consideration, but I often give personal replies to questions asked on BLML which don't seem to be of general interest.) There's another reason for default reply to sender specific to BLML. You may want to post a ruling problem with the suggestion, "Reply to me, and I'll summarize" so that you can get as many independent comments as possible. -- 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 Feb 6 09:29:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:29:30 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07981 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:29:23 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA09948; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:28:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from 47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.47) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009917; Thu Feb 5 16:28:15 1998 Received: by 47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD325B.681289A0@47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:28:00 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD325B.681289A0@47.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Markus Buchhorn'" Subject: RE: Email replies Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:27:58 -0500 Encoding: 73 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For the benefit of those of us who are far less sophisticated than you in these matters, and would like to vote intelligently, could you explain what the change would involve? I never heard of "changing the to" until this thread and another similar one in the past few days. My apologies if I have been doing this wrong. When I post, I would like to have the reply go only to the newsgroup and not inadvertently duplicate as email to the prior poster. I use Microsoft Exchange and the Reply to All option, and am unsure whether just using File/Send (alternate f n) is sufficient to accomplish this. Should I be deleting the name of the individual and only leaving the "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" portion? If you make the change will sending a reply without making any changes on this "To" line work better? What is this bouncing, and is there something we should do to prevent it now...or if the change is made? If a change is made will it still be possible to reply privately to a poster in those rare instances that that may be more appropriate? With over 200 of us on the list, I suspect there may be others still learning the niceties of posting. Forgive my ignorance, but asking questions is often the best way to overcome it, and I have not seen refernce to any FAQ list that would address this. I for one appreicate the considerable efforts you (Markus) put forth to make this list possible, so will add a thank you while I have your attention. :-) Best regards, -- Craig Senior Life is wonderful...cat food is on sale this week. :-) ---------- From: Markus Buchhorn[SMTP:markus@acsys.anu.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 1998 3:44 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Email replies Herman suggested, nay urged: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> There have been two threads, perhaps three, recently where I have >> received replies by email. > >I was guilty of one of these and it is solely because I forgot to change >the "to". > >I urge the administrator once again to put bridge-laws in the reply-to >address, so that this will be automatic. I don't have much of a problem with this - at this stage I am not aware of a single bounce making it onto the mailing list in the almost two years of BLML. Back to the sender, yes, Back to me, YES!, but not to the list. I will offer this ("Reply-To: BLML") to BLML members now - if you are seriously concerned speak up (Steve ?), or if you prefer the current approach to avoid more personal/tactless messages appearing on BLML by accident (I think a david raised that once) then speak up. Subject to votes I will modify the list config next week. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 10:20:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:20:26 +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 KAA08114 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:20:11 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1006332; 5 Feb 98 23:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 23:11:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Point of Law, was: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980205115315.0079b590@pop.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >At 09:22 AM 2/5/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 10:15 AM 2/5/98 +0100, you wrote: >>>I am completely in agreement with David Burn on this issue and so I'll >>>propose an answer to the following : >>>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>> 1.Nothing in the Laws prevents a player from noticing the order of the >>>> cards when he takes the hand from the board, nor from acting upon that >>>> observation, though he does so at his own risk. >>The fact is that the Laws are mute on the subject at hand, which is >>probably OK, precisely because the information is of such dubious utility. >>You may legitimately choose to ignore it yourself (this is not likely to >>hurt your game), or condemn as unethical scoundrels those who try to >>exploit it. But to argue that anything in L16 (or any other law, as far as >>I can tell) forbids this essentially meaningless activity is simply specious. >It's clear that Mike and I are going to continue to disagree on this, as I >believe that this is adequately covered in Law 16, particularly 16B. Some of the discussion has been about the legality of looking at the cards intentionally for the purpose of determining the order the cards were played in the other room. In view of th fact that L16B starts "When a player accidentally receives unauthorised information ..." [note the word accidentally] this can hardly apply. In the case in point, however, the player who held the cards just turned them over and there were H AKQx neatly in order at one end! So in his case it was accidental. >However, this creates another question in my mind. Let's say I'm playing >in a game in which an opponent uses the information from the order of cards >in the board to his advantage. Somehow we find this out and summon the >director, who happens to be Mike. As Mike believes that this info is not >UI, he would have to rule that the result stands. I would appeal this, and >we eventually find ourselves in front of a committee. Mike, as director, >makes the assertion that the info from the order of the cards in the board >is AI. Would this be considered a point of law, under Law 93, in which >case the committee would have no authority to overturn the ruling (as long >as the facts of the incident were agreed on)? Or would a committee have >the authority to hear both of our interpretations of Law 16 and make it's >own determination as to which is correct? This is a point of Law. An interpretation of the Law is the sort of thing where you want people trained in the Laws [generally TDs] to make decisions, not people whose ability lies in playing Bridge [generally ACs]. Presumably Mike would have consulted before making his decision so it would not be a one-man view. Of course, we want to be practical. If there is an AC available with some idea of the Laws, and perhaps the TD is inexperienced, then he should let it go to appeal. While he is not bound by their answer he will no doubt take it if it is a definite one. But decisions on the meaning of Laws should not be the province of people whose knowledge of the Laws is indifferent. I presume this was the Lawmakers' view when they first made the relevant rule. -- 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 Feb 6 10:50:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:50:32 +1100 Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA08196 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:50:28 +1100 Received: from acrobat (acrobat.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.55]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA04424 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:50:27 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980206104958.00924ae0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:49:58 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: RE: Email replies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First off: PLEASE use bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au and NOT octavia ! octavia will go away soon, and rgb will move (before then :-) ). If you have octavia stored anywhere in your silicon or carbon memories then flush it out ! :-) Craig asked > For the benefit of those of us who are far less sophisticated than you >in these matters, and would like to vote intelligently, could you explain >what the change would involve? Ok - fair enough. I was a bit presumptuous. When you receive an email message it contains headers that identify where/who it came from and what path it took. Normally when you 'reply' to a message your email will read the headers and work out who the message was 'From' and put that name(s) into the 'To' field of your response. There is an optional header called 'Reply-To:' which is used by the sender to identify a location they'd like responses to go to. Not often used in individual-to-individual email messages, but in lists it can be quite useful. My message to the list has a 'From: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au' and could have a 'Reply-To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'. Then when you reply to the message the 'To:' field would contain the list address automagically (or should). At the moment there is no Reply-To: header on BLML postings, so by default responses go back to the individual poster. There are two ways (besides the Reply-To header) to make a response go back to the list: (i) Put bridge-laws@rgb in the To: field yourself, and deleting the address of the original poster or (ii) Use the 'Reply-To-all' function found in most mailers, that will extract all recipients of the original message and put them into the To: field of your new outbound message. That will pick up 'bridge-laws@rgb' from the original headers, as well as the original posters address yet again. Without deleting the original posters address that person will get two copies of your message. >If you make the change will >sending a reply without making any changes on this "To" line work better? It will certainly be much easier, since only the bridge-laws@rgb address will then appear if you select the 'reply' function, and the same if you 'Reply-To-All', as long as the message you're responding to was only to the list (otherwise you pick up all the recipients on *that* message). (Although I think the sender's address also appears). >What is this bouncing, Ok - imagine a very simple world. You're on a list. You receive messages just fine. Suddenly your service providers email breaks. What happens to the messages sent to you ? In our simple world they get returned (bounced) to the sender. How is that address chosen ? By the Reply rules outlined above - If a reply-to doesn't exist it goes back to the sender, but if the reply-to is there it can go back to *that* address. What if that address is the list ? The bounced message goes to the list. But you're a member of that list.... and so your bounce will itself get bounced again, and then that bounce bounces, and so on. Thus the hundreds/thousands alluded to by Steve. > and is there something we should do to prevent it >now...or if the change is made? There are *many* ways of preventing it. Most of the mailer daemons out there are configured to write email headers in such a fashion that bounces get treated differently to normal mail. Proper email should have an 'Errors-To' header and that should be honoured by mailer daemons. The list software itself (majordomo in our case) has a cuppla dozen rules to filter out bounces/errors to prevent them reaching the list. So for the most part we should be safe. BUT - it only takes one bad apple to start an avalanche, which I can't help, and it only takes one loophole in majordomo to let that avalanche onto the list. Now, majordomo has been banged upon by *millions* of bounces over many years, and is pretty rock-solid. So I have a reasonably high confidence it will be safe. One thing we *can* do though is make more people list admins. These people are able to modify the configuration of the list (via email) and so if an avalanche did start the first person to spot it would send off a reconfig to the list majordomo and the avalanche should then die down quickly. Given we cover almost all timezones on the planet this should be quick enough. >If a change is made will it still be >possible to reply privately to a poster in those rare instances that that >may be more appropriate? Absolutely - but it means (usually) manually entering their address. Or doing a reply-to-all in some mailers, and then deleting the bridge-laws address.... > With over 200 of us on the list, I suspect there may be others still >learning the niceties of posting. Forgive my ignorance, but asking >questions is often the best way to overcome it, and I have not seen >refernce to any FAQ list that would address this. The sendmail, majordomo and listserv FAQs are NOT for the faint of heart :-) I'm relatively brave on Internet technologies but these things can still scare me.... > I for one appreicate the considerable efforts you (Markus) put forth >to make this list possible, so will add a thank you while I have your >attention. :-) Thank *you* ! >Best regards, >-- >Craig Senior > >Life is wonderful...cat food is on sale this week. :-) Ah - spot the starving student..... ;^> Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 11:36:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:36:03 +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 LAA08362 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:35:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006369; 6 Feb 98 0:16 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:13:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Email replies In-Reply-To: <199802052228.RAA15380@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >Markus writes: > >> I will offer this ("Reply-To: BLML") to BLML members now - if you are >> seriously concerned speak up (Steve ?), or if you prefer the current >> approach to avoid more personal/tactless messages appearing on BLML by >> accident (I think a david raised that once) then speak up. Subject to votes >> I will modify the list config next week. > >I was the David. (Tactless wasn't my consideration, but I often give >personal replies to questions asked on BLML which don't seem to be of >general interest.) I was the David. ????????????????? Well, I commented on personal tactless messages !!!! :))) I would **much** prefer the status quo, but that seems to be [judging from other comments] because I have better software. My software treats BLML as a newsgroup, threading the replies. When I reply to a message it always gives me a choice between sending to "the List" or to the individual concerned, with the former being the default. I presume this will be messed up by making the Reply-To: the list [though I do not *know* this]. -- 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 Feb 6 11:36:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:36:45 +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 LAA08369 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:36:24 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1015711; 6 Feb 98 0:16 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:03:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Point of Law, was: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <199802052102.NAA11644@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >If Mike happens to be the Chief Director, the AC is >allowed to overturn his ruling, because it's reasonable >to claim that the first appeal was already to the DIC >and was rejected, and this is an appeal of that rejected >appeal. Otherwise, I'd suspend the committee hearing, >have the DIC hear the appeal, then allow the AC to >overturn the DIC's ruling if they were so inclined. >They'd hear the DIC's explanation first, of course. LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL B. Appeals Committee Available If a committee is available, 3. Adjudication of Appeals In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of Law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling. The AC cannot overturn the DIC on a point of Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 12:07:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:07:54 +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 MAA08456 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:07:48 +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 UAA148610; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:07:35 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA22792; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:04:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199802060104.UAA22792@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:04:57, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, markus@acsys.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Email replies Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I vote for keep it the way it is. That the author's email address is in the reply to field. The other problem is when you mean to write a private message to someone and it becomes public because you didn't realize the reply to field was to the maling list. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 12:08:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:08:44 +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 MAA08470 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:08:38 +1100 Received: from mike (ip148.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.148]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA28469 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:08:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980205200842.006b836c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 20:08:42 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Point of Law, was: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980205115315.0079b590@pop.erols.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980205092222.00687aa8@pop.mindspring.com> <34D98348.F2FC4C7C@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:53 AM 2/5/98 -0500, Hirsch wrote: >It's clear that Mike and I are going to continue to disagree on this, as I >believe that this is adequately covered in Law 16, particularly 16B. > >However, this creates another question in my mind. Let's say I'm playing >in a game in which an opponent uses the information from the order of cards >in the board to his advantage. Somehow we find this out and summon the >director, who happens to be Mike. As Mike believes that this info is not >UI, he would have to rule that the result stands. I would appeal this, and >we eventually find ourselves in front of a committee. Mike, as director, >makes the assertion that the info from the order of the cards in the board >is AI. Would this be considered a point of law, under Law 93, in which >case the committee would have no authority to overturn the ruling (as long >as the facts of the incident were agreed on)? Or would a committee have >the authority to hear both of our interpretations of Law 16 and make it's >own determination as to which is correct? > >Hirsch > I think the issue of whether sort-order is UI is a point of law, and thus not subject to AC adjudication. But your scenario raises a slightly different issue in my mind, so consider this variation on your theme: Let's say you're defending a 7H contract holding the stiff K of trumps behind the declarer. At trick 2, having won your lead in dummy, declarer leads a trump and pauses for thought when partner follows low, eventually playing the A. After drawing 2 more rounds of trumps (!), declarer claims. With time on your hand at the end of the round, you casually ask why declarer played for the stiff K missing four trumps. "Well you know, I read my horoscope this morning and it said, 'Unlikely strategy yields big dividends.' I was about to finesse, of course, when suddenly I flashed big-time on that prediction, and decided this was the hand. Amazing, huh?" Naturally you summon the director, since according to L16, astrological predictions are not an authorized source of information upon which a bid or play may be based. Do you have a good case here? With apologies to any astrological true believers on the list, I think not. Declarer was simply very lucky, IMO. Horoscopes are neither AI nor UI, because they are not actually any type of I at all. It is not illegal to rely on them in making bridge decisions, merely foolish. And the same can be said of drawing inferences from the sort order of the cards in the board. Players who are inclined to rely on either type of "information" are welcome at my table any time. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 13:11:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:11:26 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA08605 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:11:20 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015811; 6 Feb 98 2:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 02:06:47 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Email replies In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Grabiner wrote: >>Markus writes: > > I would **much** prefer the status quo, but that seems to be [judging >from other comments] because I have better software. My software treats >BLML as a newsgroup, threading the replies. When I reply to a message >it always gives me a choice between sending to "the List" or to the >individual concerned, with the former being the default. I presume this >will be messed up by making the Reply-To: the list [though I do not >*know* this]. > I vote to leave it as it is but I too have good software (same as davids) -- 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 Feb 6 18:02:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:02:00 +1100 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA09164 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:01:54 +1100 Received: from hdavis (207-172-44-174.s174.tnt3.brd.erols.com [207.172.44.174]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA10183 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 02:07:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980206020151.007d8100@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 02:01:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980205200842.006b836c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19980205115315.0079b590@pop.erols.com> <3.0.1.32.19980205092222.00687aa8@pop.mindspring.com> <34D98348.F2FC4C7C@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.19980204080956.006a6d54@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:08 PM 2/5/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: [snip] > >Let's say you're defending a 7H contract holding the stiff K of trumps >behind the declarer. At trick 2, having won your lead in dummy, declarer >leads a trump and pauses for thought when partner follows low, eventually >playing the A. After drawing 2 more rounds of trumps (!), declarer claims. >With time on your hand at the end of the round, you casually ask why >declarer played for the stiff K missing four trumps. > >"Well you know, I read my horoscope this morning and it said, 'Unlikely >strategy yields big dividends.' I was about to finesse, of course, when >suddenly I flashed big-time on that prediction, and decided this was the >hand. Amazing, huh?" > >Naturally you summon the director, since according to L16, astrological >predictions are not an authorized source of information upon which a bid or >play may be based. Do you have a good case here? > Hmmm...I think part of the problem is that we are dealing with different definitions of information. The following is IMO and all that...Law 16 refers to information about the hand you are playing, or are about to play. Extraneous info, other than legal bids or calls, may be UI, if it tells you something about the hand. This could be a remark overheard in the men's room, cards dropped at the next table that you see, or the order of cards in the board. If it conveys information about the hand, it is UI. (BTW, your earlier example of the cards in your hand being UI is covered in Law 7, which requires you to inspect the face of your cards. Info which is mandated by Law is clearly not extraneous, or unauthorized (I'm not going into exceptions, such as UI from alerts etc here...) Other sources of information that do not provide information about the hand you are playing are not inherently unauthorized. However, info may become UI if obtained improperly. Law 16 focusses on the nature of the information, while Law 73 focusses on the nature of the communication (BTW, that is why I feel that Law 73 is more appropriate for adjudicating a deliberate lie, which is an illegal communication, as opposed to Law 74 which governs attitude and etiquette). Information described by Law 16 is inherently UI or AI, and can be only one or the other. Law 73 focusses on the process of communication, rather than the content, and can bar the use of info that might otherwise be considered AI. Take your example of the horoscope, read in the morning paper. This provides no info about the hand. Not UI under Law 16. Use at your own risk. Now, suppose you are declaring the hand, and partner tells you about the horoscope reading. Whoops! Violation of 73B1. Procedural penalty, and *now* it is UI, and you can receive an adjustment if you act on it. >With apologies to any astrological true believers on the list, I think not. >Declarer was simply very lucky, IMO. Horoscopes are neither AI nor UI, >because they are not actually any type of I at all. It is not illegal to >rely on them in making bridge decisions, merely foolish. And the same can >be said of drawing inferences from the sort order of the cards in the >board. Players who are inclined to rely on either type of "information" are >welcome at my table any time. > >Mike Dennis > > The difference between the horoscope and the sort order is that the sort order *may* convey extraneous information about the hand. If it does, it is UI. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 6 19:57:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:57:10 +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 TAA09347 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:56:39 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id AAA13641; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:52:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma013604; Fri, 6 Feb 98 00:51:34 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA16702; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 03:54:42 -0500 Message-Id: <199802060854.DAA16702@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 6 Feb 98 08:47:59 GMT Subject: Re: Obliged to listen to UI, am I ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL >This suggests to me that it is unwise for me not to look at partner's >alerts. I agree with your suggestion. For one thing, if partner has alerted a call which should not have been, or not alerted one which should have been, then if you end up as declarer or dummy you will want to correct that. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 7 00:57:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:57:56 +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 AAA12361 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:57:50 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008756; 6 Feb 98 13:28 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD3300.A5A5E050@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:10:50 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Bizarre ethical question Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:10:46 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 48 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David (Burn) wrote: SNIP > >He, and I, would be staggered at the degree of seriousness that this >"debate" has reached. As I understand it, people are honestly >questioning whether: (a) it is legitimate to attempt to draw >inferences from the order in which you pick up your cards; (b) it is >incumbent upon you to reveal to your opponents what your team-mates' >methods are; (c) whether there is some way in which it is acceptable, >or at any rate "in accordance with the rules", to tell deliberate lies >at the table. > >Now, there have been many comments on BLML about the despicability of >"bridge lawyers", with almost all of which I have agreed. But I have >watched this debate consume more bandwidth than Monica Whatshername >and Saddam combined, and my credulity has been stretched to breaking >point. If it got about that we were seriously considering these >points, then we would rightly be a laughing stock from the Four-Mile >Radius roughly to the plains of Hindustan. The answers to the above >are: (a) no; (b) yes; (c) no. That is all I know on earth, and all I >need to know. > >Whilst I have the greatest respect for David's opinions, my answers differ >somewhat from his, ie. >(a) maybe, (b) no & (c) no. > >IMO the answer to (a) very much depends on whether you are playing pairs or >teams. In teams, if my opponents at the other table are careless/foolish >enough to fail to shuffle their cards after they have played them then I see >no reason why I should not take full advantage of the information available >from the cards *in my hand* and this includes their order but I do so at my >own risk. However, even in teams, it is unauthorised information for me that >my partner did not need to sort *his hand*. At pairs, the players who passed >on the sorted hands are not my opponents and the information conveyed by >their negligence damages another completely innocent pair. IMO, this is >therefore unauthorised. > >As far as (b) is concerned, I see no reason why any pair should be expected >to know what system their team-mates are playing and questions on this topic >therefore need not be answered though one should be polite in declining to >answer. However, if one choses to answer such questions then the answers >must be truthful but the opponents use them at their own risk. > >I have already answered (c) once and am in complete agreement with DWS and >David Burn. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 7 03:18:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 03:18:17 +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 DAA12925 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 03:18:08 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1014883; 6 Feb 98 16:13 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:01:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > While the hand may be interesting it does tend to obscure the main >points IMO, especially for people who would make the same call with or >without additional AI [if it is AI!]. This has happened with a couple >of threads recently, so i hope you will forgive me if I ask what I >believe to be the underling questions. I have read the replies with interest. I have some views, given below. Strangely enough, my normal advice of RTFLB seems unhelpful, so these answers are what I consider the approach of players, TDs and ACs ought to be, as a matter of interpretation. >[1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? UI. There are problems proving this because as has been mentioned many times on BLML there seems to be no complete list of either AI or UI in the Laws. Someone suggested that this means you call the TD after looking at your cards. Technically true, but in the same way that whether it is UI is undefined I consider your action should not be defined by L16B which commonsense suggests does not refer to this type of case. When you pick up your cards and notice something it is very unlikely to be of value. To stop you calling the TD every time the order might be helpful I suggest that we accept that not using the UI is adequate without calling the TD. I would imagine that this is what is actually happening for the noticing sort of player. Players who shuffle before looking at their hand make the ethical position easier for themselves. >[1a] If the answer to [1] is AI then is it ethical to fake the order of >cards before passing them on? I suppose the question is moot because I believe the answer to [1] to be UI. However, I do not believe that it is an ethical way to attempt to win at bridge by the way you leave your hand before passing it on. In England many of us sort our hand before passing it on as a courtesy. That is excellent, except that one or two people have been known to put the ace of hearts at the top of the diamonds. With or without a Law to back it up, I believe this is not part of the method players should use to win at the game of bridge. One other advantage in sorting your hand is that many players don't *except* when there was something interesting for the post-mortem. If hands are always sorted this problem disappears. >[1b] Is there any difference in the two answers dependent on whether it >is Pairs or KO teams? None whatever. You have no more right to mis-sort deliberately or to use the actual order whether the player being passed to is a direct or indirect opponent. >[2] Is it permissible to ask your opponents what system their team- >mates are playing? There is nothing wrong in asking between hands. During a hand it seems a very undesirable practice because of UI problems, except for declarer. >[2a] If the answer to [2] is yes are they required to give you an >answer? I do not believe they are in an ordinary match. How you tell the other side about your methods is laid down in the Laws, partly leaving it to the SO. If the SO requires systems in advance then I think everyone in the team has a right to such knowledge, but otherwise I think a refusal to answer is permitted unless the SO says otherwise. Personally, I would tell them if I knew, but usually I don't. Someone suggested that I should know because bridge is still a social game. I prefer not to know because it is a social game! I neither want to know how they reached a clever 7H nor how they went off in 2D next time 7H was cold! When I score up my interest is in the poor boards on my score-card: I don't worry about what team-mates have done: that is their affair. >[2b] If the answer to [2a] is yes are they required to give you an >honest answer? Any form of lying when telling the opponents something is a breach of the proprieties and I shall issue a DP automatically, a warning on the first occasion, of course. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 7 03:42:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 03:42:52 +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 DAA13017 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 03:42:46 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1014882; 6 Feb 98 16:13 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:32:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Obliged to listen to UI, am I ? In-Reply-To: <34DA1213.F023A1D9@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >This suggests to me that it is unwise for me not to look at partner's >alerts. > >Strange ! Not at all. The Law requires certain things if UI is available: it therefore is helpful if you know whether UI is available. -- 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 Feb 7 05:50:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 05:50:18 +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 FAA13967 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 05:50:11 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA14332 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:48:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199802061848.MAA14332@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:48:17 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > > >[1] Is the order of the cards when taken out of the board AI or UI? > > UI. There are problems proving this because as has been mentioned > many times on BLML there seems to be no complete list of either AI or UI > in the Laws. > > Someone suggested that this means you call the TD after looking at > your cards. Technically true, but in the same way that whether it is UI > is undefined I consider your action should not be defined by L16B which > commonsense suggests does not refer to this type of case. When you pick > up your cards and notice something it is very unlikely to be of value. > To stop you calling the TD every time the order might be helpful I > suggest that we accept that not using the UI is adequate without calling > the TD. I would imagine that this is what is actually happening for the > noticing sort of player. > > Players who shuffle before looking at their hand make the ethical > position easier for themselves. Points of Clarification: a) Are you saying, then, that for ethical purposes we should treat card-order as UI _as if_ L16_A_ applied? {I.e., we should not choose from among logical alternative actions....} b) Suppose that, in a hand similar to the original one that started this thread, a player chooses to double or chooses a line of play and admits he did so because his card-order suggested it might succeed. Can I, as an opponent, expect redress? {Obviously, without a public admission it would be very difficult for me to know what order his cards were in when he picked them up, so I don't expect a rash of appeals on the basis of this. :)} [I am not saying that I would actually _seek_ redress, because I wouldn't unless "don't use card-order information" warnings became prevalent. But this _is_, after all, a legal forum.] > Any form of lying when telling the opponents something is a breach of > the proprieties and I shall issue a DP automatically, a warning on the > first occasion, of course. Here we definately agree. > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 7 05:53:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 05:53:14 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13985 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 05:53:08 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026985; 6 Feb 98 18:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:18:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >At pairs, the players who passed >>on the sorted hands are not my opponents and the information conveyed by >>their negligence damages another completely innocent pair. Negligence? Since when has it been negligence to pass unsorted hands? -- 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 Feb 7 23:10:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:10:30 +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 XAA16335 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:10:23 +1100 Received: from default (cph38.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.38]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA13806 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:10:14 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802071210.NAA13806@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:10:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn published the following for us all to see: > What follows is strictly off the record. > > At the latest European Championships in Montecatini, the British > captain gave the following advice to his players in the second half of > a match: > > "If you pick up your hand, and it's sorted, sort it again in a > different order." > > So far is this off the record that I will leave you to draw your own > conclusions. But - there ought to be a Law. I suppose that the > simplest would be to require players to sort (or shuffle) before > putting their cards back in the board. But, as I tried to imply in my > previous post, if the game has reached the point where this kind of > question is being considered with an atom of seriousness, then it's > simply not worth playing. I think that this directive reflects the paranoia that team captains can be subject to, not the overall state of the game. I guess my view is that it is bad captaincy to distract one's players with directives like this, but who am I to pass judgement on what constitutes good captaincy? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 7 23:31:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:31:40 +1100 Received: from relay2.bt.net (picnic.ukcore.bt.net [194.72.6.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA16404 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:31:34 +1100 Received: from (snow.btinternet.com) [194.73.73.90] by relay2.bt.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0y19Qw-0006dz-00; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 12:32:34 +0000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.162] by snow.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0y19Qu-0002k7-00; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 12:32:34 +0000 Message-ID: <001201bd33c4$33171800$a22d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 12:30:32 -0000 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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: [much snipped] >>As far as (b) is concerned, I see no reason why any pair should be expected >>to know what system their team-mates are playing and questions on this topic >>therefore need not be answered... [more snipped] In international tournaments, it is the norm for all systems to be sent to all teams some weeks in advance of the tournament. The point of this, inter alia, is so that each team can familiarise itself with the methods of any pair that it may meet - or that may be playing in the other room. This is, in my view, part of a fair and sensible policy regarding system disclosure. What it implies is that at the highest levels of the game, the people who make the rules have decided that all information regarding opponents' systems should be available to all members of a team at all times. This I believe to be entirely right and proper. When playing in competitions at a lower level, obviously there is no question of advance disclosure of systems. But I consider that the principle remains valid, and that as a player I have a right to know what methods are in use in the other room. Suppose that you were the captain of a team playing a match against my team. You recall dimly that one of my pairs plays strong club, the other a natural system. You perceive a tactical advantage in having your more aggressive pair against my strong club pair, since their interventions might cause us problems. So you ask me, before the match begins, what system each of my pairs play. Do you seriously believe that I have the right to refuse to tell you? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 8 05:40:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 05:40:49 +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 FAA20034 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 05:40:39 +1100 Received: from cph63.ppp.dknet.dk (cph63.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.63]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA23229 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 19:40:24 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: 53 cards Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 19:40:23 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34dda4a3.10977835@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 NS bid to 6H on the N hand. E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 tricks. EW acquiesces. N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. It is possible that S's belief that he had an extra heart has made it easier for NS to get to the slam - it certainly has not made it more difficult. At the other table in the match NS played 4H with 12 tricks. There is no question of dummy having revoked or of defenders having been misled by the 14-card dummy - the 12 tricks are always there. Your ruling? Would it make any difference to the ruling if N had discovered and called attention to the 14th card before the claim (at the time when opponents followed with a trump more than expected)? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 8 10:56:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 10:56:36 +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 KAA20750 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 10:56:28 +1100 Received: from cph15.ppp.dknet.dk (cph15.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.15]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA00725 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 00:56:20 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Email replies Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:56:18 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34dcef7e.1792427@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3.0.32.19980206104958.00924ae0@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980206104958.00924ae0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:49:58 +1100, Markus Buchhorn wrote: >First off: PLEASE use bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au and NOT octavia ! = octavia >will go away >soon, and rgb will move (before then :-) ). If you have octavia stored >anywhere in your silicon or carbon memories then flush it out ! :-) I believe that many of the "To: ...octavia..." headers that you see (including your own on the message that I'm replying to now) are created automatically by mail software that converts "rgb" to "octavia" when it sees that rgb is an alias of octavia. I posted a message earlier this evening addressed to "rgb", but when I got it back from Australia the "To:" header was changed to "octavia". This also means that replies made by software like mine, which offers an easy way to reply to the address in the "To:" header, will often be addressed to octavia. So I don't think there is much of a problem - when you redefine rgb to be an alias of some other machine, a few replies may fail, but shortly afterwards everything will probably work correctly. I would prefer "Reply-To: BLML", but the current state is not really a problem for me, so you should not let my opinion count too much (I believe that I've sent only one reply to the wrong address - and that was a long time ago). >One thing we *can* do though is make more people list admins. These = people >are able to modify the configuration of the list (via email) and so if = an >avalanche did start the first person to spot it would send off a = reconfig >to the list majordomo and the avalanche should then die down quickly. = Given >we cover almost all timezones on the planet this should be quick enough. That might be a good idea. I would be willing to be one (reading mail typically in the evening in Western Europe). Craig wrote: >> I for one appreicate the considerable efforts you (Markus) put = forth=20 >>to make this list possible, so will add a thank you while I have your=20 >>attention. :-) Me too. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 8 21:36:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:36:15 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA21687 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:36:09 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-203.uunet.be [194.7.13.203]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18080 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:36:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34DD80E7.FB00A30F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 10:54:47 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Email replies X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.32.19980206104958.00924ae0@acsys.anu.edu.au> <34dcef7e.1792427@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > >One thing we *can* do though is make more people list admins. These people > >are able to modify the configuration of the list (via email) and so if an > >avalanche did start the first person to spot it would send off a reconfig > >to the list majordomo and the avalanche should then die down quickly. Given > >we cover almost all timezones on the planet this should be quick enough. > > That might be a good idea. I would be willing to be one (reading > mail typically in the evening in Western Europe). > Count me is, at around noon, CET. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 8 21:47:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA21721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:47:18 +1100 Received: from maxnet.co.il (maxnet.co.il [192.116.217.131]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA21716 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:47:11 +1100 Received: from ts020p8.pop3b.netvision.net.il (ts020p8.pop3b.netvision.net.il [199.203.201.118]) by maxnet.co.il (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa012485 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 12:53:33 +0300 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980208104059.006d8238@maxnet.co.il> X-Sender: arnon_l@maxnet.co.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 12:40:59 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: louis arnon Subject: law 72b1 and law 23 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If we read law 23 we see that the director can give an adjusted score if the offender at the time of his irregularity could have known that there would be damage to the non offending side. In law 72b1 is written nearly the same but adjusted the phrase that the offending side gained advantage through the irregularity. What does this mean? I shall give an example partner opens 1nt pass 1d The unsufficient bid is not accepted and a correction is made to 6d. According law 23 the director can give an adjusted score because there was damage. According 72b1 the director must investigate if the offending side gained advantage?(6d made 6nt -1 or 6d played in the other hand then after transfer bid) Louis Arnon rehov Wollman5 Tel Aviv Israel Tel:972-3-6477942 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 9 02:07:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 02:07:33 +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 CAA24583 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 02:07:26 +1100 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Sun, 08 Feb 98 10:07:07 EST Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa16213; 8 Feb 98 10:06 EST Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA21297 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 10:06:50 -0500 (EST) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199802081506.KAA21297@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: 53 cards To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 10:06:50 -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 > NS bid to 6H on the N hand. > > E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 > tricks. EW acquiesces. > > N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that > there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in > the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. > > It is possible that S's belief that he had an extra heart has > made it easier for NS to get to the slam - it certainly has not > made it more difficult. At the other table in the match NS > played 4H with 12 tricks. > > There is no question of dummy having revoked or of defenders > having been misled by the 14-card dummy - the 12 tricks are > always there. > > Your ruling? L13 (Incorrect number of cards): When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (see footnote), if a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score, and may penalize an offender. NS A-, EW A+, and a warning to South to count cards. L13C doesn't apply since no hand has 12 cards. > Would it make any difference to the ruling if N had discovered > and called attention to the 14th card before the claim (at the > time when opponents followed with a trump more than expected)? No. In this setup, once S makes a call with 14 cards, it's over. As stated above, had some hand had 12 cards, then the matter is different (adjust if during auction or play, cancel if after play). 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 Mon Feb 9 03:35:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 03:35:38 +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 DAA24769 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 03:35:31 +1100 Received: from cph13.ppp.dknet.dk (cph13.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.13]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29134 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:35:23 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 53 cards Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 17:35:22 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34e1db8d.11906240@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199802081506.KAA21297@t5.mscf.uky.edu> In-Reply-To: <199802081506.KAA21297@t5.mscf.uky.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 10:06:50 -0500 (EST), John A Kuchenbrod wrote: >L13 (Incorrect number of cards): > =20 > When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board > contained an incorrect number of cards (see footnote), if a player > with an incorrect hand has made a call, the Director shall award an > artificial adjusted score, and may penalize an offender. > =20 >NS A-, EW A+, and a warning to South to count cards. L13C doesn't apply= =20 >since no hand has 12 cards. Is the footnote irrelevant? It says "Where three hands are correct and one hand is deficient, Law 14, and not this law, applies.". Does "deficient" here mean "having less than 13 cards" or does it mean "incorrect"? My ruling was given under the Danish 1987 version of the laws, in which "deficient" has been translated as if it means "incorrect". I now realize that this may be an error in the translation (I don't remember our changing this for the 1997 version, but that version does use the word "ufuldst=E6ndig", whose meaning is close to "incomplete"). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 9 09:08:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:08:15 +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 JAA25322 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:08:07 +1100 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Sun, 08 Feb 98 17:07:42 EST Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa21086; 8 Feb 98 17:08 EST Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA24354 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:08:14 -0500 (EST) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199802082208.RAA24354@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: 53 cards To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:08:13 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <34e1db8d.11906240@pipmail.dknet.dk> from "Jesper Dybdal" at Feb 8, 98 05:35:22 pm 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 > On Sun, 8 Feb 1998 10:06:50 -0500 (EST), John A Kuchenbrod > wrote: > > >L13 (Incorrect number of cards): > > > > When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board > > contained an incorrect number of cards (see footnote), if a player > > with an incorrect hand has made a call, the Director shall award an > > artificial adjusted score, and may penalize an offender. > > > >NS A-, EW A+, and a warning to South to count cards. L13C doesn't apply > >since no hand has 12 cards. > > Is the footnote irrelevant? It says "Where three hands are > correct and one hand is deficient, Law 14, and not this law, > applies.". > > Does "deficient" here mean "having less than 13 cards" or does it > mean "incorrect"? > > My ruling was given under the Danish 1987 version of the laws, in > which "deficient" has been translated as if it means "incorrect". > I now realize that this may be an error in the translation (I > don't remember our changing this for the 1997 version, but that > version does use the word "ufuldst=E6ndig", whose meaning is close > to "incomplete"). First, I'm ruling out of the ACBL '87 edition found on the web page, so there may be a translation issue here. Upon reading law 14, only the case of a missing card is dealt with. Unfortunately, "deficient" isn't in the list of definitions, so it's up to us as to decide on its meaning. (next paragraph typed after a few minutes of re-searching on the ACBL page) I can't believe that they don't have the '97 laws ACBL-style up yet! I looked at DS's copy of the European '97 laws, and it seems that if you can rule that 6H can be reached without that extra heart being in South's hand with the auction given, then the result stands. The conditions are that (1) the hand can be reconstructed to four 13-card hands and (2) no change in call would hav been made at the table given the original hands. Since it's obvious that the extra eight of hearts is in the S hand, then as long as the system NS uses would give the same auction, you're fine. I really wish that the ACBL would post the new laws and get info to us directors about purchasing the new law books! Have they even been published yet? 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 Mon Feb 9 19:40:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 19:40:53 +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 TAA26801 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 19:40:33 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id AAA08637; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 00:35:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma008574; Mon, 9 Feb 98 00:35:30 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA12294; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 03:39:00 -0500 Message-Id: <199802090839.DAA12294@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 08:31:58 GMT Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: ... >snipped ... >Suppose that you were the captain of a team playing a match against my >team. You recall dimly that one of my pairs plays strong club, the >other a natural system. You perceive a tactical advantage in having >your more aggressive pair against my strong club pair, since their >interventions might cause us problems. So you ask me, before the match >begins, what system each of my pairs play. Do you seriously believe >that I have the right to refuse to tell you? I think it's a matter of regulation. Unless the regulations require it, I think there is no obligation. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 9 20:14:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:14:34 +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 UAA26865 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:14:29 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id BAA10663; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 01:09:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma010638; Mon, 9 Feb 98 01:09:25 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA17274; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:12:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199802090912.EAA17274@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 09:00:07 GMT Subject: Re: 53 cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >NS bid to 6H on the N hand. > >E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 >tricks. EW acquiesces. > >N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that >there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in >the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. > >It is possible that S's belief that he had an extra heart has >made it easier for NS to get to the slam - it certainly has not >made it more difficult. At the other table in the match NS >played 4H with 12 tricks. > >There is no question of dummy having revoked or of defenders >having been misled by the 14-card dummy - the 12 tricks are >always there. > >Your ruling? I think L1, rather than L13 or L14 is relevant. See 1.1 of the EBL Commentary on the 1987 Laws. In summary the board is cancelled. In a match, depending on the circumstances, a redeal may be appropriate. >Would it make any difference to the ruling if N had discovered >and called attention to the 14th card before the claim (at the >time when opponents followed with a trump more than expected)? Not in my opinion. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 9 21:49:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:49:52 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27047 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:49:46 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-234.uunet.be [194.7.13.234]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10680 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:49:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34DECEC6.BE75EE6D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:39:18 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 53 cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199802090912.EAA17274@fern.us.pw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >NS bid to 6H on the N hand. > > > >E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 > >tricks. EW acquiesces. > > > >N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that > >there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in > >the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. > > > >It is possible that S's belief that he had an extra heart has > >made it easier for NS to get to the slam - it certainly has not > >made it more difficult. At the other table in the match NS > >played 4H with 12 tricks. > > > >There is no question of dummy having revoked or of defenders > >having been misled by the 14-card dummy - the 12 tricks are > >always there. > > > >Your ruling? > > I think L1, rather than L13 or L14 is relevant. See 1.1 of the EBL Commentary > on the 1987 Laws. In summary the board is cancelled. In a match, depending on > the circumstances, a redeal may be appropriate. > > >Would it make any difference to the ruling if N had discovered > >and called attention to the 14th card before the claim (at the > >time when opponents followed with a trump more than expected)? > > Not in my opinion. > > Steve Barnfield > Tunbridge Wells, England L1 : Bridge is played with 52 cards. To all intents and purposes, that extra H8 is not a card at all. South has no redress if he had bid too high with an extra card - he should have counted his cards. There should also be no redress in the other direction now that the contract is made. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 00:50:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA29745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:50:11 +1100 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.cais.net [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA29740 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:50:06 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic219.cais.com [207.226.56.219]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA27036 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:34:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980209085109.0068af28@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:51:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 53 cards In-Reply-To: <34e1db8d.11906240@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199802081506.KAA21297@t5.mscf.uky.edu> <199802081506.KAA21297@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:35 PM 2/8/98 +0100, Jesper wrote: >Does "deficient" here mean "having less than 13 cards" or does it >mean "incorrect"? > >My ruling was given under the Danish 1987 version of the laws, in >which "deficient" has been translated as if it means "incorrect". >I now realize that this may be an error in the translation (I >don't remember our changing this for the 1997 version, but that >version does use the word "ufuldst=E6ndig", whose meaning is close >to "incomplete"). In the ACBL edition of the 1997 FLB, L14 is titled "Missing Card," so it seems clear that the ACBL's interpretation, at least, is that "deficient" means "less than 13 cards". On the original question, I tend to agree with Herman, who wrote: >L1 : Bridge is played with 52 cards. >To all intents and purposes, that extra H8 is not a card at all. >South has no redress if he had bid too high with an extra card - he >should have counted his cards. >There should also be no redress in the other direction now that the >contract is made. 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 Feb 10 02:46:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:46:33 +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 CAA00315 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:46:19 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0EO400MGPBSTLM@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 16:46:05 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA17332; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:46:04 +0100 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:46:03 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: 53 cards In-reply-to: <34dda4a3.10977835@pipmail.dknet.dk>; from "Jesper Dybdal" at Feb 07, 98 7:40 pm To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EO400MGQBSTLM@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > NS bid to 6H on the N hand. > > E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 > tricks. EW acquiesces. > > N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that > there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in > the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. > > It is possible that S's belief that he had an extra heart has > made it easier for NS to get to the slam - it certainly has not > made it more difficult. At the other table in the match NS > played 4H with 12 tricks. > > There is no question of dummy having revoked or of defenders > having been misled by the 14-card dummy - the 12 tricks are > always there. > > Your ruling? > ------------------------------------------------ In my opinion you must use rule 1. Not rule 13 which deals with such distribution like 14,13,13,12. Rule 1 sates that bridge is played with 52 cards etc. So playing with 53 cards is bridge. I should cancel the result and (rule 12, 88) give 60+/40-. ------------------------------------------------- > Would it make any difference to the ruling if N had discovered > and called attention to the 14th card before the claim (at the > time when opponents followed with a trump more than expected)? > --=20 > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > ------------------------------------------ IMO still the same . I think that even if it likes that H8 is not impor- tant yoy must not accept it. It's not bridge. 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 Tue Feb 10 02:55:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:55:55 +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 CAA00329 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:55:49 +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 KAA02208 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:55:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12155; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:55:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:55:31 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802091555.KAA12155@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 53 cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > Does "deficient" here mean "having less than 13 cards" or does it > mean "incorrect"? In the ACBL Laws version, it seems clear to me that 'deficient' means 'fewer than 13 cards'. L13 consistently uses 'incorrect'; L14 consistently uses 'deficient'. L14 has no mention of extra cards. Also, in normal English usage, 'deficient' means lacking some essential part or quality. 'Defective' (or of course 'incorrect') would be a more appropriate word for a wrong number that could be either too many or too few. (Compare L67, Defective Trick.) If this interpretation is wrong, I hope Mr. Endicott will let us know. Perhaps he should put this matter on the list to be clarified in 2007. In the original problem, it seems an ArtAS should be given under L13 unless all four players agree to let the result stand. Presumably the TD would wish to ask before the players know the result at the other table. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 03:20:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:20:56 +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 DAA00489 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:20:46 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA03491 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:20:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12180; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:20:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:20:31 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802091620.LAA12180@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > In international tournaments, it is the norm for all systems to be > sent to all teams some weeks in advance of the tournament. I don't think there is any doubt that system disclosure is within the power of the SO to regulate. (What are the usual rules if a pair wish to make a last-minute minor adjustment? Or a wholesale change?) > So you ask me, before the match > begins, what system each of my pairs play. Do you seriously believe > that I have the right to refuse to tell you? (Presumably in the absence of specific Conditions of Contest, which would solve our problem...) If one team has seating rights, it seems reasonable to require system disclosure in order to exercise those rights. Or if there are more than four players, the choice of who plays may be based on the opponents' systems. However, I merely infer this from what seems reasonable, and I can't point to specific language that requires disclosure. If there are no seating rights (typical for a short Swiss match, for example), it is not at all clear that disclosure should be required. No matter what you think about the above, the question of disclosure by teammates _at the table_ is a different one than advance disclosure before the players are seated. I agree with Hirsch that a misleading answer could be a "remark" redressable under L72F2. My own answer, if asked at the table, would probably be along the lines of "I'm not certain, and I'd hate to mislead you by giving a possibly wrong answer." If opponents persisted, I'd probably suggest that they ask the TD to check teammates' convention card. (Whether the TD should comply, if asked, is an interesting question.) One also might consider non-systemic questions. Are the pair at the other table an experienced partnership or not? Are they likely to be aggressive or conservative? These are probably more useful facts than specific systemic agreements, but there is no obvious mechanism to find out. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 08:00:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:00:57 +1100 Received: from mimas.glo.be (dns.glo.be [206.48.177.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA01603 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:00:12 +1100 Received: from phobos.glo.be (phobos.glo.be [206.48.176.11]) by mimas.glo.be (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA01094; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:59:56 +0100 Received: from norbertf (p2-28.z03.glo.be [206.48.186.60]) by phobos.glo.be (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA03267; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:59:55 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802092059.VAA03267@phobos.glo.be> From: "Norbert Fornoville" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: 53 cards Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:56:21 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: 53 cards > Date: maandag 9 februari 1998 10:39 > > Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > > > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > >NS bid to 6H on the N hand. > > > > > >E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 > > >tricks. EW acquiesces. > > > > > >N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that > > >there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in > > >the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. > > > > > >It is possible that S's belief that he had an extra heart has > > >made it easier for NS to get to the slam - it certainly has not > > >made it more difficult. At the other table in the match NS > > >played 4H with 12 tricks. > > > > > >There is no question of dummy having revoked or of defenders > > >having been misled by the 14-card dummy - the 12 tricks are > > >always there. > > > > > >Your ruling? > > > > I think L1, rather than L13 or L14 is relevant. See 1.1 of the EBL Commentary > > on the 1987 Laws. In summary the board is cancelled. In a match, depending on > > the circumstances, a redeal may be appropriate. > > > > >Would it make any difference to the ruling if N had discovered > > >and called attention to the 14th card before the claim (at the > > >time when opponents followed with a trump more than expected)? > > > > Not in my opinion. > > > > Steve Barnfield > > Tunbridge Wells, England > > L1 : Bridge is played with 52 cards. > To all intents and purposes, that extra H8 is not a card at all. > South has no redress if he had bid too high with an extra card - he > should have counted his cards. > There should also be no redress in the other direction now that the > contract is made. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Well,should I agree with Herman ? Surely you can not cancel the board, what will you do if the board has been played already and the 53th card just slipped in before you played the board ? But it seems to be law 13 versus law 1. Maybe there is a difference if the 53th card is in dummy or not ? I tend to apply law 1 and let the result stand. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 09:13:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:13:35 +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 JAA01792 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:13:30 +1100 Received: from cph52.ppp.dknet.dk (cph52.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.52]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18521 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:13:18 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 53 cards Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:13:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34df771d.480641@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199802090912.EAA17274@fern.us.pw.com> <34DECEC6.BE75EE6D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <34DECEC6.BE75EE6D@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:39:18 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote (and Eric Landau later agreed): >L1 : Bridge is played with 52 cards. >To all intents and purposes, that extra H8 is not a card at all. >South has no redress if he had bid too high with an extra card - he >should have counted his cards. >There should also be no redress in the other direction now that the >contract is made. This was the ruling I gave at the table. When it later turned out that Jens disagreed with me (he would assign an ArtAS, following the initial part of L13), we decided that it would be relevant for BLML. My reasons for that ruling at the time were: (a) The L13 footnote, in the Danish 1987 translation that I now realize is probably wrong, said very clearly that L14, not L13, was to be used. (b) Though L14 is obviously written with only the 13-13-13-12 case in mind, it really says so clearly only in the headline, which is not part of the laws. (c) It seems to me that the 13-13-13-14 case is completely analogous to the 13-13-13-12 case, and that they should logically be treated in the same way. The important property that distinguishes the 13-13-13-12 case from a 13-13-14-12 case is that only one player's hand is affected. This is also the case in the 13-13-13-14 situation, and it seems to me that the reason the lawmakers had for treating 13-13-13-12 differently from 13-13-14-12 probably also holds for the 13-13-13-14 case. However, I am by now almost quite convinced that "deficient" in the footnote means "having less than 13 cards". In the light of that realization, I believe that I will have to admit that L13 does tell me to assign an ArtAS (unless the 14th card made no difference to the bidding and all players accept the result). But I still find Herman's and Eric's and my ruling more logical and consistent with the treatment of the 13-13-13-12 hands, and I think the laws ought to prescribe that ruling. I hope, by the way, that the 2007 laws will have L13C moved somewhere out of the scope of the clause "If no such call has been made, then:" (we've actually taken the liberty.of moving it in the Danish 1997 laws, since we could not imagine a "Play Completed" situation where no player with an incorrect hand has made a call). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 10:04:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:04:27 +1100 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA01887 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:04:21 +1100 Received: from hdavis (207-172-60-225.s225.tnt11.brd.erols.com [207.172.60.225]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA26594 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:11:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980209180423.007dbb70@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:04:23 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: 53 cards In-Reply-To: <199802092059.VAA03267@phobos.glo.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:56 PM 2/9/98 +0100, Norbert Fornoville wrote: > >>(Herman De Wael wrote:) >> >> L1 : Bridge is played with 52 cards. >> To all intents and purposes, that extra H8 is not a card at all. >> South has no redress if he had bid too high with an extra card - he >> should have counted his cards. >> There should also be no redress in the other direction now that the >> contract is made. >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >Well,should I agree with Herman ? >Surely you can not cancel the board, what will you do if the board has been > played already and the 53th card just slipped in before you played the >board ? >But it seems to be law 13 versus law 1. >Maybe there is a difference if the 53th card is in dummy or not ? >I tend to apply law 1 and let the result stand. > > > I'm not sure I understand the logic here. I agree that L13 has disqualified itself by footnote, and that L14 does not apply. We are left with L1. However, L1 tells us that the hand, played with 53 cards, was not bridge. IMO we are left with no choice but to throw out the board, and assess PPs where appropriate. Further, if the hand was originally dealt with 53 cards, so that it was *never* a bridge hand, the result should be thrown out at every table at which it was played with the error undiscovered. (side issue: in this case, likely to occur in a club game, do we redeal and let the rest of the tables play the board, or discard it completely?) The situation seems more complicated where the hand was constructed from hand records, or was dealt correctly in the beginning. In that case, it was originally a bridge hand, and those results stand. The Laws allow us to assess PPs for the errors, but appear to be silent on how to score the hand. My own inclination would be to throw the result out for those tables that played it with the incorrect number of cards, restore the hand, and start looking for another board with only 51 cards. L14B utilizes the principle that a hand with a missing card can still be scored, as the missing card is assumed to have been in the deficient hand all along (so that it was still a hand of 52 cards, even though one was misplaced). Is there a corresponding principle to apply to 53 cards? Perhaps a modification of 13C would help, with the phrase I enclosed in brackets deleted: C. Play Completed When it is determined after play ends that a player's hand originally contained more than 13 cards [with another player holding correspondingly fewer], the result must be cancelled (for procedural penalty, see Law 90). Best wishes, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 12:08:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:08:58 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA02211 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:08:47 +1100 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA04541; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 16:08:04 -0900 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 16:08:03 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 53 cards Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It has been argued that the 13-13-13-12 and 13-13-13-14 cases both involve only one player while the 13-13-14-12 case involves two, hence the argument for treating 51- and 53-card decks similarly. In the case of one missing card, it is in some sense "clear" that the "right" restoration of the deck is to place this card in the short hand and treat it as if it had always been there. In the case of an extra card, the person with 14 is at fault for not counting his cards -- but suppose the duplicated card is in two of the 13-card hands! The 13-13-13-14 case is not nearly so clear-cut as the 13-13-13-12 case. Do we at least agree that if the deck is more seriously messed up -- two cards the same and another card missing, still 52, for instance -- that the hand has to be thrown out? Just by way of comparison: in poker, a hand short one or more cards may play on (at a disadvantage, of course) but a hand with too many cards is forfeited. The rationale is that the person with the extra card has gained too much advantage by seeing it. (This parallels the "did the extra heart make it easier to reach 6H" question.) There are similar rules in other card games, and there seems to be a tendency to treat hands with too few and too many cards differently -- with too many considered a more serious and less easily rectified infraction. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 14:37:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:37:57 +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 OAA02519 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:37:07 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1000218; 10 Feb 98 3:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:03:59 +0000 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <199802090839.DAA12294@fern.us.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199802090839.DAA12294@fern.us.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@eur ope.notes.pw.com writes snip >... >>Suppose that you were the captain of a team playing a match against my >>team. You recall dimly that one of my pairs plays strong club, the >>other a natural system. You perceive a tactical advantage in having >>your more aggressive pair against my strong club pair, since their >>interventions might cause us problems. So you ask me, before the match >>begins, what system each of my pairs play. Do you seriously believe >>that I have the right to refuse to tell you? > >I think it's a matter of regulation. Unless the regulations require it, I >think there is no obligation. > >Steve Barnfield >Tunbridge Wells, England I am dubious. If my oppo can take a view on a hand knowing their team- mates methods that is information to which I am entitled IMO. Hence I should be entitled to that info for *taht* reason. I can be convinced otherwise -- 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 Feb 10 14:41:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:41:50 +1100 Received: from chong.ihug.co.nz (root@chong.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA02534 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:41:44 +1100 Received: from jatkinsn.ihug.co.nz (p43-max2.auck.ihug.co.nz [202.49.255.105]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA12312 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:41:34 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980210163541.0068af20@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: jatkinsn@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:35:41 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "J.Atkinson" Subject: Insufficient Bid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry to start on this one again. Could someone explain to me where I am wrong with the following logic re 27B2after premature correction. All the other sections of this law simply state what happens. e.g 27B1, after premature correction of the bid, the correction stands and the auction continues. Nice and easy presumably. 27B2 refers us to 10C1, to tell us to advise the options after the irregularity. To my mind the irregularity is the insufficient bid and not the premature correction. Surely this reference implies that the premature correction is cancelled and the offender advised of options before selecting their bid,rather than the reverse argument. If the premature correction was considered the irregularity i assume i would be referred to 9C anyway. I thought that the aim of the Laws was not to punish but to allow sensible results to be obtained, where possible, after infractions had occurred. This would support my argument for the above interpretation of 27B2. Julie Atkinson NZCBA From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 21:25:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:25:38 +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 VAA03228 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:25:15 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:23:50 GMT Date: Tue, 10 Feb 98 10:23:49 GMT Message-Id: <14536.9802101023@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz Subject: Re: Insufficient Bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Julie > Sorry to start on this one again. Don't worry, I have a feeling we will be discussing L27B2 and the reference to L10C1 until 2007. > Could someone explain to me where I am wrong with the following logic re > 27B2after premature correction. > All the other sections of this law simply state what happens. e.g 27B1, > after premature correction of the bid, the correction stands and the > auction continues. > Nice and easy presumably. Nice and easy, although L10C1 still applies, because it is always applies. > 27B2 refers us to 10C1, to tell us to advise the options after the > irregularity. Not only does L27B2 refer to L10C1 it tells us to apply it. > To my mind the irregularity is the insufficient bid and not the premature > correction. Surely this reference implies that the premature correction is > cancelled and the offender advised of options before selecting their > bid,rather than the reverse argument. If the premature correction was > considered the irregularity i assume i would be referred to 9C anyway. The concensus in the EBU agrees with you: the instruction to apply L10C1 implies the premature correction is disregarded. The offender who has attempted a correction which is covered by L27B2 is allowed to hear L10C1 before choosing their (final) correction. > I thought that the aim of the Laws was not to punish but to allow sensible > results to be obtained, where possible, after infractions had occurred. > This would support my argument for the above interpretation of 27B2. But this should be a last resort for interpreting ambiguous laws: where the laws are clear but appear to punish (unnecessarily) we must follow them. 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 Feb 10 21:28:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:28:08 +1100 Received: from sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA03243 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:28:00 +1100 Received: from [132.230.63.114] (colorlab.brain.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.63.114]) by sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA26395 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:27:42 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980209180423.007dbb70@pop.erols.com> References: <199802092059.VAA03267@phobos.glo.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:31:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ralf Teichmann Subject: Re: 53 cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (Hirsch Davis wrote:) However, L1 tells us that the hand, played with 53 cards, was not >bridge. IMO we are left with no choice but to throw out the board, and >assess PPs where appropriate. Further, if the hand was originally dealt >with 53 cards, so that it was *never* a bridge hand, the result should be >thrown out at every table at which it was played with the error >undiscovered. If that board actually never was a bridge hand, I wonder wether the laws of bridge can be applied and PPs are legitimate. Best wishes, Ralf ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) :-O O-: (-; (-; (-; (-; (-; (-; (-; Ralf Teichmann Phone: +49 (0)761 / 203-9583 Fax: +49 (0)761 / 203-9500 Inst. of Biophysics and e mail: teichman@sun1.biologie.uni-freiburg.de Radiation Biology - Brain Research Unit- Hansastrasse 9 D-79104 Freiburg, Germany From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 10 22:08:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:08:11 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA03369 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:08:05 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-214.uunet.be [194.7.13.214]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09196 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:07:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E02754.1A8CE95E@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:09:24 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 53 cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.5.32.19980209180423.007dbb70@pop.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis made some interesting new comments: > > I'm not sure I understand the logic here. I agree that L13 has > disqualified itself by footnote, and that L14 does not apply. We are left > with L1. However, L1 tells us that the hand, played with 53 cards, was not > bridge. IMO we are left with no choice but to throw out the board, and > assess PPs where appropriate. Further, if the hand was originally dealt > with 53 cards, so that it was *never* a bridge hand, the result should be > thrown out at every table at which it was played with the error > undiscovered. (side issue: in this case, likely to occur in a club game, do > we redeal and let the rest of the tables play the board, or discard it > completely?) > Indeed, if the hand was dealt with 53 cards, there is no way of knowing which of the two H8 is the wrong one (they could fi both end up in a hand containing only 13 cards, or even in the same hand). That board must be redealt. I do that even in the middle of the tournament. > The situation seems more complicated where the hand was constructed from > hand records, or was dealt correctly in the beginning. In that case, it > was originally a bridge hand, and those results stand. The Laws allow us > to assess PPs for the errors, but appear to be silent on how to score the > hand. My own inclination would be to throw the result out for those tables > that played it with the incorrect number of cards, restore the hand, and > start looking for another board with only 51 cards. > > L14B utilizes the principle that a hand with a missing card can still be > scored, as the missing card is assumed to have been in the deficient hand > all along (so that it was still a hand of 52 cards, even though one was > misplaced). Is there a corresponding principle to apply to 53 cards? > > Perhaps a modification of 13C would help, with the phrase I enclosed in > brackets deleted: > > C. Play Completed > When it is determined after play ends that a player's hand originally > contained more than 13 cards [with another player holding correspondingly > fewer], the result must be cancelled (for procedural penalty, see Law 90). > > Best wishes, > > Hirsch The analogy to a 12-card hand is very good. The hand always contained 13 cards, and you can revoke. With 14 cards, one of which should not even be in the hand, the same principle should apply. If the card is played to a trick, that trick becomes sufficient (and nobody notices ?????). Let's agree that the Laws do not deal quite clearly with this case but that this point of view is the most logical one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 02:35:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:35:52 +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 CAA06307 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:35:45 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA01811 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:33:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199802101533.JAA01811@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 53 cards To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:33:40 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Do we at least agree that if the deck is more seriously messed up -- two > cards the same and another card missing, still 52, for instance -- that > the hand has to be thrown out? I know this does not have the force of law, but FWIW the ACBL apparently interprets L1 in exactly this way. [In their guide for club directors, anyway, "Duplicate Decisions".] They specify that all results of play with an invalid deck are negated, even if the problem is trivial ["two deuces of clubs but no three"]. Interestingly, they begin their gloss of the law by saying that no result acheived with a pack _of 52 cards_ is ever valid--obviously, they hadn't thought of 53. :) > Gordon Bower > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 04:33:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:33:54 +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 EAA06825 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:33:48 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id JAA25768; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma025715; Tue, 10 Feb 98 09:28:53 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02282; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:32:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199802101732.MAA02282@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 10 Feb 98 16:46:45 GMT Subject: Re: 53 cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>NS bid to 6H on the N hand. >> >>E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 >>tricks. EW acquiesces. >> >>N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that >>there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in >>the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. >> >>It is possible that S's belief that he had an extra heart has >>made it easier for NS to get to the slam - it certainly has not >>made it more difficult. At the other table in the match NS >>played 4H with 12 tricks. >> >>There is no question of dummy having revoked or of defenders >>having been misled by the 14-card dummy - the 12 tricks are >>always there. >> >>Your ruling? > >I think L1, rather than L13 or L14 is relevant. See 1.1 of the EBL Commentary >on the 1987 Laws. In summary the board is cancelled. In a match, depending on >the circumstances, a redeal may be appropriate. I didn't read far enough into the EBL Commentary on L1. EBL 1.3(b) says "If an extra card is found in a player's hand during the auction or play it is removed. There is no redress for the offending side (L7B1)." I'd have to think harder about whether 1.3(b) is right or sensible - but that is how I'd rule, certainly in England, and possibly elsewhere too. I don't think the fact that there has been a claim acquiesced to is relevant. >>Would it make any difference to the ruling if N had discovered >>and called attention to the 14th card before the claim (at the >>time when opponents followed with a trump more than expected)? > >Not in my opinion. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 04:36:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:36:33 +1100 Received: from comserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (comserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA06845 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:36:21 +1100 Received: from compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.1]) by comserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA08624 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:36:11 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA16004 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:36:10 +0100 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:36:10 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199802101736.SAA16004@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Minimum RNG seed bit length Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Although I had promised, that my last e-mail would be also be my last word towards the minimum number of bits for a RNG-seed, I must say that my submission towards rec.games-bridge attracted 0(!) answers compared to the almost instant replies :}. This is probably the reason why it was purged already. I asked Thomas Andrews (thomaso@best.com), author of: > http://www.best.com/~thomaso/decode/ > > I call it the "Impossible Bridge Book." It's all there, every possible > deal. I have a startlingly good compression algorithm :-) and he wrote: > Knuth's algorithm is a map: > > K: Seq -> Deal > Seq = { (x(52),x(51),...,x(1)) : with 1<=x(n)<=n } > Deal = { all bridge deals } > > Each deal has (13!)^4 different sequences from Seq mapped to it. > > If you use the Knuth algorithm with a seed of 96 bits, then you cannot > generate all possible sequences in Seq, because there are about 2^226 > different elements in Seq. > > That *might* not be a problem, because each deal is represented by > (13)!^4 different sequences, so as long as the subset of "Seq" you > can generate has a decently even coverage of Deal under the map "K" > you are fairly safe. Verifying that might be tricky, however. I'm > not sure how you would even start on a problem like that. > > Even worse, however is the fact that single deals are not what is > needed - instead, we need 36 independently dealt deals per session, > usually. To actually allow all possible sessions, we'd need 2^(96*36) > digits of seed. > > As for 96-bit precision, I think most serious programming languages > have good arbitrary precision arithmetic packages. Certainly all of > the languages I use - Java, Perl, C, C++ - have public and free packages. > My algorithm minimizes the number of non-trivial operations - except > for two 96 bit integer divisions, all the operations are additions > and subtractions, if I remember correctly. [ That presumes you > pre-compute (N choose K) for N<=52 and K<=13 and store the values > in a static table somewhere. ] Mike Vaughn wrote: > > There is a fundamental misconception here. You do not use a single random > > number to generate a deal, but a sequence of 51 or 52 random numbers. > > If the period of the generator is long enough, you can get all possible deals > > (especially if you use a physically generated truly random seed). > > The fundamental misunderstanding is yours. The point is that, yes, > conventional methods of hand generation generally use the "generate a random > # to pick a card, generate another random number to pick a card, ... repeat > until done" method, but we are saying that that is *NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO > IT*. > > The Right Way To Do It is to pick a single random number from the set (1 .. N) > where N is the number of possible bridge hands (about 2 ^ 93) and then map > that single random number to a specific hand. > > The advantage of this method is that it eliminates any concerns about serial > correlation, etc in the method. Intuitively, it just works. So the "agreed best" method for generating a single bridge hand, is to generate a random number from 1 to 53644737765488792839237440000 and map this, with an algorithm as given by Thomas Andrews or similar, to a specific hand layout. However this requires (at least) a 96bit seed and some 96bit arithmetic. With "shuffling according to Knuth" it looks as if more seed bits are required, even though the noticable difference between using a 96bit seed compared to using a 226bit seed will be "virtually invisible". It might be even possible to merge a "multiple random numbers generation" Knuth-style algorithm with the one from Thomas Andrews, while using only simple single precision integer arithmetic. And we should think not of single random numbers generated by a RNG, but rather as of a stream of random bits. > random() % 52 > random() % 51 > random() % 50 > ... > > The problem is that this makes the random numbers skewed very slightly > towards the lower values, because 2^n is never evenly divisible by 52. > There are "right" ways to fix this, but for large enough n, it really > doesn't have that much of an effect. Modulo operations like above are only 99.99999% solutions, since 2^n will usually not be evenly divisible by 52, 51, ... And if using 96 bits is good for one hand, but how many bits will we need for a complete but also workable set of hands? It would be easy to use e.g. 36 96bit seeds, but for small events this looks like a clear overkill. Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 04:56:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:56:21 +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 EAA07026 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:56:13 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2008297; 10 Feb 98 17:10 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD3646.20608910@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:05:45 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: 53 cards Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:05:44 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 42 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk GR Bower wrote: > >It has been argued that the 13-13-13-12 and 13-13-13-14 cases both involve >only one player while the 13-13-14-12 case involves two, hence the >argument for treating 51- and 53-card decks similarly. In the case of one >missing card, it is in some sense "clear" that the "right" restoration of >the deck is to place this card in the short hand and treat it as if it had >always been there. In the case of an extra card, the person with 14 is at >fault for not counting his cards -- but suppose the duplicated card is in >two of the 13-card hands! The 13-13-13-14 case is not nearly so clear-cut >as the 13-13-13-12 case. ########## The 13-13-13-14 case might be as clear-cut as the 13-13-13-12 case but only if correct curtain cards are available. Then, the hand with 13 cards, one of which is an erroneous intruder to pack, should know that one card that properly belongs to it is missing and one extraneous card is present. This is then exactly the 13-13-14-12 case! Only if no curtain cards are available to the players is it impossible for them to spot and resolve such errors and then the board may have to be voided. ######### > >Do we at least agree that if the deck is more seriously messed up -- two >cards the same and another card missing, still 52, for instance -- that >the hand has to be thrown out? > ######### NO! Not if curtain cards are available and the error can be corrected (perhaps by substitution of a new pack), otherwise yes. >######### > >Just by way of comparison: in poker, a hand short one or more cards may >play on (at a disadvantage, of course) but a hand with too many cards is >forfeited. The rationale is that the person with the extra card has gained >too much advantage by seeing it. (This parallels the "did the extra heart >make it easier to reach 6H" question.) There are similar rules in other >card games, and there seems to be a tendency to treat hands with too few >and too many cards differently -- with too many considered a more serious >and less easily rectified infraction. > >Gordon Bower > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 06:59:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:59:00 +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 GAA07400 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:58:54 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011670; 10 Feb 98 18:59 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD3654.73F37610@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:48:18 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Bizarre ethical question Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:48:16 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 25 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >David Martin wrote: > >>At pairs, the players who passed >>>on the **sorted** hands are not my opponents and the information conveyed >>>by >>>their negligence damages another completely innocent pair. > > Negligence? Since when has it been negligence to pass **unsorted** hands? > >######### The double asterisks above are my additions now. *'Sorted'* above >referred to a hand which had been sorted at the immediately previous table >prior to an auction that was passed out and the hand then immediately >returned to board without shuffling by a player who does not normally sort >his hand after the play has been concluded. Clearly, the next player to >receive this hand might well receive UI in this situation, particularly when >in 3rd seat after two passes. I would call this negligence although I accept >that the Law only states that the player shall return his hand to the correct >pocket of the board after play has ceased. > >To answer your question, which BTW does not relate to my previous posting, it >is equally negligent for a player who 'always' sorts his hand after play has >ceased and then forgets, to pass on an *unsorted* hand that reveals the order >of his played cards to the next recipient of his hand. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 06:59:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:59:49 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07414 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:59:43 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA12067 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:59:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13059; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:59:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:59:31 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802101959.OAA13059@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Minimum RNG seed bit length X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Martin Kretschmar > I asked Thomas Andrews (thomaso@best.com), author of: > > usually. To actually allow all possible sessions, we'd need 2^(96*36) > > digits of seed. The exponential is wrong. We need 96 bits per deal, repeat 36 times for a whole session, 3456 bits total. Not really very many. (I'm sure Mr. Andrews knows this quite well and just was writing too quickly.) > And if using 96 bits is good for one hand, but how many bits will we need for > a complete but also workable set of hands? It would be easy to use e.g. 36 96bit > seeds, but for small events this looks like a clear overkill. The above is sufficient, but as Jesper has pointed out, probably not necessary. The requirement, as he said, is that all statistics of interest to bridge players be consistent with randomness. By experiment, a 48 bit seed seems to suffice; perhaps even 32 bits or fewer would be enough. Of course if you don't want someone deducing the whole session from the first deal, there's an additional requirement of cryptographic security. (Or if, more realistically, you want to avoid accusations that someone might be able to deduce the session.) This requires a secure key and robust algorithm but not necessarily a longer seed. (The seed can be the 'clear text', and the key can be as many bits as desired. The key doesn't ever have to change unless it has been compromised.) I doubt today's implementations are cryptographically secure. This is probably unimportant for now, but it may become an issue as computers get faster and smaller. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 08:06:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:06:14 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA07677 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:06:08 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2001832; 10 Feb 98 20:00 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD3659.81717E90@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:24:28 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Bizarre ethical question Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:24:27 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 73 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > >David Martin wrote: > >[much snipped] > >>>As far as (b) is concerned, I see no reason why any pair should be >expected >>>to know what system their team-mates are playing and questions on >this topic >>>therefore need not be answered... > >[more snipped] > >In international tournaments, it is the norm for all systems to be >sent to all teams some weeks in advance of the tournament. The point >of this, inter alia, is so that each team can familiarise itself with >the methods of any pair that it may meet - or that may be playing in >the other room. This is, in my view, part of a fair and sensible >policy regarding system disclosure. > ########## Agreed, but each pair is disclosing *their own system* to the opponents and not relying on their team mates to do it for them. Also, it is being done in advance and not at the table nor in the middle of a live auction, for instance, by team mates who may well not be familiar with the particular system. After all, if you and I were team mates in different partnerships, could you explain my responses to a Super-Swiss enquiry or a RE Transfer? (Even my partners and I who regularly play these conventions have to think twice about some of the more complex sequences).########## > >What it implies is that at the highest levels of the game, the people >who make the rules have decided that all information regarding >opponents' systems should be available to all members of a team at all >times. This I believe to be entirely right and proper. > ####### Agreed. ########## >When playing in competitions at a lower level, obviously there is no question >of >advance disclosure of systems. But I consider that the principle >remains valid, and that as a player I have a right to know what >methods are in use in the other room. > ####### Surely this is a matter of regulation and not a right given by the Laws? There is also a world of difference between you asking my >team mates in advance and asking me now at the table. ############ > >Suppose that you were the captain of a team playing a match against my >team. You recall dimly that one of my pairs plays strong club, the >other a natural system. You perceive a tactical advantage in having >your more aggressive pair against my strong club pair, since their >interventions might cause us problems. So you ask me, before the match >begins, what system each of my pairs play. Do you seriously believe >that I have the right to refuse to tell you? > ######## Yes, definitely! But I have the right to ask you about your system and then ask your team mates about theirs. It is not the principle of disclosure that worries me but *who* you are asking and *when*. Also, although I personally would never refuse you a truthful answer, whether you have the *right* to receive a reply prior to sitting down at the table against a particular pair is entirely a matter for each particular event's regulations. Once a session has started, you have all rights of disclosure of opponent's methods given to you in Law, ie. Laws 40 and 75. If a particular competition's regulations does not forbid it then, although unsporting, it is probably legal to refuse disclosure of your methods until each pair is seated at the table and to change your methods between each session. More extremely, you could even change your methods between each hand unless this was forbidden by >the relevant regulations. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 09:16:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:16:59 +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 JAA07970 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:16:53 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA22108; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:16:05 -0600 (CST) Received: from 174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.att.net(12.71.47.174) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma022040; Tue Feb 10 16:15:15 1998 Received: by 174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD3647.5FAA0DC0@174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:14:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD3647.5FAA0DC0@174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'G. R. Bower'" Subject: 50 different and 2 the same (was :RE: 53 cards) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:14:30 -0500 Encoding: 33 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This situation actually came up in a club game a few years ago. My partner was declarer in a suit contract on the fourth round of the evening. About midway through the hand, after drawing trump she was playing off side suit winners and called for the spade four from dummy (me). Imagine everyone's surprise when the next hand ALSO laid down the spade 4! The director was summoned, had us complete the play of the hand (which was routine), and then search for what card was missing. It turned out to be the spade 6. This made essentially no difference to the bidding or play of the hand, so we got a good deck and duplicated the hand for the remainder of the pairs to use the balance of the night, thereby acheiving results from play rather than artificially adjusted ones. As this predated the advent of computers, we needed an overall winner and had a half table which meant factoring, and no one felt like staying until midnight to get the scoring done this seemed an admirable solution at the time. Was it really a violation of the laws? If so, perhaps the laws need a modification when the situation really is (fortuitously) so harmless. -- Craig Senior ---------- From: G. R. Bower[SMTP:fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu] Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 11:08 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 53 cards (snip) Do we at least agree that if the deck is more seriously messed up -- two cards the same and another card missing, still 52, for instance -- that the hand has to be thrown out? (more snipped) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 09:34:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:34:18 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA08037 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:34:13 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA15997; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:33:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from 174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.att.net(12.71.47.174) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma015961; Tue Feb 10 16:33:07 1998 Received: by 174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD3649.D85C92E0@174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:32:22 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD3649.D85C92E0@174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz" , "'Robin Barker'" Subject: RE: Insufficient Bid Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:32:21 -0500 Encoding: 15 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk or perhaps work to change them? -- Craig Senior ---------- From: Robin Barker[SMTP:rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 5:23 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz Subject: Re: Insufficient Bid (snip) where the laws are clear but appear to punish (unnecessarily) we must follow them. Robin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 09:56:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:56:28 +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 JAA08161 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:56:14 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22551; 10 Feb 98 14:55 PST To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: 50 different and 2 the same (was :RE: 53 cards) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:14:30 PST." <01BD3647.5FAA0DC0@174.bridgeton-66.mo.dial-access.ATT.NET> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:55:31 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802101455.aa22551@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > This situation actually came up in a club game a few years ago. My partner > was declarer in a suit contract on the fourth round of the evening. About > midway through the hand, after drawing trump she was playing off side suit > winners and called for the spade four from dummy (me). Imagine everyone's > surprise when the next hand ALSO laid down the spade 4! The director was > summoned, had us complete the play of the hand (which was routine), and > then search for what card was missing. It turned out to be the spade 6. > This made essentially no difference to the bidding or play of the hand, so > we got a good deck and duplicated the hand for the remainder of the pairs > to use the balance of the night, thereby acheiving results from play rather > than artificially adjusted ones. As this predated the advent of computers, > we needed an overall winner and had a half table which meant factoring, and > no one felt like staying until midnight to get the scoring done this seemed > an admirable solution at the time. Was it really a violation of the laws? > If so, perhaps the laws need a modification when the situation really is > (fortuitously) so > harmless. Nah, I don't think the Laws need modifying; if this happened at a regional tournament, I would never (as a contestant) want them to just leave the board in like you described. But it wouldn't bother me for this to be done at a club. I think it's OK for clubs to be a little loose with the rules, occasionally, if no one objects. Once, at a sectional Swiss, RHO got to 4S and I doubled with KQxx of trumps or something like that. Naturally I got a bit confused when declarer laid down the ace and king of trumps. I called the director and asked for a ruling on who would win the trick if I played my king of trumps on top of declarer's king. Director consulted the Laws and informed me that the rules of pinochle would apply. I didn't know how to play pinochle, so we had to throw the board out. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 10:29:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:29:25 +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 KAA08260 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:29:19 +1100 Received: from cph7.ppp.dknet.dk (cph7.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.7]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA06956 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:29:09 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Minimum RNG seed bit length Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:29:09 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34e1e246.2259589@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199802101959.OAA13059@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199802101959.OAA13059@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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, 10 Feb 1998 14:59:31 -0500, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >The above is sufficient, but as Jesper has pointed out, probably not >necessary. It is amusing that Jens and I have more than once been mistaken for each other on BLML - perhaps the fact that we are very good friends, discuss lots of bridge law with each other, agree on most BLML problems, have somewhat similar names, and are both Danes makes us seem very similar to a BLML reader. However, computer dealing is a primary area of interest for Jens (he wrote the program used by the Danish Bridge Federation) while I am only an interested but passive follower of the discussion. Jens wrote the contribution that Steve attributed to me. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 10:51:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:51:41 +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 KAA08304 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:51:32 +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 SAA17686 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA13289; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:51:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:51:22 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802102351.SAA13289@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 50 different and 2 the same (was :RE: 53 cards) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Nah, I don't think the Laws need modifying; if this happened at a > regional tournament, I would never (as a contestant) want them to just > leave the board in like you described. An instance happened at the (ACBL) Nationals a few years ago and was widely written up. (It wouldn't surprise me if the full writeup is still on the ACBL web site somewhere.) As I recall: Table N misduplicated a board, exchanging a meaningless deuce and trey. Table N-1 played the board next (in its wrong form), then as prescribed, rechecked the cards against the hand records and found the error. Ruling: Board restored to its proper form (to allow comparison across sections). Results thrown out at both tables already played. Table N gets Avg- to both pairs, Table N-1 gets avg+ to both pairs. This was quite unlucky for the top players at Table N-1. They reached a hard-to-bid slam and had to settle for 60% (or their average on the rest of the boards) instead of the 95% they "deserved." It might be reasonable to change the laws to allow results to stand when it can be determined without doubt that the error had no effect. On the other hand, that could easily lead to controversy, so maybe it's better to have an unambiguous requirement to throw out the board. I agree with Adam that it seems reasonable to ignore the strict rule in less formal games. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 11 13:08:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:08:50 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08615 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:08:46 +1100 Received: from [150.203.96.38] (rsclt1-38.anu.edu.au [150.203.96.38]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA01647 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:09:20 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:09:20 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: 50 different and 2 the same (was :RE: 53 cards) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:51 10/2/98, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Beneschan >> Nah, I don't think the Laws need modifying; if this happened at a >> regional tournament, I would never (as a contestant) want them to just >> leave the board in like you described. > >An instance happened at the (ACBL) Nationals a few years ago and was >widely written up. (It wouldn't surprise me if the full writeup >is still on the ACBL web site somewhere.) As I recall: > >Table N misduplicated a board, exchanging a meaningless deuce and >trey. Table N-1 played the board next (in its wrong form), then as >prescribed, rechecked the cards against the hand records and found the >error. > >Ruling: >Board restored to its proper form (to allow comparison across >sections). Results thrown out at both tables already played. Table N >gets Avg- to both pairs, Table N-1 gets avg+ to both pairs. > >This was quite unlucky for the top players at Table N-1. They reached >a hard-to-bid slam and had to settle for 60% (or their average on the >rest of the boards) instead of the 95% they "deserved." > > > >It might be reasonable to change the laws to allow results to stand >when it can be determined without doubt that the error had no effect. >On the other hand, that could easily lead to controversy, so maybe it's >better to have an unambiguous requirement to throw out the board. I >agree with Adam that it seems reasonable to ignore the strict rule in >less formal games. To illustrate, exchanging a deuce and a trey might enable a defender playing odd/even discards to give a different signal on a given hand, that might enable their partner to defend differently... determining _without doubt_ that the misduplication of cards would have had no effect may not be a simple task. Some such defenders might be better able than others to put their case to an AC that some effect did occur, yet others might not bother to determine if their may have been one. Case-by-case treatment can lead to these inequities. We are dealing with duplicate bridge here - once the hands are not duplicates (as might occasionally be the case given the law change suggested above) then we are playing a different game. In a club game it may be acceptable to ignore a tiny difference, but in a congress I think it is quite appropriate to deal with misduplication as described above. Presumably the regulations of the event required the players on Table N to duplicate the hand correctly, and an adjusted score (and/or PP) is in order. The players on Table N-1 were unable to play the board in its correct form, and so Ave+ for both pairs is correct. Of course the "hard luck" for the pair who bid the slam was matched by the "good luck" of their table opponents - but this is irrelevant to the problem. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 03:36:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 03:36:58 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA13053 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 03:36:49 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-145.uunet.be [194.7.13.145]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11918 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:36:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E1C5A1.D74ADA48@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:37:05 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 53 cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > ########## The 13-13-13-14 case might be as clear-cut as the 13-13-13-12 > case but only if correct curtain cards are available. Then, the hand > with 13 cards, one of which is an erroneous intruder to pack, should > know that one card that properly belongs to it is missing and one > extraneous card is present. This is then exactly the 13-13-14-12 case! It is not the same ! In the 14-13-13-12 case, the man with 14 knows a card from another player. In the 14-13-13-13, he doesn't ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 03:36:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 03:36:58 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA13054 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 03:36:51 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-145.uunet.be [194.7.13.145]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11928 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:36:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E1C8E4.F43568E8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:51:00 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Minimum RNG seed bit length X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199802101959.OAA13059@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have seen this discussion pass me by during my week-long absence. However, I have this to add : > The above is sufficient, but as Jesper has pointed out, probably not > necessary. The requirement, as he said, is that all statistics of > interest to bridge players be consistent with randomness. By > experiment, a 48 bit seed seems to suffice; perhaps even 32 bits or > fewer would be enough. > The size of the seed depends on how small you want to make the probability that a complete set of boards turns up again. Remember that since these are algorithms, starting them from the same position produces exactly the same set of boards. The seed does not have to be the same size as the number of boards, since the second board of the set will come from a different subset of possible boards and so all boards will probably eventually turn up. > Of course if you don't want someone deducing the whole session from the > first deal, there's an additional requirement of cryptographic > security. (Or if, more realistically, you want to avoid accusations > that someone might be able to deduce the session.) This requires a > secure key and robust algorithm but not necessarily a longer seed. > (The seed can be the 'clear text', and the key can be as many bits as > desired. The key doesn't ever have to change unless it has been > compromised.) > > I doubt today's implementations are cryptographically secure. This is > probably unimportant for now, but it may become an issue as computers > get faster and smaller. No it doesn't. Even if it is possible to determine all subsequent boards from a known seed, it is (I believe even for a supercomputer) impossible to determine the seed from a particular (set of) board(s). To explain, just see what happens. If you know the seed, you can deduce that the first thirteen cards will be the H8,H6,H9,S10,C10,HA,H9,H10,C2,SJ,S6,H4,S4,C5. But if you see a hand with SJ1064 HA109864 D- C1052, it is impossible to know which card was dealt first, and even more impossible to determine which random number gave rise to the H8. In fact, one quarter of all possible seeds might be used to start a sequence with one of these thirteen cards. I cannot prove this mathematically, but my intuition says that the problem of reestablishing the seed from a set of hands must be more complex than the programming of a computer to win a world championship. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 04:23:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 04:23:34 +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 EAA13298 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 04:23:27 +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 MAA01869 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:23:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13774; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:23:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:23:14 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802111723.MAA13774@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Minimum RNG seed bit length X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > The size of the seed depends on how small you want to make the > probability that a complete set of boards turns up again. > The seed does not have to be the same size as the number of boards, > since the second board of the set will come from a different subset of > possible boards and so all boards will probably eventually turn up. These are very good points, except that "probably" depends on the PRNG algorithm. It is not obvious that typical algorithms will cycle through all possible hands before repeating. But it is certainly possible in principle to use an algorithm that will do so, even if it starts with less than a 96-bit seed. As _Jens_ has explained, cycling through all possible deals is not a necessary requirement. > I cannot prove this mathematically, but my intuition says that the > problem of reestablishing the seed from a set of hands must be more > complex than the programming of a computer to win a world championship. There's a good reason you can't prove it mathematically. It is not, in general, true, although it may be true in particular cases. The difficulty of the problem depends on the algorithm used to generate deal sets. You have a decryption problem. The seed ('clear text') is, say, 48 bits. Any complete deal ('cypher text') gives 96 bits of information. So in principle, it might be possible to deduce the seed from the deal. Cryptography is the art and science of making such deductions difficult (or alternatively of cracking poor algorithms), and the question is whether real dealing programs use algorithms that are reasonably hard to crack. It is easy to think of poor, easily cracked, algorithms. (Cycling uniformly through the 96-bit "deal book" would be one such.) This is just an existence proof, though. It doesn't tell us about real algorithms. Enormous effort has gone into cryptography, and as a non-expert, I would not dare render an opinion about any particular algorithm. All I'm saying is that there may be a problem. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 04:46:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 04:46:45 +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 EAA13437 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 04:46:39 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012497; 11 Feb 98 16:51 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD370C.CE9D1C20@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:47:58 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: 53 cards Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:47:56 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 21 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > >David Martin wrote: >> >> ########## The 13-13-13-14 case might be as clear-cut as the 13-13-13-12 >> case but only if correct curtain cards are available. Then, the hand >> with 13 cards, one of which is an erroneous intruder to pack, should >> know that one card that properly belongs to it is missing and one >> extraneous card is present. This is then exactly the 13-13-14-12 case! > >It is not the same ! > >In the 14-13-13-12 case, the man with 14 knows a card from another >player. >In the 14-13-13-13, he doesn't ! > >########## Oh yes it is the same! In the example to which I was replying, >ie. the 14-13-13-13 case, the 14 card hand *contains a card belonging to >another player* who at the time happens to have the 'hole' in his hand filled >by a card from a different pack. Remove the extraneous card from a different >pack and this is exactly a 13-13-14-12 case. ########### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 05:25:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:25:57 +1100 Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (antiochus-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.188]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA14040 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:25:51 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14767) with SMTP id NAA13422; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:25:43 -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-1998Feb12.011000.1189.176881; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:19:53 -0500 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws), hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) Message-ID: <1998Feb12.011000.1189.176881@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:19:53 -0500 Subject: RE: Minimum RNG seed bit length Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> I doubt today's implementations are cryptographically secure. This is >> probably unimportant for now, but it may become an issue as computers >> get faster and smaller. Herman De Wael said >No it doesn't. >Even if it is possible to determine all subsequent boards from a known >seed, it is (I believe even for a supercomputer) impossible to determine >the seed from a particular (set of) board(s). >To explain, just see what happens. >If you know the seed, you can deduce that the first thirteen cards will >be the H8,H6,H9,S10,C10,HA,H9,H10,C2,SJ,S6,H4,S4,C5. >But if you see a hand with SJ1064 HA109864 D- C1052, it is impossible to >know which card was dealt first, and even more impossible to determine >which random number gave rise to the H8. >In fact, one quarter of all possible seeds might be used to start a >sequence with one of these thirteen cards. >I cannot prove this mathematically, but my intuition says that the >problem of reestablishing the seed from a set of hands must be more >complex than the programming of a computer to win a world championship. This I doubt. I was on the extreme fringe of the group which cracked low key values for DES back a couple years ago. (I donated some processor time, but didn't do any of the coding). A couple results from that experiment stand out. First, brute force attacks have come an awful long way. 56 bit DES is not considered remotely secure anymore for critical data. I don't believe that solving for the seed number of a set of hands should be less tractable than cracking for a prime key value. Mathematically, they seem quite similar. What does provide security is the fact that the payoff for cracking one of these seed values is fairly trivial compared to the amount of money necessary to build a cracking box. (I'm not going to spend $250,000 no matter how many match points it might net me in the long run). Second, the larger the amount of information which I have to work with, the more narrowly I'll be able to determine a starting seed value and the quicker that I'll be able to solve for this value. The more hands which get generated from any one particular seed value, the less secure that seed is going to become. For me to trust an encryption system, I want the source code to be published so that someone I trust can verify that it is cryptographically secure. Algorithms should not rely on obscurity to provide security. This type of information always leaks. Once a cryptographically secure algorithm is available, ideally the system should be reseeded before every set of boards is dealt. Regardless, this probably all pretty passe'. While the current board generation techniques probably aren't really secure, there as secure as they need to. The payoff simply isn't bid enough. Second, the best ways to get secure information have almost always used human engineering. If I wanted to get confidential information about a competitors product plans, I'd get a job with their cleaning service. I wouldn't try to break through their firewall. In a similar vein, if I wanted to get advanced information about a set of boards, I'd do it by lifting the hard copy, not by cracking the RNG system. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 05:31:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:31:45 +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 FAA14125 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:31:38 +1100 Received: from mike (ip82.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.82]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07781 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:31:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980211133153.006be920@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:31:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Lying and Legal Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the recent threads on "Bizarre Ethical Questions", I found myself cast in the uncomfortable (and lonely) position of defending the legality of lying at the table, particularly with respect to questions in a team game about my teammates' methods. In reviewing those arguments, I am struck by the possibility that my approach to analyzing the Laws is fundamentally out of step with other contributors , and would appreciate some clarification about others' approach. Let us stipulate the following: 1. Lying at the table, especially to obtain an advantage, is unsportsmanlike, unethical, and demonstrably inimical to the interests of the game. 2. Except in relatively narrow respects (e.g., truthfully conveying relevant information about partnership methods, in accordance with the Laws and SO regulation), the Laws do not identify lying as behavior which is punishable, or even improper. I appreciate that #2 is far from universally shared. David Stevenson has opined that L74A2 confers a general prohibition on lying, as remarks which might cause annoyance or embarassment (although such a broad reading of this law could apply equally to his recommended alternative "I would rather not answer that question", or even to a director call). Hirsch and Steve have cited L73F2 (at least I assume that's what is meant, there being no L72F2 in my copy of the Laws). But L73F provides a specific context for the application of L73F2: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: ". It is circular reasoning to conclude that lying, per se, is illegal, because when an innocent pair is damaged by it, it is illegal. But really, my intent is not to rehash these debates. If you are convinced that the Laws do specifically and explicitly prohibit this behavior, that is at least a respectable position. My broader interest is in how the Laws should be analyzed and applied if we accept both 1. and 2. as working assumptions. One approach might be try to find language in the Laws, or at least broad themes which are expressed in the Laws, which could arguably be used to buttress the desired conclusion: namely that we do have the authority to punish and/or redress damages arising from this behavior. My belief is that this approach has been adopted by those who believe lying to be not merely bad, but illegal. Likewise for those who have judged the sort order of the cards in the board to be UI. This approach can be summed up as follows: "Behavior X is so clearly contrary to the integrity of the game that it must be illegal. Which law can I cite to argue that it is in fact illegal?" An alternate approach, which be characterized as "strict construction", is to ask the relatively neutral question "What do the Laws actually say about this specific behavior?" If the Laws are effectively mute on the subject, then I am powerless as either a TD or AC member to act against it, regardless of my personal views about it. This second, more conservative, approach to analysis clearly does limit our ability to control behavior which we feel threatens the interest of the game. But it also has some virtues: It insulates the TD or AC from charges that the Laws are applied whimsically or unfairly and it makes it easier for contestants to know what to expect. If we find that the Laws, as written, are insufficient in some particular respect, we can lobby for changes in the next cycle. Regardless of your personal feelings on lying (or sort-order, for that matter), I would appreciate feedback on the broader issue of analyzing and applying the Laws. Thanks, Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 07:52:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:52:18 +1100 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14899 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:52:11 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-57.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.208.57]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA14200; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:52:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34E20C91.7F4BB061@idt.net> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:39:45 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Dennis" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis References: <3.0.1.32.19980211133153.006be920@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think Mike has brought up a really important point here. I have had some trouble in the past with a director who tends to rule as he "thinks" the rules should read, without really paying close attention to what the rules actually say. (Also he frequently doesn't pay much attention to what actually happened, but that is another matter.:) For instance, he barred a convention of mine. I got on the phone to Memphis, received a ruling in my favor which was relayed to the director, who's response was NOT an apology for his error, but "I still think it should be barred." I don't think we should be reading the laws with the intention of finding, by whatever circumlocution, proof of our positions. I suppose I fall into the strict constructionist school, but that is my feeling - otherwise, we're continuously fighting off people who are less than scrupulous in their reading habits, or simply have a private agenda. Let them try to get the law changed, or enlarged, but let's live with the actual laws, not our perceptions of what they "should" be. There is, of course, a big problem with this position; the occasional ambiguity of the laws themselves. Sometimes the laws need explanation or interpretation. This seems inevitable, especially when they are translated to another language. There is no cure for this, since language itself will always have imperfections of one sort or another. Still, if we start from the strict constructionist POV, I think we'll be on safer ground than using these imperfections as a lauching pad for everyone's private agenda. Irv Michael S. Dennis wrote: > In the recent threads on "Bizarre Ethical Questions", I found myself cast > in the uncomfortable (and lonely) position of defending the legality of > lying at the table, particularly with respect to questions in a team game > about my teammates' methods. In reviewing those arguments, I am struck by > the possibility that my approach to analyzing the Laws is fundamentally out > of step with other contributors , and would > appreciate some clarification about others' approach. > > Let us stipulate the following: > 1. Lying at the table, especially to obtain an advantage, is > unsportsmanlike, unethical, and demonstrably inimical to the interests of > the game. > > 2. Except in relatively narrow respects (e.g., truthfully conveying > relevant information about partnership methods, in accordance with the Laws > and SO regulation), the Laws do not identify lying as behavior which is > punishable, or even improper. > > I appreciate that #2 is far from universally shared. David Stevenson has > opined that L74A2 confers a general prohibition on lying, as remarks which > might cause annoyance or embarassment (although such a broad reading of > this law could apply equally to his recommended alternative "I would rather > not answer that question", or even to a director call). Hirsch and Steve > have cited L73F2 (at least I assume that's what is meant, there being no > L72F2 in my copy of the Laws). But L73F provides a specific context for the > application of L73F2: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in > this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: ". It is circular > reasoning to conclude that lying, per se, is illegal, because when an > innocent pair is damaged by it, it is illegal. > > But really, my intent is not to rehash these debates. If you are convinced > that the Laws do specifically and explicitly prohibit this behavior, that > is at least a respectable position. My broader interest is in how the Laws > should be analyzed and applied if we accept both 1. and 2. as working > assumptions. One approach might be try to find language in the Laws, or at > least broad themes which are expressed in the Laws, which could arguably be > used to buttress the desired conclusion: namely that we do have the > authority to punish and/or redress damages arising from this behavior. My > belief is that this approach has been adopted by those who believe lying to > be not merely bad, but illegal. Likewise for those who have judged the sort > order of the cards in the board to be UI. This approach can be summed up as > follows: "Behavior X is so clearly contrary to the integrity of the game > that it must be illegal. Which law can I cite to argue that it is in fact > illegal?" > > An alternate approach, which be characterized as "strict construction", is > to ask the relatively neutral question "What do the Laws actually say about > this specific behavior?" If the Laws are effectively mute on the subject, > then I am powerless as either a TD or AC member to act against it, > regardless of my personal views about it. This second, more conservative, > approach to analysis clearly does limit our ability to control behavior > which we feel threatens the interest of the game. But it also has some > virtues: It insulates the TD or AC from charges that the Laws are applied > whimsically or unfairly and it makes it easier for contestants to know what > to expect. If we find that the Laws, as written, are insufficient in some > particular respect, we can lobby for changes in the next cycle. > > Regardless of your personal feelings on lying (or sort-order, for that > matter), I would appreciate feedback on the broader issue of analyzing and > applying the Laws. > > Thanks, > > Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 09:26:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:26:20 +1100 Received: from out5.ibm.net (out5.ibm.net [165.87.194.245]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA15233 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:26:14 +1100 Received: from shezifi (slip265.advantis.net.il [192.116.76.16]) by out5.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA80184; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:25:28 GMT Message-ID: <34E22547.D19DCE08@bigfoot.com> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 00:25:11 +0200 From: ILAN SHEZIFI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: 53 cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <34dda4a3.10977835@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > NS bid to 6H on the N hand. > > E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 > tricks. EW acquiesces. > > N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that > there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in > the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. > > It is possible that S's belief that he had an extra heart has > made it easier for NS to get to the slam - it certainly has not > made it more difficult. At the other table in the match NS > played 4H with 12 tricks. > > There is no question of dummy having revoked or of defenders > having been misled by the 14-card dummy - the 12 tricks are > always there. > > Your ruling? > > Would it make any difference to the ruling if N had discovered > and called attention to the 14th card before the claim (at the > time when opponents followed with a trump more than expected)? > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). Hi all IMO the answer to this situation is law 84E. "If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even reasonble possibility that the non-ofending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal (see law 81C9)" Ilan Shezifi From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 09:51:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:51:13 +1100 Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.176]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA15299 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:51:06 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 5BFUa25697 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:50:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7c8ece38.34e22b50@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:50:54 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Ruling the Game Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the February 1998 edition of the ACBL's Bulletin, Brian Moran's "Ruling the Game" article includes an analysis of the following for a reader from Nevada: East opens a strong notrump in third seat, South overcalls a natural 2C, West bids a Jacoby 2H. East has forgotten the partnership agreement that transfers apply over interference, and passes. South bids 3C, West 3S, East 4H, West 4S, all passed. Making four. South calls the director and states that he/she would not have bid 3C if he/she had known that 2H was a transfer bid, as she was entitled to know. The director gave each side an average (!) because she felt that N-S were damaged by East's failure to Alert that 2H was a transfer. E-W appealed the decision, which was overturned by the AC. The reader wants to know, "Was this correct?" Brian Moran's answer: "Had you been properly Alerted, it seems clear tht you would pass out the 2H bid. The fact that East would not have passed had he Alerted is irrelevant. "In view of that, the director was correct in adjusting the score. I do not understand on what basis the committee chose to overrule that decision. Perhaps they missed the point made above and felt that the auction could not have ended at 2H." Of course we all know that the TD's score adjustment was ridiculous. If she felt that South should have been told about the transfer, then a score representing the probable result of a 2H contract should have been assigned. The main point is whether a player is allowed to forget an Alertable convention. The Laws say yes. If he forgets, obviously he can't Alert, so I would tend to agree with the ACs action. On the other hand, if West and North were screenmates, then South would have known about the transfer and would have passed 2H. If South were to ask West about the 2H bid before bidding 3C, would West be obligated to reply? Could he say, not wanting to give UI, "You should ask partner, not me." Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 11:51:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:51:23 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA15697 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:51:19 +1100 Received: from [150.203.96.38] (rsclt1-38.anu.edu.au [150.203.96.38]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA28866 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:51:53 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:51:53 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: Ruling the Game Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) wrote >In the February 1998 edition of the ACBL's Bulletin, Brian Moran's "Ruling the >Game" article includes an analysis of the following for a reader from Nevada: > >East opens a strong notrump in third seat, South overcalls a natural 2C, West >bids a Jacoby 2H. East has forgotten the partnership agreement that transfers >apply over interference, and passes. South bids 3C, West 3S, East 4H, West 4S, >all passed. Making four. > >South calls the director and states that he/she would not have bid 3C if >he/she had known that 2H was a transfer bid, as she was entitled to know. The >director gave each side an average (!) because she felt that N-S were damaged >by East's failure to Alert that 2H was a transfer. E-W appealed the decision, >which was overturned by the AC. The reader wants to know, "Was this correct?" > >Brian Moran's answer: > >"Had you been properly Alerted, it seems clear tht you would pass out the 2H >bid. The fact that East would not have passed had he Alerted is irrelevant. > >"In view of that, the director was correct in adjusting the score. I do not >understand on what basis the committee chose to overrule that decision. >Perhaps they missed the point made above and felt that the auction could not >have ended at 2H." > >Of course we all know that the TD's score adjustment was ridiculous. If she >felt that South should have been told about the transfer, then a score >representing the probable result of a 2H contract should have been assigned. > >The main point is whether a player is allowed to forget an Alertable >convention. The Laws say yes. If he forgets, obviously he can't Alert, so I >would tend to agree with the ACs action. On the other hand, if West and North >were screenmates, then South would have known about the transfer and would >have passed 2H. It is very possible to forget the meaning of a call but still know that it is alertable. It happened to me last Tuesday playing with a partner with whom I have played once. Our auction went (I opened, strong club system) 1C-1D-1NT-2S-? We had transfers available, but I couldn't recall if 2S was a transfer to C, a minors takeout or a range probe. I knew full well it was alertable in all cases, but not the meaning (I guessed wrongly, and we missed a biddable slam which failed on the layout :-) ) The presence/absence of the Alert is meaningless. East could well alert the bid thinking it is some bizarre convention (e.g. majors takeout) and elect to pass. If South queried the 2H bid, he would receive MI, and the auction would probably proceed as above. Score adjustment is clearly in order. The lack of Alert likewise is MI (i.e. that 2H is natural) and in this case adjustment to 2H making whatever is the correct ruling. >If South were to ask West about the 2H bid before bidding 3C, would West be >obligated to reply? Could he say, not wanting to give UI, "You should ask >partner, not me." This is standard practice in Australia. On a similar point, playing in the Australian Swiss Pairs a few months ago, the following situation occured. The defence partner and I used to 1NT openings varied with the strength of the 1NT. For most of our partnership experience our opponents had generally used a strong one (OKbridge), but our table opponents (top Australian players) were using a weak one. LHO opened a 12-14 1NT, pard called 2C (systemically single-suited) which I alerted, and when asked, I proceeded to explain was for the majors. After a confused auction the opponents settled in 3S. Partner (wrongly) attempted to correct my explanation before my opening lead but was stopped from doing so by LHO. During the play of the hand, director was called by RHO (declarer) and the situation explained, including the inference that partner thought 2C had another meaning. Upon further questioning, I recalled that our agreements over strong/weak NT were spelled out on our CC, but RHO and TD couldn't find it. LHO then suggested I leave the table so that pard could give an explanation without UI. Experienced TD concurred. Towards the end of the hand I deduced from AI that pard was single-suited in hearts. I returned and 3S made for a flattish board. I had never heard of such practice before - could/should a player be asked to leave in this way, given that I already have the UI that partner thinks my explanation was incorrect? Or should the MI already given by me lead to an adjusted score? If we had been playing behind screens, RHO declaring would have a 50% chance of getting the correct explanation. If he had received the wrong one (from me) he would not have the information from partner that I may have given MI, would not have called TD, and probably misread the hand and failed. When the MI came to light, score adjustment would occur. I am inclined to think the ruling should be the same in each case. Your thoughts? Mark Abraham N.B. I _do_ occasionally recall partnership agreements!! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 12:25:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:25:47 +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 MAA15782 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:25:39 +1100 Received: from linda (ptp81.ac.net [205.138.54.183]) by primus.ac.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id UAA01125 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:25:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802120125.UAA01125@primus.ac.net> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:30:10 -0500 From: Linda Weinstein <"lobo@ac.net"@ac.net> Reply-To: "lobo@ac.net"@ac.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 50 different and 2 the same (was :RE: 53 cards) References: <199802102351.SAA13289@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > An instance happened at the (ACBL) Nationals a few years ago and was > widely written up. (It wouldn't surprise me if the full writeup > is still on the ACBL web site somewhere.) As I recall: > > Table N misduplicated a board, exchanging a meaningless deuce and > trey. Table N-1 played the board next (in its wrong form), then as > prescribed, rechecked the cards against the hand records and found the > error. > > Ruling: > Board restored to its proper form (to allow comparison across > sections). Results thrown out at both tables already played. Table N > gets Avg- to both pairs, Table N-1 gets avg+ to both pairs. > I believe the above incident happened at the Albuquerque World Championships and I think it was in the World Mixed Pairs - Mike Lawrence and Rhoda Habert were two of the players involved and this kept them from qualifying for the next day of play.. this also happened to me in the finals of an ACBL National Event, the same hand was duplicated twice, except the E/W hands were switched the second time. My partner caught it - his hand was the same yarborough dummy that he had on the previous hand... at first he thought he was losing his mind... The Director corrected the hand so we could play it and no penalty was issued to the (seeded) pair that has misduplicated the board. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 12:59:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:59:05 +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 MAA15824 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:58:58 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1016776; 12 Feb 98 1:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 01:10:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Inadmissable double MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had a new one recently. The auction goes S W N E 1D 1S x North not having bid alerted by West as negative, followed by very red face, followed by call for Director. Aside from the general mayhem how do you rule. You have one minute to get there starting Now! -- 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 Thu Feb 12 20:52:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:52:06 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA16603 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 20:51:56 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005758; 12 Feb 98 9:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:29:36 +0000 To: John Probst Cc: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In message <610.9802041207@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker > writes >>> >>> [snip] >> >>Why is not shuffling your cards worthy of a procedural penalty? >>What procedure (in the laws) has been violated. From a quick >>search of the laws, the only relevant laws are L7C and L22A >> >IMO the cards should be restored to the board in the same order they >were found, ie as a result of a random deal. > >> Labeo: I have been out of circulation for a few days. Does someone have a serious question underlying all this humorous dialogue? The laws governing return of the cards to the board require each player to return his own cards to the pocket; they must be the correct thirteen cards he took originally from the pocket and they may be put into the pocket in any order or none.The law lays no duty upon the player in this respect although it looks as though somebody has invented one for the purposes of the discussion. If a player returns unsorted cards to the slot, it is his prerogative to do so unless there is a regulation requiring specific action such as shuffling. If a player receives cards that he believes may be unsorted he can have no complaint if it turns out they have been sorted to that sequence nor alternatively can he complain if they happen to have come together in that way when shuffled. In practice nearly every player does disturb the order of the cards when returning them to the board, either with a cursory shuffle or by sorting them to suits, and I would think it rare for any player to recall in practice the exact sequence of his cards when he first removed them from the board. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 12 21:34:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:34:28 +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 VAA16694 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:34:18 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:33:41 GMT Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 10:33:38 GMT Message-Id: <16757.9802121033@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Labeo: I have been out of circulation for a few days. > Does someone have a serious question underlying all this humorous > dialogue? The laws governing return of the cards to the board > require each player to return his own cards to the pocket; > they must be the correct thirteen cards he took originally > from the pocket and they may be put into the pocket in any > order or none.The law lays no duty upon the player in this respect ... > [snip] I was responding to a serious post which suggested that not sorting/shuffling the cards when returning them to the board could be subject to a procedural penalty. I said they had not failed to follow correct procedure, unless there were a further regulataion by the sponsoring organisation. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 00:27:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:27:09 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19391 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:27:02 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-90.uunet.be [194.7.13.90]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05812 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:26:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E2EDC9.8843A816@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:40:41 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 53 cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > >David Martin wrote: > >> > >> ########## The 13-13-13-14 case might be as clear-cut as the 13-13-13-12 > >> case but only if correct curtain cards are available. Then, the hand > >> with 13 cards, one of which is an erroneous intruder to pack, should > >> know that one card that properly belongs to it is missing and one > >> extraneous card is present. This is then exactly the 13-13-14-12 case! > > > >It is not the same ! > > > >In the 14-13-13-12 case, the man with 14 knows a card from another > >player. > >In the 14-13-13-13, he doesn't ! > > > >########## Oh yes it is the same! In the example to which I was replying, > >ie. the 14-13-13-13 case, the 14 card hand *contains a card belonging to > >another player* who at the time happens to have the 'hole' in his hand filled > >by a card from a different pack. Remove the extraneous card from a different > >pack and this is exactly a 13-13-14-12 case. ########### Oh no it isn't ! (sorry couldn't resist) If the 14th card is indeed a correct one, while one of the 13-card hands has the 53rd, then the board has been misdealt and a redeal is necessary. If the 14th card is the 53rd, then it does not belong to any other player at that deal. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 00:27:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:27:10 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19392 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:27:03 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-90.uunet.be [194.7.13.90]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05816 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:26:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E2EFC6.2AD193D3@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:49:10 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Inadmissable double X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > I had a new one recently. The auction goes > > S W N E > 1D 1S x North not having bid > > alerted by West as negative, followed by very red face, followed by call > for Director. Aside from the general mayhem how do you rule. You have > one minute to get there starting > > Now! L32 says it all : illegal double cannot be accepted bidding goes to north if he passes : L36 - west must pass if he doubles : L36 - west must pass if he bids : L32B2 - west must pass (east may change his call in all three cases) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 00:27:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:27:13 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19396 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:27:05 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-90.uunet.be [194.7.13.90]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA05820 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:26:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E2F2EB.D7AAD5D4@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:02:35 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Ruling the Game X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <7c8ece38.34e22b50@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > (W N E S p - p - 1NT - 2C 2H - 3C - p - p 3S - p - 4H - p 4S - all pass, making ) Of course north is entitled to know that the 2H is transfer, not natural. But to deduce from that alone that the contract is now 2H is going too fast. If North bids 3C over hearts, might he not do the same over spades ? (we really should know north's hand for that one) Given a normal hand, north's reason for passing cannot be the meaning of the bidding, but the knowledge that opponents are in disagreement. North is not entitled to that knowledge (although it would be AI to him), and so no correction is necessary on this basis alone. Of course if north has many more spades than hearts then indeed he might pass the transfer, and the ruling can be correct. > If South were to ask West about the 2H bid before bidding 3C, would West be > obligated to reply? Could he say, not wanting to give UI, "You should ask > partner, not me." > I have in the past done such a thing. However, this is not to avoid giving UI (because you ARE giving a lot of UI), but to avoid leaving opponents wanting for their correct explanation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 00:54:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:54:44 +1100 Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19530 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:54:24 +1100 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id OAA29624; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:54:12 +0100 Received: from smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via smap (V1.3+ESMTP) with ESMTP id sma027055; Thu Feb 12 14:47:51 1998 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.2.1m-970402) with ESMTP id OAA10246; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:47:50 +0100 Received: from perth.ehv.sc.philips.com (perth [130.144.63.217]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with SMTP id OAA13438; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:47:49 +0100 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by perth.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/) id IAA19809; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:47:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199802121347.IAA19809@perth.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Re: Inadmissable double To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:47:46 MET Cc: jbeljaars@elc.com (Jacques Beljaars) X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > I had a new one recently. The auction goes > > S W N E > 1D 1S x North not having bid > > alerted by West as negative, followed by very red face, > followed by call for Director. Herman De Wael wrote: > L32 says it all : > illegal double cannot be accepted > bidding goes to north > if he passes : L36 - west must pass > if he bids : L32B2 - west must pass > if he doubles : L36 - west must pass No, the case of a double by North in NOT covered in L32. L32B1 treats the pass and L32B2 treats a bid, but a double is NOT described in the Laws. The same goes for a redouble. Is this an omission in the laws or have I missed something? > (east may change his call in all three cases) Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 01:06:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:06:41 +1100 Received: from orr.pwgsc.gc.ca (orr.pwgsc.gc.ca [198.103.167.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19580 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:06:30 +1100 Received: from otts24.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca (otts24.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca [142.226.196.76]) by orr with SMTP (DuhMail/3.0) id JAA10459; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:07:27 -0500 Received: by otts24.ncr.pwgsc.gc.ca; Thu, 12 Feb 98 9:01:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 9:01:14 EST Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Dave Kent" Subject: ACBL Rule of Coincidence X-Incognito-SN: 393 X-Incognito-Format: VERSION=2.01a ENCRYPTED=NO Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, This is my first post to the group so I should probably introduce myself. My name is David Kent from Ottawa, Canada and although I am a 'certified' director, the last time I directed was at my university club in 1980. I really do enjoy the repartee between some of the best bridge legal minds in the world and I have been a lurker on this newsgroup for about one year. I have no cats, but I am a cat person - I used to live in Chinatown in Ottawa, and I had 2 cats which got 'lost' (or something). Not being renowned in my part of the world for my imagination, their names were 'Little Brown Cat' and 'Little Black Cat'. Finally to the bridge situation that caused me some minor consternation at the time: You hold: xxx x QTx AKJxxx. You are in 2nd seat, no-one vulnerable. It goes: RHO You LHO Pard ---------------------- P P 1S P 1N 2C 2H X P 3C AP There was no hesitation at any point in the auction. Your partner holds: KJx JTxx xxx Qxx. In my wildest dreams I could not imagine pulling partner's penalty double holding a hand chock full of defence. Everyone who I asked about this hand said they would pass with the actual hand, but that pulling the double seemed to be reasonable if there was no hesitation (especially since if partner makes a penalty double with this type of hand, it is going to be a LONG event). Under the ACBL rules, do I have any grounds for an appeal of the director's ruling that the result stands. 4H makes and was bid at the other table. Dave Kent From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 01:25:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:25:11 +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 BAA19631 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:24:49 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0EO900GQKS0OEP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:24:24 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA11305; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:24:18 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:24:17 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: yes/no alert. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EO900GQLS0OEP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last evening I got the following problem: Board : 9 N E S W 1NT x(A) 2H (A)=Alert. p p p Result bad score for EW. After playing the board N says to West , why didn't you ask what the alert of my partner was. EW were surprised because they had not seen the alert-card. NS said that North alerted the x of South. At the table I asked N to demonstrate how he did the alert. He showed that he took the alert-card , put it in front of him and then took it back, like it is normal done here. North explained that the double was not for penalty etc. What is your decision ? Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 01:29:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:29:12 +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 BAA19647 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:29:06 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019328; 12 Feb 98 13:56 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD37BD.820E3E00@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:52:50 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: 53 cards Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:52:47 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 46 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >David Martin wrote: >> >> Herman wrote: >> > >> >David Martin wrote: >> >> >> >> ########## The 13-13-13-14 case might be as clear-cut as the 13-13-13-12 >> >> case but only if correct curtain cards are available. Then, the hand >> >> with 13 cards, one of which is an erroneous intruder to pack, should >> >> know that one card that properly belongs to it is missing and one >> >> extraneous card is present. This is then exactly the 13-13-14-12 case! >> > >> >It is not the same ! >> > >> >In the 14-13-13-12 case, the man with 14 knows a card from another >> >player. >> >In the 14-13-13-13, he doesn't ! >> > >> >########## Oh yes it is the same! In the example to which I was replying, >> >ie. the 14-13-13-13 case, the 14 card hand *contains a card belonging to >> >another player* who at the time happens to have the 'hole' in his hand >>filled >> >by a card from a different pack. Remove the extraneous card from a >>different >> >pack and this is exactly a 13-13-14-12 case. ########### > >Oh no it isn't ! (sorry couldn't resist) > >######## Somehow, I expected this! ######### > >If the 14th card is indeed a correct one, while one of the 13-card hands >has the 53rd, then the board has been misdealt and a redeal is >necessary. > ######### The board *may* have been misdealt in which case you would be correct but it may also have got messed up during play at another table >in which case IMO my previous observation is still correct. ########### > >If the 14th card is the 53rd, then it does not belong to any other >player at that deal. > ######### Agreed but the thread to which I was replying specifically stated that this was not the case, ie. the 14th card was not from >another pack. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 01:36:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:36:08 +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 BAA19679 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:36:01 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa19820; 12 Feb 98 6:35 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Inadmissable double In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:47:46 PST." <199802121347.IAA19809@perth.ehv.sc.philips.com> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 06:35:17 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802120635.aa19820@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > I had a new one recently. The auction goes > > > > S W N E > > 1D 1S x North not having bid > > > > alerted by West as negative, followed by very red face, > > followed by call for Director. > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > L32 says it all : > > illegal double cannot be accepted > > bidding goes to north > > if he passes : L36 - west must pass > > if he bids : L32B2 - west must pass > > > if he doubles : L36 - west must pass > > No, the case of a double by North in NOT covered in L32. > L32B1 treats the pass and L32B2 treats a bid, but a double > is NOT described in the Laws. The same goes for a redouble. > Is this an omission in the laws or have I missed something? It looks like an omission. After reading L32, I think if I were faced with this situation, I'd treat it the same as L32B1 (the case where North passes), which makes East's double inadmissible, so we go directly to L36. East gets to make any call he wants, except possibly 2D or redouble (see L23), and West is barred. However, if the auction had started S W N E 1D 1S xx North not having bid applying L32B1 in this manner would make East's redouble legal with no penalty, which seems wrong. So I'd try to find another Law that would let me argue that West is barred. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 01:44:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:44:44 +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 BAA19718 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:44:37 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026289; 12 Feb 98 14:21 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD37C0.F88339C0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:17:37 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:17:37 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 75 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Micheal wrote: > >In the recent threads on "Bizarre Ethical Questions", I found myself cast >in the uncomfortable (and lonely) position of defending the legality of >lying at the table, particularly with respect to questions in a team game >about my teammates' methods. In reviewing those arguments, I am struck by >the possibility that my approach to analyzing the Laws is fundamentally out >of step with other contributors , and would >appreciate some clarification about others' approach. > >Let us stipulate the following: >1. Lying at the table, especially to obtain an advantage, is >unsportsmanlike, unethical, and demonstrably inimical to the interests of >the game. > >2. Except in relatively narrow respects (e.g., truthfully conveying >relevant information about partnership methods, in accordance with the Laws >and SO regulation), the Laws do not identify lying as behavior which is >punishable, or even improper. > >I appreciate that #2 is far from universally shared. David Stevenson has >opined that L74A2 confers a general prohibition on lying, as remarks which >might cause annoyance or embarassment (although such a broad reading of >this law could apply equally to his recommended alternative "I would rather >not answer that question", or even to a director call). Hirsch and Steve >have cited L73F2 (at least I assume that's what is meant, there being no >L72F2 in my copy of the Laws). But L73F provides a specific context for the >application of L73F2: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in >this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: ". It is circular >reasoning to conclude that lying, per se, is illegal, because when an >innocent pair is damaged by it, it is illegal. > >But really, my intent is not to rehash these debates. If you are convinced >that the Laws do specifically and explicitly prohibit this behavior, that >is at least a respectable position. My broader interest is in how the Laws >should be analyzed and applied if we accept both 1. and 2. as working >assumptions. One approach might be try to find language in the Laws, or at >least broad themes which are expressed in the Laws, which could arguably be >used to buttress the desired conclusion: namely that we do have the >authority to punish and/or redress damages arising from this behavior. My >belief is that this approach has been adopted by those who believe lying to >be not merely bad, but illegal. Likewise for those who have judged the sort >order of the cards in the board to be UI. This approach can be summed up as >follows: "Behavior X is so clearly contrary to the integrity of the game >that it must be illegal. Which law can I cite to argue that it is in fact >illegal?" > >An alternate approach, which be characterized as "strict construction", is >to ask the relatively neutral question "What do the Laws actually say about >this specific behavior?" If the Laws are effectively mute on the subject, >then I am powerless as either a TD or AC member to act against it, >regardless of my personal views about it. This second, more conservative, >approach to analysis clearly does limit our ability to control behavior >which we feel threatens the interest of the game. But it also has some >virtues: It insulates the TD or AC from charges that the Laws are applied >whimsically or unfairly and it makes it easier for contestants to know what >to expect. If we find that the Laws, as written, are insufficient in some >particular respect, we can lobby for changes in the next cycle. > >Regardless of your personal feelings on lying (or sort-order, for that >matter), I would appreciate feedback on the broader issue of analyzing and >applying the Laws. > >Thanks, > >Mike Dennis > > ########### It seems to me that this issue is closely bound up with another that Gratten has already addressed, namely, are the Laws inclusive or exclusive, ie. can you do only those things that the Laws explicitly say are permitted or can you do anything that you wish unless it is expressly forbidden? Also, is there a middle path in this? >############# From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 02:05:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:05:20 +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 CAA19960 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:05:12 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21512; 12 Feb 98 7:04 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:01:14 PST." Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:04:35 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802120704.aa21512@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, David, and welcome! David Kent wrote: > Finally to the bridge situation that caused me some minor consternation at the > time: You hold: xxx x QTx AKJxxx. You are in 2nd seat, no-one vulnerable. > It goes: > > RHO You LHO Pard > ---------------------- > P P 1S P > 1N 2C 2H X > P 3C AP > > There was no hesitation at any point in the auction. > > Your partner holds: KJx JTxx xxx Qxx. > > In my wildest dreams I could not imagine pulling partner's penalty double > holding a hand chock full of defence. Everyone who I asked about this hand > said they would pass with the actual hand, but that pulling the double seemed > to be reasonable if there was no hesitation (especially since if partner makes > a penalty double with this type of hand, it is going to be a LONG event). > > Under the ACBL rules, do I have any grounds for an appeal of the director's > ruling that the result stands. 4H makes and was bid at the other table. First, it would help to know whether this is IMPs or matchpoints. This makes a big difference when we're talking about doubling the opponents into game. Second, I'd need to know something about the defensive methods and style. For a lot of people, low-level penalty doubles are more "cooperative" than penalty---i.e. they aren't based on a trump stack but on more general strength and some values in the trump suit, so that partner is expected to judge whether to pass for penalties or pull. If partner's double is this sort of double, I think pulling to 3C is called for. (I don't see the point of doubling with a heart stack, anyway, since they're probably just going to retreat to 2S.) Third, I wouldn't call this hand "chock full" of defense. Given LHO's auction, it's likely that you have only one club trick; and your diamonds aren't anything to write home about. If partner has a trump stack, he can't be too strong, since he might have made a takeout double of 1S. (Yes, he could be 4=4=4=1.) I think pulling is reasonable, therefore you don't have any grounds for appeal. The Rule of Coincidence, as I understand it, is intended only for really bizarre actions, such as passing 1NT-2NT with a good maximum 1NT opener. This pull doesn't qualify, even though the penalty double might. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 02:37:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:37:29 +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 CAA20066 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:37:23 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id HAA22627; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma022596; Thu, 12 Feb 98 07:31:47 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14146; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:35:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199802121535.KAA14146@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 14:10:16 GMT Subject: Re: Ruling the Game Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote: >Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >(W N E S > p - p - 1NT - 2C > 2H - 3C - p - p > 3S - p - 4H - p > 4S - all pass, making ) I thought the auction was: W N E S p - p - 1NT - 2C 2H - p - p - 3C 3S - p - 4H - p 4S - all pass, making, though the principle is the same. >Of course north is entitled to know that the 2H is transfer, not >natural. >But to deduce from that alone that the contract is now 2H is going too >fast. >If North bids 3C over hearts, might he not do the same over spades ? >(we really should know north's hand for that one) Why is it relevant whether N would have bid 3C over 2S? >Given a normal hand, north's reason for passing cannot be the meaning of >the bidding, but the knowledge that opponents are in disagreement. >North is not entitled to that knowledge (although it would be AI to >him), and so no correction is necessary on this basis alone. N and S are entitled to be alerted. I argue that if they are not, and are damaged, they are entitled to an adjusted score (L21B3, L40C). >Of course if north has many more spades than hearts then indeed he might >pass the transfer, and the ruling can be correct. > >> If South were to ask West about the 2H bid before bidding 3C, would West be >> obligated to reply? Could he say, not wanting to give UI, "You should ask >> partner, not me." Why would S ask W about his 2H bid? There are no screens here. >I have in the past done such a thing. >However, this is not to avoid giving UI (because you ARE giving a lot of >UI), but to avoid leaving opponents wanting for their correct >explanation. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 02:38:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:38:24 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA20081 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:38:13 +1100 Received: from default (client866e.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.110]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA08614; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:38:04 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:20:47 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd37c1$69ae7a60$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: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 February 1998 19:54 Subject: Lying and Legal Analysis \X/ \X/ removed a little over half (a ton) \x/ \x/ \x/ >Regardless of your personal feelings on lying (or sort-order, for that >matter), I would appreciate feedback on the broader issue of analyzing and applying the Laws. > ####What is the 'first law' of duplicate bridge was introduced to the law book with Geoffrey Butler at the helm only in 1975. In the English manner this most fundamental of laws was inserted about three-quarters of the way through the book where it has remained until now, subject only to some changes of numbering and format. Its humble placement has deceived not a few people into thinking it is merely a boring piece of redundant wording. Not so; I shall seek to rescue it from oblivion and to illuminate its effect. "Law 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES A.1. Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. " Failure to grasp what this says has proved easy for some. It says that the game is to be played as the Laws provide. That includes regulations made under the authority of the Laws. Anything which is not the subject of provision in the Laws is not part of the game; "strict accordance" does not allow us to wander outside of the Laws in playing the game. For those who like to prod the turf on race-days it may be noted that if it were not to mark out these boundaries there would be no purpose in this piece of the law; Geoffrey Butler was ever the laid-back English 'gentleman' but he did not spend his time building sandcastles. My only other rider is that, should it be shown some evident and necessary part of the game is omitted from the laws, Law 72A consequently makes the rectification of the omission essential. #### Grattan ####WBFLC/X/0004#### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 02:39:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:39:23 +1100 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA20095 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:39:16 +1100 Received: from mike (ip137.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.137]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA17529 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:39:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980212103929.0068fb78@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:39:29 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:01 AM 2/12/98 EST, Dave Kent wrote: >Finally to the bridge situation that caused me some minor consternation at the >time: You hold: xxx x QTx AKJxxx. You are in 2nd seat, no-one vulnerable. >It goes: > >RHO You LHO Pard >---------------------- >P P 1S P >1N 2C 2H X >P 3C AP > >There was no hesitation at any point in the auction. > >Your partner holds: KJx JTxx xxx Qxx. > >In my wildest dreams I could not imagine pulling partner's penalty double >holding a hand chock full of defence. Everyone who I asked about this hand >said they would pass with the actual hand, but that pulling the double seemed >to be reasonable if there was no hesitation (especially since if partner makes >a penalty double with this type of hand, it is going to be a LONG event). > >Under the ACBL rules, do I have any grounds for an appeal of the director's >ruling that the result stands. 4H makes and was bid at the other table. > None whatsoever. You do, however, present a textbook argument for why the so-called Rule of Conincidence is a bit of useless mush. You may not agree with the bidding decisions of either opponent (I certainly don't), but there is simply no legal basis upon which to challenge them, if there was no independent evidence of UI. We've had this debate before, under the general heading of "Suspicious Bidding". No doubt Steve Willner and David Stevenson will argue that the Director should investigate by closely questioning your opponents about their decision-making. That may or may not have been done, to your satisfaction. But certainly once the director makes the determination (properly, IMO, with or without interrogation) that no adjustment is called for, you have no legal basis upon which an appeal may be staked. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 02:59:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:59:22 +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 CAA20166 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:59:15 +1100 Received: from ldubreui.uqss.uquebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA091589151; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:59:11 -0500 Message-Id: <34E31D8E.7481@UQSS.UQuebec.CA> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:04:30 -0500 From: Laval Dubreuil X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold [fr] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Inadmissible X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wrote It looks like an omission. After reading L32, I think if I were faced with this situation, I'd treat it the same as L32B1 (the case where North passes), which makes East's double inadmissible, so we go directly to L36. East gets to make any call he wants, except possibly 2D or redouble (see L23), and West is barred. However, if the auction had started S W N E 1D 1S xx North not having bid applying L32B1 in this manner would make East's redouble legal with no penalty, which seems wrong. So I'd try to find another Law that would let me argue that West is barred. ____________________________________________________________________ I had the same problem this week S W N E 1D X X As I understood Law 32, when a X out of turn is inadmissible, Law 36 applies (no matter what RHO should declare) and not Law 32. Biddind reverts to N, E can make any legal bid at ist turn to call and W is barred for the rest of the auction. Life was easy.... Unfortunalely, to more I read text of Law 32 (and recent e-mails) the less it is evident...They should have written something like "if a X or a XX is inadmissible, Law 36 applies and not Law 32". As said Adam, if Law 32B1 applies and N Pass??? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 03:03:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:03:00 +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 DAA20191 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:02:51 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA16456 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:00:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199802121600.KAA16456@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Lying and Legal Analysis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:00:49 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Let us stipulate the following: > 1. Lying at the table, especially to obtain an advantage, is > unsportsmanlike, unethical, and demonstrably inimical to the interests of > the game. Agreed. > 2. Except in relatively narrow respects (e.g., truthfully conveying > relevant information about partnership methods, in accordance with the Laws > and SO regulation), the Laws do not identify lying as behavior which is > punishable, or even improper. Stipulated for the purposes of argument. > is at least a respectable position. My broader interest is in how the Laws > should be analyzed and applied if we accept both 1. and 2. as working > assumptions. One approach might be try to find language in the Laws, or at > least broad themes which are expressed in the Laws, which could arguably be > used to buttress the desired conclusion: namely that we do have the [small snip] > follows: "Behavior X is so clearly contrary to the integrity of the game > that it must be illegal. Which law can I cite to argue that it is in fact > illegal?" > > An alternate approach, which be characterized as "strict construction", is > to ask the relatively neutral question "What do the Laws actually say about > this specific behavior?" If the Laws are effectively mute on the subject, > then I am powerless as either a TD or AC member to act against it, > regardless of my personal views about it. This second, more conservative, > approach to analysis clearly does limit our ability to control behavior > which we feel threatens the interest of the game. But it also has some > virtues: It insulates the TD or AC from charges that the Laws are applied > whimsically or unfairly and it makes it easier for contestants to know what > to expect. If we find that the Laws, as written, are insufficient in some > particular respect, we can lobby for changes in the next cycle. > > Regardless of your personal feelings on lying (or sort-order, for that > matter), I would appreciate feedback on the broader issue of analyzing and > applying the Laws. > > Thanks, > > Mike Dennis > If one takes a strict constructionist approach [with regard to the Laws of Dup. Con. Bridge, or the US Constitution, or the Charter of the UN, or whatever], then one must be prepared to accept one of these alternatives: a) Behavior which is "inimical to the interests" of the game/nation/world/whatever will go unpunished until such a time as the Ultimate legal body can meet and explicitly outlaw it. [In this case, 2007.] b) The regulation of such behavior will be left to subordinate bodies. [In the US, state and federal legislatures can pass laws covering things not un-Consitutional either explicitly or by implication. In bridge, national sponsoring orgs can make subsidiary regs.] Alternative "A" I find unpalatable in this case, because review of the Laws takes place too slowly to be relied upon. Alternative "b" I dislike, because I would prefer that a game like bridge be governed by rules which are the same from region to region as much as possible. So I would prefer to abandon strict constructionism with regard to questions about actions which are "unsportsmanlike, unethical, and demonstrably inimical to the interests of the game". _Those_ sorts of things, I think, should be regulated by TD's according to the somewhat vague and general powers they are granted to govern the functioning of the game. [Granted that those powers may be, and sometimes are, abused.] Of course, that does not mean that _all_ aspects of ruling the game should be approached in this way. When it comes to matters which are not fundamental questions of sportsmanship, then we can be more strict in applying the letter of the law. It seems to me not to be the same thing, for example, if someone receives an unduly harsh penalty for a revoke or something on those lines. [And L12B explicitly forbids a director from trying creative legal adjustment in those cases anyway.] Further, unlike some legal structures, the Laws here seem explicitly designed for such "loose" readings, and the mechanism for enforcement seems similarly loose. The discretionary powers of the director and the general language of the Proprieties, particularly, seem designed to allow considerable leeway of interpretation, and the structure of AC's does not seem designed for extremely rigid legal argumentation. You point out that the disadvantage of the 'loose' approach is that it leaves TD's and AC's open to charges of arbitrary application and leaves players unable to know what to expect. Neither of these problems seems particularly serious _for the kinds of situations we are discussing here_. A player who chooses to deliberately lie about teammates' methods in order to secure an advantage for himself surely could have known that a director _might_ find that behavior unethical and punishable. It is not likely that bridge players will become afraid of arbitrary punitive intervention because they hear about caes like these. {I feel quite differently about the suggestion that one might get PPs for not shuffling a hand before returning it to the boards. Deliberate lying is an uncommon and clearly suspicious behavior. Not shuffling is not uncommon at all, and doesn't appear inherently devious.} So I grant the advantages of the strict constructionist approach, and I am myself a strict constructionist in other fields of life. But I think that when it comes to the regulation of sportsmanship in bridge, the alternative loose-reading approach is superior. {Of course, this doesn't mean that I would disapprove of tightening unclear laws when the time comes.} -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 03:11:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:11:45 +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 DAA20266 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:11:31 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:10:53 GMT Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 16:10:52 GMT Message-Id: <27663.9802121610@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi adam writes > [snip] > Second, I'd need to know something about the defensive methods and > style. For a lot of people, low-level penalty doubles are more > "cooperative" than penalty---i.e. they aren't based on a trump stack > but on more general strength and some values in the trump suit, so > that partner is expected to judge whether to pass for penalties or > pull. If partner's double is this sort of double ... [snip] I agree that "For a lot of people, low-level penalty doubles are more "cooperative" than penalty". (Assuming penalty doubles are not alertable, and other doubles are). I expect most people should be alerting most low-level doubles. This situation seems to becoming more of a problem round my way. Perhaps more people are making "penalty" doubles on hands which are cooperative/competitive/take-out, and more people are not alerting but are pulling on normal hands. To avoid these problems, I encourage partners and team mates to alert any double which they would ever consider pulling. This seems to protect opponents from misinterpreting the double and to protect us from accusations or whatever when we pull. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 03:12:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:12:00 +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 DAA20275 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:11:51 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:11:43 GMT Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 16:11:42 GMT Message-Id: <27669.9802121611@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Labeo: I have been out of circulation for a few days. > Does someone have a serious question underlying all this humorous > dialogue? The laws governing return of the cards to the board > require each player to return his own cards to the pocket; > they must be the correct thirteen cards he took originally > from the pocket and they may be put into the pocket in any > order or none.The law lays no duty upon the player in this respect ... > [snip] I was responding to a serious post which suggested that not sorting/shuffling the cards when returning them to the board could be subject to a procedural penalty. I said they had not failed to follow correct procedure, unless there were a further regulataion by the sponsoring organisation. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 03:45:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:45:34 +1100 Received: from ns2.tudelft.nl (ns2.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20407 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:45:27 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0EO900JJ9YJLG7@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:45:21 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA11980; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:45:15 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:45:14 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Inadmissable double In-reply-to: <199802121347.IAA19809@perth.ehv.sc.philips.com>; from "Con Holzscherer" at Feb 12, 98 2:47 pm To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EO900JJAYJLG7@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, > > I had a new one recently. The auction goes > > > > S W N E > > 1D 1S x North not having bid > > > > alerted by West as negative, followed by very red face, > > followed by call for Director. > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > L32 says it all : > > illegal double cannot be accepted > > bidding goes to north > > if he passes : L36 - west must pass > > if he bids : L32B2 - west must pass ------------------------------------------ IMO wrong. Law 32A and 32B deals with admissible doubles out of turn. Illegal doubles must be cancelled and then law 36 -> West must always pass. --------------------------------------- > > if he doubles : L36 - west must pass > > No, the case of a double by North in NOT covered in L32. > L32B1 treats the pass and L32B2 treats a bid, but a double > is NOT described in the Laws. The same goes for a redouble. > Is this an omission in the laws or have I missed something? ------------------------------------------------------------ Law 32B deals with admissible doubles out of turn. In this case if the double of West was legal but out of turn then his partner East must have passed : S W N E 1D p x , such a case and then first law 29, if not accepted by S then North can not double, because then we have the case of an illegal double. So this case need not to be mentioned in for example Law 32C. It is already mentioned in Law 36. This is my opinion. -------------------------------------------------------------- > > (east may change his call in all three cases) > Con Holzscherer -------------------------------------- Evert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 04:18:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:18:17 +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 EAA20535 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:18:03 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:17:48 GMT Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 17:17:46 GMT Message-Id: <27898.9802121717@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Inadmissible X Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > S W N E > 1D 1S X North not having bid > Although this looks like an omission in L32, it is not clear that we should make up extra bits of L32. L32 tells us to cancel the double and apply L26B. It then makes further stipulations in various circumstances, none of these circumstances are that North doubles, so there are no further stipulations when North doubles: EW may bid freely. Someone suggested going to L36 straight away despite the fact L36 refers us to L32 when the inadmissible double is out of turn. From L32 we get to L36 only when North passes. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 04:20:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:20:57 +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 EAA20563 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:20:27 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:19:25 GMT Date: Thu, 12 Feb 98 17:19:24 GMT Message-Id: <27904.9802121719@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi adam writes > [snip] > Second, I'd need to know something about the defensive methods and > style. For a lot of people, low-level penalty doubles are more > "cooperative" than penalty---i.e. they aren't based on a trump stack > but on more general strength and some values in the trump suit, so > that partner is expected to judge whether to pass for penalties or > pull. If partner's double is this sort of double ... [snip] I agree that "For a lot of people, low-level penalty doubles are more "cooperative" than penalty". (Assuming penalty doubles are not alertable, and other doubles are). I expect most people should be alerting most low-level doubles. This situation seems to becoming more of a problem round my way. Perhaps more people are making "penalty" doubles on hands which are cooperative/competitive/take-out, and more people are not alerting but are pulling on normal hands. To avoid these problems, I encourage partners and team mates to alert any double which they would ever consider pulling. This seems to protect opponents from misinterpreting the double and to protect us from accusations or whatever when we pull. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 04:36:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:36:40 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA20669 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:36:31 +1100 Received: from default (client86b9.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.185]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA24094; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:36:23 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: " CHYAH E BURGHARD" , , Subject: Re: Email replies Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:18:14 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd37da$33e84460$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 : Agree. -----Original Message----- From: CHYAH E BURGHARD To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; markus@acsys.anu.edu.au Date: 06 February 1998 02:32 Subject: Re: Email replies >I vote for keep it the way it is. That the author's >email address is in the reply to field. > >The other problem is when you mean >to write a private message to someone >and it becomes public because you didn't >realize the reply to field was to the maling list. > >-Chyah > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 04:38:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:38:48 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA20689 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:38:42 +1100 Received: from mike (ip104.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.104]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA31255 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:38:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980212123857.006b2630@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:38:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:20 PM 2/12/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >####What is the 'first law' of duplicate bridge was introduced to the >law book with Geoffrey Butler at the helm only in 1975. In the English >manner this most fundamental of laws was inserted about >three-quarters of the way through the book where it has remained >until now, subject only to some changes of numbering and format. >Its humble placement has deceived not a few people into thinking >it is merely a boring piece of redundant wording. Not so; I shall >seek to rescue it from oblivion and to illuminate its effect. > "Law 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES > A.1. Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > accordance with the Laws. " >Failure to grasp what this says has proved easy for some. It says >that the game is to be played as the Laws provide. That includes >regulations made under the authority of the Laws. Anything which is >not the subject of provision in the Laws is not part of the game; >"strict accordance" does not allow us to wander outside of the Laws >in playing the game. > If I understand your point, it is that the only permissible behavior is that which is specified in the Laws or in regulation made under the authority of the Laws. Fair enough. Then the following behaviors are not legal: 1. Asking questions about teammates' methods (unless specifically authorized by SO). 2. Answering such questions, truthfully or otherwise. 3. Double squeezes. 4. Counting the HCP in your hand prior to bidding. 5. Wearing dark glasses. There are probably others. But really, is this manageable? It is simply not viable to assume that the Laws (with supporting regulation, of course) define a complete and exhaustive list of acceptable behavior. In fact, what the Laws should (and do) provide is a general framework of minimum behavior which defines the game, in conjunction with specifications of behaviors which are impermissible. Actions and behaviors which are not addressed by the Laws should, by default, be considered legal. If this means that certain actions (e.g., lying to opponents about teammates methods) are legally permissible but inimical to the interests of the game, then we should change the Laws to make it clear that they are not legal, rather than relying upon vague tautologies such as the one you have cited. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 05:40:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 05:40:51 +1100 Received: from freya.vphos.net (ns2.vphos.net [207.102.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA20975 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 05:40:42 +1100 Received: from netshop.netshop.net (ts1-28.100mile.bcinternet.net [204.174.70.122]) by freya.vphos.net (8.8.6/1.25) with SMTP id KAA30387 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:40:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003e01bd37e5$45be9bc0$7a46aecc@netshop.netshop.net> From: "sund" To: Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:37:21 -0800 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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott >####What is the 'first law' of duplicate bridge was introduced to the >law book with Geoffrey Butler at the helm only in 1975. In the English >manner this most fundamental of laws was inserted about >three-quarters of the way through the book where it has remained >until now, subject only to some changes of numbering and format. >Its humble placement has deceived not a few people into thinking >it is merely a boring piece of redundant wording. Not so; I shall >seek to rescue it from oblivion and to illuminate its effect. > "Law 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES > A.1. Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > accordance with the Laws. " Perhaps Law 72 doesn't carry the weight it should because of the explanation in the "Scope and Interpretations of the Laws" section : "Prior to the 1987 Laws words such as may, should, shall and must were used without much discrimination. In 1987 they were rationalised, and the practice is continued in the current Laws. When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction"), the failure to do it is not wrong. A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. In contrast, when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained...."), a violation will be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not." Considering all the options in the strength of wording the lawmakers had, their choice of 'should' in Law 72 does seem to de-emphasize its importance. Not that I disagree with Grattan Endicotts position ( as I understand it), that laws cannot be pulled out of thin air. If the Laws are silent on a situation, they are silent. IMO, if they don't prohibit, suggest or insist on an action, that action falls outside the scope of the Laws. You may or may not execute a double squeeze, wear a purple shirt, or count your HCP, as you please. You doing or not doing so, are not a regulated issue. Of course, on this list, we could find defenders for both sides of each of those actions I described as being mandatory or illegal.... and several shades in between Maybe that's why there are lurkers :-)) jerry sund. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 06:02:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:02:18 +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 GAA21062 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:02:12 +1100 Received: from mike (ip48.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.48]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA15896 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:02:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980212140223.006af880@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:02:23 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis In-Reply-To: <199802121600.KAA16456@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks for a carefully nuanced and thoughtful response. > Further, unlike some legal structures, the Laws here seem >explicitly designed for such "loose" readings, and the mechanism for >enforcement seems similarly loose. The discretionary powers of the >director and the general language of the Proprieties, particularly, seem >designed to allow considerable leeway of interpretation, and the structure >of AC's does not seem designed for extremely rigid legal argumentation. > The proprieties do contain some rather specific language specifying unacceptable behavior. Moreover, the references to the propriety of lying are conspicuous by their absence. It is worth examining why this behavior has been left off. > You point out that the disadvantage of the 'loose' approach is >that it leaves TD's and AC's open to charges of arbitrary application and >leaves players unable to know what to expect. Neither of these problems >seems particularly serious _for the kinds of situations we are discussing >here_. A player who chooses to deliberately lie about teammates' methods >in order to secure an advantage for himself surely could have known that a >director _might_ find that behavior unethical and punishable. I certainly agree that there is any serious problem with taking a rather broad view of the Laws here, but there is _a_ problem. Although I stipulated to the first proposition in my earlier post, for purposes of discussion, I am not necessarily committed to it. Despite the nearly universal revulsion with which this suggestion has been met, I am not unwilling to consider the possibility that such behavior is acceptable. Other forms of deception are clearly permitted. Is it possible that the omission of such behavior from the improprieties reflects a lack of consensus among the lawmakers about whether such behavior can/should be punished? Thanks again, Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 06:37:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:37:49 +1100 Received: from imo26.mail.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21381 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:37:43 +1100 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id QZWUa25300; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:36:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8c4fda0.34e34f5d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:36:59 EST To: adam@flash.irvine.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 98-02-12 10:07:02 EST, adam@flash.irvine.com writes: << If partner's double is this sort of double, I think pulling to 3C is called for. (I don't see the point of doubling with a heart stack, anyway, since they're probably just going to retreat to 2S.) >> As an aside, if "partner's double is this sort of double," then why was it not Alerted? Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 06:40:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:40:40 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21397 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:40:35 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA20817 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:39:48 -0600 (CST) Received: from 163.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.163) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020383; Thu Feb 12 13:34:49 1998 Received: by 163.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD37C3.4BF2DDC0@163.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:34:16 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD37C3.4BF2DDC0@163.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:34:13 -0500 Encoding: 57 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While this might work in the UK, the ACBL is now treating the negative double as the norm and non-alertable, I believe, while most low level penalty doubles require alert. (Unless they've changed it again this week.) The grey area "cooperative" double would seem an interesting case. Many seem to play it as takeout but can be converted with the right holding which they view as being non-alertable. Are opponents being deceived here? Alert procedures seem so much an SO prerogative rather than being directly governed by the Laws that I wonder if any worldwide standard exists in this area (other than, I suppose, for WBF events). I'm sure those (most) of you more knowledgeable than I may shed some more light on this. -- Craig Senior ---------- From: Robin Barker[SMTP:rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 11:10 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Hi adam writes > [snip] > Second, I'd need to know something about the defensive methods and > style. For a lot of people, low-level penalty doubles are more > "cooperative" than penalty---i.e. they aren't based on a trump stack > but on more general strength and some values in the trump suit, so > that partner is expected to judge whether to pass for penalties or > pull. If partner's double is this sort of double ... [snip] I agree that "For a lot of people, low-level penalty doubles are more "cooperative" than penalty". (Assuming penalty doubles are not alertable, and other doubles are). I expect most people should be alerting most low-level doubles. This situation seems to becoming more of a problem round my way. Perhaps more people are making "penalty" doubles on hands which are cooperative/competitive/take-out, and more people are not alerting but are pulling on normal hands. To avoid these problems, I encourage partners and team mates to alert any double which they would ever consider pulling. This seems to protect opponents from misinterpreting the double and to protect us from accusations or whatever when we pull. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 07:04:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:04:27 +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 HAA21456 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:04:15 +1100 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v2.02) with ESMTP id PAA28006 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:03:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id PAA25453; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:03:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:03:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802122003.PAA25453@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >At 09:01 AM 2/12/98 EST, Dave Kent wrote: > >>Finally to the bridge situation that caused me some minor consternation at >the >>time: You hold: xxx x QTx AKJxxx. You are in 2nd seat, no-one vulnerable. >>It goes: >> >>RHO You LHO Pard >>---------------------- >>P P 1S P >>1N 2C 2H X >>P 3C AP >> >>There was no hesitation at any point in the auction. >None whatsoever. You do, however, present a textbook argument for why the >so-called Rule of Conincidence is a bit of useless mush. You may not agree >with the bidding decisions of either opponent (I certainly don't), but >there is simply no legal basis upon which to challenge them, if there was >no independent evidence of UI. > >We've had this debate before, under the general heading of "Suspicious >Bidding". No doubt Steve Willner and David Stevenson will argue that the >Director should investigate by closely questioning your opponents about >their decision-making. That may or may not have been done, to your >satisfaction. But certainly once the director makes the determination >(properly, IMO, with or without interrogation) that no adjustment is called >for, you have no legal basis upon which an appeal may be staked. > >Mike Dennis > The bridge arguement aside, I think you do have a legal basis upon which an appeal may be staked. The director is required to make the initial ruling in a timely fashion, finding in favour of the NOS if there is any doubt. Here, evidently there was insufficient evidence; the auction was odd, but there was no obvious UI present. The director quite correctly lets the result stand, and (I hope) informs both sides that they may appeal his ruling, since it was a matter of *judgement*, not *law*. Now, if the NOS wish to appeal this, they are perfectly allowed to do so. Perhaps there is evidence which the director did not have, or was not permitted to use, such as the fact that Joe and Jill Blow, married for 35 years, have a long history of "catching" each others calls, and have been warned not to do it again...and have done it again. A director (IMHO) should not use this type of evidence in establishing a table ruling, but a committee is permitted to use this anecdotal evidence. *However*, the NOS had better be on solid ground bridge-wise, because there is nothing a committee likes better than to tell some bridge laywer to stop whining, and, here, have a PP on the way out the door, don't go away mad, just go away... To sum up, it seems to me that anytime the director has to make a *judgement call*, there is always grounds for appeal. Tony (aka ac342) ps. the above remarks are general, and reflect in no way on the NOS, the OS, or any individual living, dead, or facsimilated; Dave Kent is one of Canada's best players, is a standup guy, and scares me a little... :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 08:17:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:17:43 +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 IAA21699 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:17:37 +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 QAA63100; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:17:31 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id QAA07712; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:10:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199802122110.QAA07712@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:10:52, -0500 To: evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: yes/no alert. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is an example of where the answer depends on where in the world you are playing. The ACBL has a regulation that says it is the responsibility of the person doing the alert to make sure that the people at the table have seen the alert. I am not sure when we started this regulation, but it might have started when we created regulations to deal with disabilities. If it is obvious to the partner of a hearing impaired person that their partner did not see an alert, the partner is allowed to draw their attention to the alert. If sitting at the table of a visually impaired person where both bidding boxes and verbal bidding are being used and the alerter forgets to speak out loud, the partner of the visually impaired person is allowed to draw attention to the alert. However, it is the responsibility of the alerter to make sure that everyone at the table has been alerted. The above is not a law it is a regulation; meaning that each sponsoring organization could be handling this differently. In the USA we have to follow federal law for the equalization of competitiveness for disabilities and impairments, which meant that the regulation had to apply to everyone. -Chyah ================================================= Last evening I got the following problem: Board : 9 N E S W 1NT x(A) 2H (A)=Alert. p p p Result bad score for EW. After playing the board N says to West , why didn't you ask what the alert of my partner was. EW were surprised because they had not seen the alert-card. NS said that North alerted the x of South. At the table I asked N to demonstrate how he did the alert. He showed that he took the alert-card , put it in front of him and then took it back, like it is normal done here. North explained that the double was not for penalty etc. What is your decision ? Evert. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn. tudelft.nl From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 09:33:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:33:38 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21986 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:33:32 +1100 Received: from mike (ip180.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.180]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA20378 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:33:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980212173338.006b50cc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:33:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <199802122003.PAA25453@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:03 PM 2/12/98 -0500, Tony wrote: >The bridge arguement aside, I think you do have a legal basis >upon which an appeal may be staked. The director is required to >make the initial ruling in a timely fashion, finding in favour of >the NOS if there is any doubt. Here, evidently there was insufficient >evidence; the auction was odd, but there was no obvious UI present. >The director quite correctly lets the result stand, and (I hope) >informs both sides that they may appeal his ruling, since it >was a matter of *judgement*, not *law*. >Now, if the NOS wish to appeal this, they are perfectly allowed >to do so. Perhaps there is evidence which the director did not >have, or was not permitted to use, such as the fact that >Joe and Jill Blow, married for 35 years, have a long history >of "catching" each others calls, and have been warned not to do >it again...and have done it again. A director (IMHO) should not >use this type of evidence in establishing a table ruling, but >a committee is permitted to use this anecdotal evidence. >*However*, the NOS had better be on solid ground bridge-wise, >because there is nothing a committee likes better than to >tell some bridge laywer to stop whining, and, here, have a >PP on the way out the door, don't go away mad, just go away... >To sum up, it seems to me that anytime the director has to make >a *judgement call*, there is always grounds for appeal. > Tony (aka ac342) The reason there is no basis for an appeal is that the director has not, technically speaking, provided a ruling, there having been no irregularity upon which to rule. The director has not exercised any judgement, necessarily, since none is called for unless the participants can identify an irregularity. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 11:32:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:32:02 +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 LAA22490 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:31:55 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id AAA10303 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:31:41 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 00:30 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis 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: <01bd37c1$69ae7a60$LocalHost@default> Grattan wrote: > "Law 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES > A.1. Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict > accordance with the Laws. " > Failure to grasp what this says has proved easy for some. It says > that the game is to be played as the Laws provide. That includes > regulations made under the authority of the Laws. Anything which is > not the subject of provision in the Laws is not part of the game; > "strict accordance" does not allow us to wander outside of the Laws > in playing the game. I must confess to having a problem with this strict interpretation, let me give an example of two actions both of which, IMO, make playing the hand significantly easier and to neither of which I can find direct reference in my (87) lawbook. 1. Sorting ones cards into suit order prior to bidding/play 2. Bribing someone for the hand records of hands not yet played If forced to rely on the self-sufficiency of the laws we cannot separate these two behaviours when we would all condone the first and disqualify (without even waiting for a lawbook) the perpetrator of the second. Personally I feel there is no need for the lawbook to try and define/prohibit every possible mechanism for cheating - we all know what it is and even in the US would have little difficulty persuading a jury of it, compared to providing evidence that such an act took place! Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 11:32:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:32:12 +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 LAA22496 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:32:01 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id AAA10317 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:31:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 00:30 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Kent wrote: > This is my first post to the group so I should probably introduce > myself. Welcome to the front line:-) > Finally to the bridge situation that caused me some minor consternation > at the time: You hold: xxx x QTx AKJxxx. You are in 2nd seat, no-one > vulnerable. It goes: > > RHO You LHO Pard > ---------------------- > P P 1S P > 1N 2C 2H X > P 3C AP > > There was no hesitation at any point in the auction. > > Your partner holds: KJx JTxx xxx Qxx. > > In my wildest dreams I could not imagine pulling partner's penalty > double holding a hand chock full of defence. Everyone who I asked about > this hand said they would pass with the actual hand, but that pulling > the double seemed to be reasonable if there was no hesitation > (especially since if partner makes a penalty double with this type of > hand, it is going to be a LONG event). > > Under the ACBL rules, do I have any grounds for an appeal of the > director's ruling that the result stands. 4H makes and was bid at the > other table. I can imagine bidding going exactly the same way with some of my regular partners (though the initial pass by North is somewhat timid). However, by our agreements the double would be card-showing/cooperative rather than strictly penalty and (rightly or wrongly) alerted. If such an agreement was in existence, and ACBL alertable, then you would have a valid claim based on MI. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 12:26:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:26:15 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA22767 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:26:09 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1029567; 13 Feb 98 1:21 GMT Message-ID: <9kQOVkASk540Ew9S@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:51:30 +0000 To: "E.Angad-Gaur" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: yes/no alert. In-Reply-To: <0EO900GQLS0OEP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <0EO900GQLS0OEP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl>, "E.Angad-Gaur" writes >Last evening I got the following problem: > Board : 9 N E S W > 1NT x(A) 2H (A)=Alert. > p p p > Result bad score for EW. > >After playing the board N says to West , why didn't you ask what the >alert of my partner was. EW were surprised because they had not seen the >alert-card. NS said that North alerted the x of South. At the table I asked >N to demonstrate how he did the alert. He showed that he took the alert-card >, put it in front of him and then took it back, like it is normal done here. >North explained that the double was not for penalty etc. >What is your decision ? > >Evert. > In the UK the bidding box regulations require the alerter to ensure that both opponents have seen the alert. Consequently there must be some case for adjusting. However these are EBU regulations and it is quite possibly different on the Continent >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 | >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 Feb 13 16:38:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA23995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:38:41 +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 QAA23988 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:38:31 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id SUCJa04421 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:37:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <774169d1.34e3dc2e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:37:48 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Ruling the Game (With Chart) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am repeating this mailing because I should have given the bidding chart instead of putting the bidding in sentence form, which is confusing. I have also made a few small changes to my comments. In the February 1998 edition of the ACBL's Bulletin, Brian Moran's "Ruling the Game" article includes an analysis of the following for a reader from Nevada: West North East South P P 1NT 2C 2H P P 3C 3S P 4H P 4S Making four. I don't think the card holdings are important. East has a strong notrump, South good clubs, West a long spade suit. South calls the director and states that he/she would not have bid 3C if he/she had known that 2H was a transfer bid, as she was entitled to know. The director gave each side an average (!) because she felt that N-S were damaged by East's failure to Alert that 2H was a transfer. E-W appealed the decision, which was overturned by the AC. The reader wants to know, "Was this correct?" Brian Moran's answer: "Had you been properly Alerted, it seems clear that you would pass out the 2H bid. The fact that East would not have passed had he Alerted is irrelevant. "In view of that, the director was correct in adjusting the score. I do not understand on what basis the committee chose to overrule that decision. Perhaps they missed the point made above and felt that the auction could not have ended at 2H." Of course we all know that the TD's score adjustment was ridiculous. If she felt that South should have been told about the transfer, then a score representing the probable result of a 2H contract should have been assigned, since South would undoubtedly have passed 2H. The main point is whether a player is allowed to forget an Alertable convention. The Laws say he can forget a partnership agreement. If he forgets, obviously he can't Alert, so I would tend to agree with the ACs action. On the other hand, if West and North were screenmates, then South would have known about the transfer and would have passed 2H. If South were to ask West about the 2H bid before bidding 3C, would West be obligated to reply? Could he say, not wanting to give UI, "You should ask partner, not me." (I have been told that you are not supposed to explain your own call, unless you are declarer). Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 20:50:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:50:36 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA25204 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:50:30 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-190.uunet.be [194.7.13.190]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02106 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:50:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E413DE.2B69A050@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:35:26 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Ruling the Game X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <7c8ece38.34e22b50@aol.com> <34E2F2EB.D7AAD5D4@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > > > > (W N E S > p - p - 1NT - 2C > 2H - 3C - p - p > 3S - p - 4H - p > 4S - all pass, making ) > Which has since turned out to be an incorrect reading of the original post. This changes the whole ruling of course. My original ruling was based on the fact that although opponents are entitled to know the correct meaning of the bids, they are not entitled to know that there is a misunderstanding. With north bidding 3C, this is important, since he will do so regardless of the meaning of the 2H bid (usually) But with south bidding 3C, there is a possibility of another call. With a correct explanation of 2H as transfer, he will picture east as having an extreme shape (within the confines of 1NT) such as 1-6-3-3 or worse. It now becomes far less interesting to rescue them from the auction, even without knowing that EW are playing in an even smaller fit. Thus pass becomes an alternative and 2H a possible contract and a rectification is in order. I guess we've all learned from this to always include both a diagram and a describing text. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 20:50:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:50:33 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA25199 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:50:27 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-190.uunet.be [194.7.13.190]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02102 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:50:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E41099.D4A51C95@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:21:29 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 53 cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > > > > ######### Agreed but the thread to which I was replying specifically > stated that this was not the case, ie. the 14th card was not from > >another pack. ########## So it was a pack of 53 cards then ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 13 23:00:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:00:27 +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 XAA26026 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:00:20 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000324; 13 Feb 98 11:28 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BD3872.0BB12D70@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:25:10 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: 53 cards Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:25:08 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 19 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman worte: > >David Martin wrote: >> >> > >> ######### Agreed but the thread to which I was replying specifically >> stated that this was not the case, ie. the 14th card was not from >> >another pack. ########## > >So it was a pack of 53 cards then ? > > >########## No, not as posed in the original post, but perhaps you should ask >the original poster exactly what they had in mind. One, albeit extremely >unlikely, possibility is that a table incorrectly duplicates a deal from >curtain cards using a perfectly good pack of 52 cards to create a 14-12 >situation and coincidently is careless enough to put the 12 card hand to a >wallet of the board that contains a card left over from a previous pack used >in the board. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 01:21:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:21:20 +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 BAA29097 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:21:11 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA17126 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:04:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213092254.006d8890@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:22:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ruling the Game In-Reply-To: <7c8ece38.34e22b50@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:50 PM 2/11/98 EST, Mlfrench wrote: >East opens a strong notrump in third seat, South overcalls a natural 2C, West >bids a Jacoby 2H... > >If South were to ask West about the 2H bid before bidding 3C, would West be >obligated to reply? Could he say, not wanting to give UI, "You should ask >partner, not me." Although L20F1 isn't absolute ("replies should *normally* be given..."), the usual interpretation in ACBL territory (for play without screens) is that *only* the partner of the player making the call may explain it while the auction is still alive. Not only would West not be obligated to reply, he would be obligated to refuse. 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 Feb 14 01:32:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:32:05 +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 BAA29166 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:31:59 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA18527 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:15:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213093342.006d8890@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:33:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Inadmissable double In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:10 AM 2/12/98 +0000, John wrote: >I had a new one recently. The auction goes > >S W N E >1D 1S x North not having bid > >alerted by West as negative, followed by very red face, followed by call >for Director. Aside from the general mayhem how do you rule. You have >one minute to get there starting I apply L32B normally, ruling that the alert/disclosure was meaningless, conveyed no information, and is ignored. 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 Feb 14 01:32:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:32:19 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29174 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:32:12 +1100 Received: from default (client868c.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.140]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA04624; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:32:03 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:29:05 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd388b$bcc55320$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: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 12 February 1998 18:59 Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis >At 02:20 PM 2/12/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> >>####What is the 'first law' of duplicate bridge was introduced to the >>law book with Geoffrey Butler at the helm only in 1975. In the English >>manner this most fundamental of laws was inserted about >>three-quarters of the way through the book where it has remained >>until now, subject only to some changes of numbering and format. >>Its humble placement has deceived not a few people into thinking >>it is merely a boring piece of redundant wording. Not so; I shall >>seek to rescue it from oblivion and to illuminate its effect. >> "Law 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES >> A.1. Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict >> accordance with the Laws. " >>Failure to grasp what this says has proved easy for some. It says >>that the game is to be played as the Laws provide. That includes >>regulations made under the authority of the Laws. Anything which is >>not the subject of provision in the Laws is not part of the game; >>"strict accordance" does not allow us to wander outside of the Laws >>in playing the game. >>Michael Dennis said: >If I understand your point, it is that the only permissible behavior is >that which is specified in the Laws or in regulation made under the >authority of the Laws. Fair enough. Then the following behaviors are not >legal: >1. Asking questions about teammates' methods (unless specifically >authorized by SO). >2. Answering such questions, truthfully or otherwise. >3. Double squeezes. >4. Counting the HCP in your hand prior to bidding. >5. Wearing dark glasses.> etc etc ........ ####Michael, and interested readers .....if any .... You go too far. I took the point of law to the stage where it identified the boundaries of what is within the game, I did not intend to define 'permissible behaviour'. As a contemporary of EK, almost exactly at birth but sadly now not in the later stages of life, I also overlapped with Geoffrey Butler, not in the international sphere but domestically. His view on the need to define in the laws what constituted the game was clear and subsequently we have not elected to change his manner of definition, although additions in the remainder of the laws have expanded the boundaries since 1975. Of your numbered points: 1 & 2 - the laws confer no authorisation to ask the question and impose no requirement to answer it. It needs a regulation to institute such requirements, and such regulations are sometimes made.... Without such a regulation to ask or respond is irregular. That does not say it cannot happen, but if it does it is not 'within the game' as the game is specified and certain risks attach to a response if it misleads. 4 I would suggest that any court of law would find that the need to identify the original thirteen cards of your hand (a requirement of the laws infers such a procedure. But more, I wonder also what interpretation you place on Law 7B1; the intention of inspection was that a call should not be made 'blind' : I know because it was a requirement I suggested after an incident in England. 5. If your dark glasses were to interfere in the game, say by reflecting your cards to partner, the Director would have power to act. See below. 3. Scraping the barrel a bit, aren't we? As to what my position is: it is irregular if the game is affected by any action extraneous to the game as specified in the laws and regulations. An irregularity is only an offence if it breaches a specific law and otherwise is not automatically to be remedied - but if a non-offending side is damaged in consequence of it Law 84E empowers the Director to act. ['Irregular' : not conforming to rule or to the ordinary rules]. ####Grattan#### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 01:48:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:48:01 +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 BAA29279 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:47:55 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA21111 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:31:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213094939.006c3bb8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:49:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:01 AM 2/12/98 EST, Dave wrote: >You hold: xxx x QTx AKJxxx. You are in 2nd seat, no-one vulnerable. >It goes: > >RHO You LHO Pard >---------------------- >P P 1S P >1N 2C 2H X >P 3C AP > >There was no hesitation at any point in the auction. > >Your partner holds: KJx JTxx xxx Qxx. > >In my wildest dreams I could not imagine pulling partner's penalty double >holding a hand chock full of defence. Everyone who I asked about this hand >said they would pass with the actual hand, but that pulling the double seemed >to be reasonable if there was no hesitation (especially since if partner makes >a penalty double with this type of hand, it is going to be a LONG event). > >Under the ACBL rules, do I have any grounds for an appeal of the director's >ruling that the result stands. 4H makes and was bid at the other table. What ruling? Where was the irregularity that occasioned a ruling? Even if one believed (which I don't) that the RoC applied here, it would require finding that partner's double was not intended for penalties; I see no basis for such a finding. 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 Feb 14 02:04:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:04:37 +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 CAA29538 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:04:31 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA23516 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:48:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213100613.006dbf44@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:06:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: yes/no alert. In-Reply-To: <0EO900GQLS0OEP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:24 PM 2/12/98 +0100, E. wrote: > Board : 9 N E S W > 1NT x(A) 2H (A)=Alert. > p p p > Result bad score for EW. > >After playing the board N says to West , why didn't you ask what the >alert of my partner was. EW were surprised because they had not seen the >alert-card. NS said that North alerted the x of South. At the table I asked >N to demonstrate how he did the alert. He showed that he took the alert-card >, put it in front of him and then took it back, like it is normal done here. >North explained that the double was not for penalty etc. >What is your decision ? No adjustment. Methods and modes of alerting are beyond the scope of the Laws, but we can assume that for an alert to be proper, it must be made in such a way as to produce a reasonable expectation that it will be noticed. I'd even go the extra distance and allow that if the action is such that the alerter realizes (or should realize) that the alert was not noticed, he should take further action to bring it to the opponent's attention. Here, though, we are told that the alert was made in the normal manner for the area, and have no reason to think that N was (or should have been) aware that W missed it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 02:18:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:18:09 +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 CAA29635 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:18:03 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA25509 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:01:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213101941.006de288@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:19:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <27663.9802121610@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:10 PM 2/12/98 GMT, Robin wrote: >To avoid these problems, I encourage partners and team mates to alert >any double which they would ever consider pulling. This seems to >protect opponents from misinterpreting the double and to protect us >from accusations or whatever when we pull. That seems rather over the line. I don't believe that there is *any* double, even the purest of pure penalty doubles, which partner would *never consider* pulling on any hand whatsoever. Thus "alert any double which they would ever consider pulling" is the same as "alert any double, regardless of its agreed meaning", which can't be appropriate. 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 Feb 14 02:52:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:52:59 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29863 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:52:53 +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 KAA32008 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:52:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA15457; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:52:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:52:44 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802131552.KAA15457@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau [and a similar comment came earlier from Michael Dennis] > What ruling? Where was the irregularity that occasioned a ruling? Come, come. The TD's _ruling_ that there was no irregularity is a question of fact and is subject to appeal. L92A says "any ruling," nothing about an irregularity. Whether such an appeal would have merit is a different question, but as a matter of procedure, there is no doubt that it is allowed. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 02:55:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:55:12 +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 CAA29888 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 02:55:03 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:54:45 GMT Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 15:54:43 GMT Message-Id: <28352.9802131554@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > While this might work in the UK, the ACBL is now treating the negative > double as the norm and non-alertable, I believe, while most low level > penalty doubles require alert. (Unless they've changed it again this week.) I looked at the ACBL alert regulations which I found on David Stevenson's web pages (dated 19 Sept 1997) -- I could not find the alert regulations on the ACBL pages. It says to alert ... - penalty doubles of overcall of 1suit opening up to 4H - penalty doubles of opening up to 4H - negative doubles of overcall of a 1NT or higher opening - negative doubles that does not show what is usually expected - *other non-penalty doubles when partner has previously acted*: responsive double, action doubles, ... ... So a non-penalty double when partner has overcalled was alertable last year! Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 03:12:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:12:46 +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 DAA00142 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:12:40 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA03770 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:56:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213111420.006dfbe4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:14:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980212123857.006b2630@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:38 PM 2/12/98 -0500, Michael wrote: >If I understand your point, it is that the only permissible behavior is >that which is specified in the Laws or in regulation made under the >authority of the Laws. Fair enough. Then the following behaviors are not >legal: >1. Asking questions about teammates' methods (unless specifically >authorized by SO). >2. Answering such questions, truthfully or otherwise. >3. Double squeezes. >4. Counting the HCP in your hand prior to bidding. >5. Wearing dark glasses. > >There are probably others. But really, is this manageable? It is simply not >viable to assume that the Laws (with supporting regulation, of course) >define a complete and exhaustive list of acceptable behavior. In fact, what >the Laws should (and do) provide is a general framework of minimum behavior >which defines the game, in conjunction with specifications of behaviors >which are impermissible. Actions and behaviors which are not addressed by >the Laws should, by default, be considered legal. If this means that >certain actions (e.g., lying to opponents about teammates methods) are >legally permissible but inimical to the interests of the game, then we >should change the Laws to make it clear that they are not legal, rather >than relying upon vague tautologies such as the one you have cited. Although I'm sorely tempted, I will spare the group an extended dissertation on "strict vs. loose constructionism", terms normally associated with discussions of the U.S. constitution. What I've been seeing here is a debate between two viewpoints which are both equally strict, albeit contradictory, in their construction, namely: (a) the Laws explicitly specify what is permissible; all else is forbidden, and (b) the Laws explicitly specify what is forbidden; all else is permissible. I am a loose constructionist, which means that I agree with neither position. I accept Michael's statement that "the Laws... provide... a general framework of minimum behavior which defines the game" -- but I contend that that incorporates both "a general framework of permissible behavior" and "a general framework of forbidden behavior". That framework is contextualized largely by explicit statements as to specific behaviors which are either permissible or forbidden. Behaviors (of which there are an infinitude) which are neither explicily permitted nor forbidden must be related to the context established by the knowledge of what is explicitly permitted or forbidden, and their permissibility understood and interpreted in that context (and therefore subject to differences in interpretation). To a loose constructionist, it is axiomatic that "actions... inimical to the interests of the game" are forbidden. The context established by the Laws, including those actions that they do address explicitly, should help to guide us to an understanding of what is or isn't "inimical to the interests of the game", but that is still open to interpretation and debate (which is what BLML is all about!). We can argue at great length whether lying about your teammates methods, or failing to alter the order of the cards in your hand before returning them to the board, is or isn't "inimical to the interests of the game" (my personal view happens to be yes and no, respectively, but that's beside the point). I reject absolutely the notion that "certain actions are permissible but inimical to the interests of the game". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 03:17:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:17:57 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA00200 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:17:48 +1100 Received: from default (client866f.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.111]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA17487; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:17:31 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:17:59 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd389a$f3e2fba0$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: Tim West-meads To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 13 February 1998 01:33 Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis >In-Reply-To: <01bd37c1$69ae7a60$LocalHost@default> >Grattan wrote>> Tim Westmead (extracts):- >I must confess to having a problem with this strict interpretation, let me >give an example of two actions both of which, IMO, make playing the hand >significantly easier and to neither of which I can find direct reference >in my (87) lawbook. > >1. Sorting ones cards into suit order prior to bidding/play >2. Bribing someone for the hand records of hands not yet played > >Personally I feel there is no need for the lawbook to try and >define/prohibit every possible mechanism for cheating ! > ####I am uncertain where the question of cheating entered the exchanges; unfair play is handled under the statutes of the NBOs and other governing bodies, not under the laws which do not seek to deal with unfair play. My purpose was to draw attention to the specification of the game, which should perhaps also be linked to the definition of 'irregularity' in the law book: "a deviation from the correct procedures *set forth in the Laws*". This definition and what I have said about Law 72A1 hang together, those last five starred words being crucial. I find it difficult to conceive of damage to a non-offending side resulting from the fact that I sort my cards to suits, so 84E would not be invoked. On a highly technical view it would appear sorting is an extraneous matter (a procedure not set forth in the Laws) and should not be allowed to affect the play, but if you take us along this path we shall soon be discussing angels and pins, and other trivia that should not be allowed to confuse what I believe was put as a serious question. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 03:25:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:25:09 +1100 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA00269 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:24:51 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa05999; 13 Feb 98 8:23 PST To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:19:41 PST." <3.0.1.32.19980213101941.006de288@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:23:50 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802130823.aa05999@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > That seems rather over the line. I don't believe that there is *any* > double, even the purest of pure penalty doubles, which partner would *never > consider* pulling on any hand whatsoever. Well, if the opponents get to 7NT and my partner doubles, there is no hand on which I'd consider pulling. :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 03:34:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:34:43 +1100 Received: from bretweir.total.net (bretweir.total.net [205.236.175.106]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA00385 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:34:37 +1100 Received: from renepion (ppp-annex-0123.que.accent.net [205.236.100.33]) by bretweir.total.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA12748 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:34:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802131634.LAA12748@bretweir.total.net> From: "APion" To: "Bridge List" Subject: theorical question Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:29:55 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1160 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reading this list every morning is very informative. I have been discussing the following question with one of my favorite director in my unit to prepare for my ACBL's club director exam: What law(s) applies to a couple of partners that leave a room after 7 rounds of a 9 rounds afternoon and don't come back? What are the penalties? Is it different if it were before a skip? Thank you, Andre Pion apion@total.net From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 03:38:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:38:56 +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 DAA00420 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:38:50 +1100 Received: from mike (ip220.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.220]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA14720 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:38:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213113903.006b0cd4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:39:03 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis In-Reply-To: <01bd388b$bcc55320$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:29 PM 2/13/98 -0000, Grattan wrote: ####Michael, and interested readers .....if any .... > You go too far. I took the point of law to the stage >where it identified the boundaries of what is within the game, I >did not intend to define 'permissible behaviour'. > As a contemporary of EK, almost exactly at birth but >sadly now not in the later stages of life, I also overlapped with >Geoffrey Butler, not in the international sphere but domestically. His >view on the need to define in the laws what constituted the game was >clear and subsequently we have not elected to change his manner >of definition, although additions in the remainder of the laws >have expanded the boundaries since 1975. > Of your numbered points: >1 & 2 - the laws confer no authorisation to ask the question and impose > no requirement to answer it. It needs a regulation to institute > such requirements, and such regulations are sometimes made.... > Without such a regulation to ask or respond is irregular. That does > not say it cannot happen, but if it does it is not 'within the game' > as the game is specified and certain risks attach to a response > if it misleads. >4 I would suggest that any court of law would find that the need to > identify the original thirteen cards of your hand (a requirement > of the laws infers such a procedure. But more, I wonder also > what interpretation you place on Law 7B1; the intention of > inspection was that a call should not be made 'blind' : I > know because it was a requirement I suggested after an > incident in England. >5. If your dark glasses were to interfere in the game, say by > reflecting your cards to partner, the Director would have power > to act. See below. >3. Scraping the barrel a bit, aren't we? > >As to what my position is: it is irregular if the game is affected by any >action extraneous to the game as specified in the laws and regulations. >An irregularity is only an offence if it breaches a specific law and >otherwise is not automatically to be remedied - but if a non-offending >side is damaged in consequence of it Law 84E empowers the Director >to act. >['Irregular' : not conforming to rule or to the ordinary rules]. Thank you for the clarification, and please accept my apologies for the impertinent tone of the earlier response. Your statement is clear, unassailable, and quite helpful in coming to terms with the issues which began this discussion. To apply the above methodology to the problem at hand, I would reason as follows: 1. If I ask my opponents for information about their teammates' methods, that question is an irregularity, since it is not authorized under the Laws (unless specifically provided for in Conditions of Contest or other relevant SO regulation). 2. If my opponents respond, either truthfully or otherwise, that also is an irregularity. 3. If I rely upon such a response in making an unsuccessful bridge decision, I am not entitled to redress, since I am no longer the NOS, having promulgated the first irregularity. 4. If instead of responding to a question, the opponents improperly volunteer false information, I might conceivably be entitled to redress under L84E. Note that the truth or falsity of the information is not dispositive in making it an irregularity, but would very likely be a key factor in establishing the necessary causality between the irregularity and the damage. 5. Nothing in the Laws empowers a TD to assign a PP for gratuitous lying to obtain advantage (other than where an honest response is specifically mandated by Law or regulation). This is because L90 limits the power to assign a PP to "offenses". A lie may well be offensive, but as you have pointed out, it is not generally an offense. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 03:46:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:46:46 +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 DAA00494 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:46:40 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id LAA09147 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:30:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213114826.006ddea0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:48:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <199802131552.KAA15457@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:52 AM 2/13/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >[and a similar comment came earlier from Michael Dennis] >> What ruling? Where was the irregularity that occasioned a ruling? > >Come, come. The TD's _ruling_ that there was no irregularity is a >question of fact and is subject to appeal. L92A says "any ruling," >nothing about an irregularity. > >Whether such an appeal would have merit is a different question, but >as a matter of procedure, there is no doubt that it is allowed. Of course. Let me rephrase: What was the alleged irregularity that the TD was asked to rule on (and, presumably, then ruled had not occurred)? Or was the allegation (as it generally seems to be in RoC cases, which is why I am so firmly opposed to the RoC) something along the lines of "I think my opponents' bidding stunk, but they got a good score anyhow, so they must have done something improper, even though I have no indication as to what it might have been"? 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 Feb 14 03:52:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:52:36 +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 DAA00543 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:52:30 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id LAA09872 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:36:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213115412.006e6ddc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:54:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <9802130823.aa05999@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:23 AM 2/13/98 PST, Adam wrote: >Eric wrote: > >> That seems rather over the line. I don't believe that there is *any* >> double, even the purest of pure penalty doubles, which partner would *never >> consider* pulling on any hand whatsoever. > >Well, if the opponents get to 7NT and my partner doubles, there is no >hand on which I'd consider pulling. Caught out again! I can just see it now: "Alertable doubles: All doubles of contracts below 7NT." 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 Feb 14 03:55:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:55:14 +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 DAA00575 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:55:01 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:54:53 GMT Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 16:54:51 GMT Message-Id: <28368.9802131654@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric writes: > At 04:10 PM 2/12/98 GMT, Robin wrote: > > >To avoid these problems, I encourage partners and team mates to alert > >any double which they would ever consider pulling. This seems to > >protect opponents from misinterpreting the double and to protect us > >from accusations or whatever when we pull. > > That seems rather over the line. I don't believe that there is *any* > double, even the purest of pure penalty doubles, which partner would *never > consider* pulling on any hand whatsoever. Thus "alert any double which > they would ever consider pulling" is the same as "alert any double, > regardless of its agreed meaning", which can't be appropriate. You are right, of course. However, as an instruction to people whose tendency is not to alert, a little exageration on my part may be excusable. When I wrote the words above I considered qualifying "would ever consider pulling": e.g. "would ever consider pulling with any normal hand", "would ever consider pulling with at least one card in opponets suits", etc. In the absence of a reasonable alternative, I left it was it was; but was prepared to back down quickly when challenged. A sort of "striped-tail ape" posting. :-) Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 04:07:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:07:22 +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 EAA00675 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:07:17 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic95.cais.com [207.226.56.95]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id LAA12141 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:50:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980213120858.006de600@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:08:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: theorical question In-Reply-To: <199802131634.LAA12748@bretweir.total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:29 AM 2/13/98 -0500, APion wrote: >What law(s) applies to a couple of partners that leave a room after 7 >rounds of a 9 rounds afternoon and don't come back? How about L5B: "Each player is responsible for moving when and as directed and for occupying the correct seat after each change." On top of that, it would seem that a pair that did that would also be in violation of L74A2 (failing to have one's opponents show up certainly "interfere[s] with the enjoyment of the game"), L74A3 (they're not following "uniform and correct procedure"), L74B1 (they can't "pay [sufficient] attention to the game" if they're not there), even L74C6 (leaving certainly "show[s] an obvious lack of further interest" in the deals they walked out on). If it were the ACBL, they would be in further violation of an explicit SO regulation, which states that absent a bona fide emergency, players who enter a game must play through to its conclusion as specified by the conditions of contest. What are the penalties? None specified, therefore at the discretion of the SO. >Is it different if it were before a skip? No. 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 Feb 14 04:50:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:50:48 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA00964 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:50:40 +1100 Received: from default (client86bb.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.187]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA29285; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:50:23 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd38a7$62a953c0$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: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 February 1998 17:35 Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question >> From: "David Burn" >> >I don't think there is any doubt that system disclosure is within the >power of the SO to regulate > etc. #### Yes. The laws make no direct provision other than in respect of enquiry at the table in respect of actions at the table. For all else regulation is requisite if the players are to be authorised to enquire, or required to give information in reply to enquiry, or to volunteer it. The immorality of anyone deliberately giving untruthful information fascinates; if required to give information by a regulation it would be misinformation, and being deliberate it would contravene 72B2. If the false information is given when there is no such regulation it is a case of damage ensuing from an irregularity ( i.e. from a procedure not set forth in the Laws); either Law 72B1 or Law 84E will apply. Also the question of unfair play would almost certainly arise under the statutes of the NBO or other authority. ####Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 06:04:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 06:04:10 +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 GAA01580 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 06:04:01 +1100 Received: from cph5.ppp.dknet.dk (cph5.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.5]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA18757 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:03:35 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: 53 cards Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:03:33 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34e496ea.372776@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:25:08 -0000, David Martin wrote: >Herman worte: >>So it was a pack of 53 cards then ? >>########## No, not as posed in the original post, but perhaps you = should ask >>the original poster exactly what they had in mind. In the actual case, we never found out where the extra H8 came from. The board was hand-dealt and had been played at 7 tables before this one, and nobody at those 7 tables had noticed anything wrong. The cards themselves were old - they had obviously been used many many times before, so there is no question of a new pack with 53 cards. 4 boards (25-28) ended the evening's play at this table. 27 was the one with the problem, and 25, 26, and 28 all had their H8s intact. 24 and the other boards preceding 25 had been passed on to another table, where nobody complained about too few cards. I was a playing director and did not check all 32 boards looking for a 51-card hand, but I expect there is one somewhere among boards 1-24 or 29-32. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 07:56:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:56:49 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01905 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:56:20 +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 PAA06564 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:56:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15792; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:56:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:56:16 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802132056.PAA15792@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you, Michael and Grattan, for the very fine explanations and summary on this important point. Let me just insert a quibble and then make sure I understand the main point. > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > 5. Nothing in the Laws empowers a TD to assign a PP for gratuitous lying to > obtain advantage (other than where an honest response is specifically > mandated by Law or regulation). This is because L90 limits the power to > assign a PP to "offenses". I agree with all up to "because." I'd say L90 is limited to _bridge offenses_, and lying (other than where the Laws require truthful statements) is outside the scope of the Laws. > A lie may well be offensive, but as you have > pointed out, it is not generally an offense. Lying might be punishable under L91 if it is so serious as to cause a "breach of order and discipline." And it may well be a _conduct_ offense, addressable through the SO's conduct procedures. So much for the quibbles. I think the main point -- which should have been obvious to all of us but wasn't to me -- is that conduct offenses in general are outside the scope of the Laws. They are dealt with by the SO (or by the police, if serious enough!) in whatever manner the SO (or other authority) deems appropriate. The Laws simply have no role, except: 1) L91 may be used to help keep the game going, as it were, by deterring future offenses or removing offenders, and 2) If a conduct offense damages an innocent player, L84E allows redress. Is this about right? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 08:44:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 08:44:40 +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 IAA02071 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 08:44:35 +1100 Received: from ldubreui.uqss.uquebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA148996271; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:44:31 -0500 Message-Id: <34E4C001.5976@UQSS.UQuebec.CA> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:49:53 -0500 From: Laval Dubreuil X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold [fr] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: theoritical question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:29 AM 2/13/98 -0500, APion wrote: What law(s) applies to a couple of partners that leave a room after 7 rounds of a 9 rounds and don't come back? Forgetting laws and penalities, what practical solution should you use (movement and results) when such an incident happens (a pair decide to stop playing and retunr home after some rounds)? Worst when you already had a pair not playing (half a table)? Change the movement, adjust scores, etc..? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 09:16:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:16:39 +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 JAA02211 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:16:32 +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 RAA11633 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:16:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15884; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:16:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:16:21 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802132216.RAA15884@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > What was the alleged irregularity that the TD > was asked to rule on (and, presumably, then ruled had not occurred)? As in all such cases, possible offenses are concealed partnership understanding (CPU, a version of misinformation) or an illegal action made when UI was available. > "I think my opponents' bidding stunk, but they got a good score anyhow, so > they must have done something improper, even though I have no indication as > to what it might have been"? Players are not required to know the Laws, and they are not required to know what infraction might have occurred. They are not required to request redress in any specific manner. Let's say North opens 1NT (some normal range, according to the CC) holding a three-count, and South passes with 15. EW don't notice anything until they see the hands. Wouldn't you suspect UI or CPU, even if no one saw North kicking South under the table and even if you didn't know North had done the same thing five times in the last six sessions? In the original case (Welcome to the forum, Dave!), presumably the NOS is arguing that the bridge actions of the very light double combined with the pull are so bizarre that they makes sense only if UI was available or if there was a CPU. As a matter of law, this is exactly the same as my example just above. The only difference is the question of bridge judgment; are the actions indeed so bizarre that they suggest an infraction even without direct observation of some possible irregularity. The allegation should be considered, even if the NOS do not frame their complaint in the form of naming a specific infraction. The Rule of Coincidence provides merely an evidentiary guideline for how consideration may take place. Clearly the original case (xxx x QTx AKJxxx was one hand; I seem to have lost the other) is nowhere near as bizarre as my made-up example. As a matter of bridge judgment, I don't find pulling the double bizarre at all or even particularly out of the ordinary. The double does, however, seem awfully light. (I'd expect something above a minimum opening bid.) On the facts presented, I see no reason to adjust the score. As Michael suggested, I would wish to ask a question or two about what the double was supposed to show. If the person who pulled the double had held a good defensive hand, my bridge judgment would be different. Of course the bridge judgment of the TD is appealable. On an AC, I doubt I'd vote to give the deposit back unless there turned out to be more to the story than we have heard. > From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > Perhaps there is evidence which the director did not > have, or was not permitted to use, such as the fact that > Joe and Jill Blow, married for 35 years, have a long history > of "catching" each others calls, and have been warned not to do > it again...and have done it again. A director (IMHO) should not > use this type of evidence in establishing a table ruling, but > a committee is permitted to use this anecdotal evidence. Now here is a very good question. I'm afraid I disagree in part. Whatever evidence an AC may use, a TD may use equally. After all, by L93B3 the AC is merely exercising the powers given to the TD. (This is for an ordinary AC; the National Authority may have different powers.) But should the TD and AC use their own knowledge of the players? Anecdotes? Rumors? Recorder forms? Just what is proper to consider? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 21:51:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:51:33 +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 VAA03940 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:51:27 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.6) id KAA03097 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:50:08 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 14 Feb 98 10:49 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis 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: <3.0.1.32.19980212140223.006af880@pop.mindspring.com> Mike Dennis wrote: > The proprieties do contain some rather specific language specifying > unacceptable behavior. Moreover, the references to the propriety of > lying > are conspicuous by their absence. It is worth examining why this > behavior > has been left off. I think that this one is well hidden, rather than absent. Buried away under the headings 73D (variations in tempo) 2 (Intentional variations) which are not strictly part of the laws is the statement... "It is grossly improper to attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark...(+ other possible illegal deceptions)" 73E Makes clear the appropriate mechanisms for deception (notably excluding lying!) and 73F2 makes clear that the director is entitled to award an adjusted score if "an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a deceptive remark..., or the like..". If you admit to lying (thinking it was legal) I will have no problem deciding the "could have known" issue. Bearing in mind that bridge is a social game a broad statement about "lying" at the table could cause all sorts of problems. You arrive at the table and oppos greet you with the polite "Hello, how are things with you?" This social enquiry is not intended to garner the response "My business is going down the tubes, my wife has left me...." but rather "Not too bad, how about you?" Or, for a "bridge lie" when you arrive at a table towards the end of a 78% session and are asked "How's it going tonight?" Truth: "Fantastic, we've left more dead rabbits out there than when they gassed Watership Down!" Lie: "Not too bad, how about you?" Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 22:19:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:19:03 +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 WAA04236 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:18:49 +1100 Received: from default (cph60.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.60]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA21639 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:18:32 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802141118.MAA21639@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:18:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: yes/no alert. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > In message <0EO900GQLS0OEP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl>, "E.Angad-Gaur" > writes > >Last evening I got the following problem: > > Board : 9 N E S W > > 1NT x(A) 2H (A)=Alert. > > p p p > > Result bad score for EW. > > > >After playing the board N says to West , why didn't you ask what the > >alert of my partner was. EW were surprised because they had not seen the > >alert-card. NS said that North alerted the x of South. At the table I asked > >N to demonstrate how he did the alert. He showed that he took the alert-card > >, put it in front of him and then took it back, like it is normal done here. > >North explained that the double was not for penalty etc. > >What is your decision ? > > > >Evert. > > > > In the UK the bidding box regulations require the alerter to ensure that > both opponents have seen the alert. Consequently there must be some case > for adjusting. However these are EBU regulations and it is quite > possibly different on the Continent Yes. In Denmark we prescribe the correct procedure for alerting, and allow players to alert by means of a light rap on the table, but our rules do not hold the alerting player responsible when the opponents do not notice, provided that the alerts were given in a proper manner. (When screens are in use, things are different). Last year in the Danish 3rd division one player in a partnership did not notice two alerts in the same auction pertaining to a transfer overcall. His partner did. They ended up in a very ridiculous small slam, because each thought the other was bidding the opponents' suit. I ruled that the alert had been made properly, relying on the evidence that one partner had noticed both alerts, and let the result stand under L21A. This was appealed to the "supreme AC", who upheld the ruling (I had to give up my seat on this one, since I was the TD at the table) . There is some sentiment in the AC that our rules are deficient in this respect, and we will probably suggest to the DBF tournament committee that they amend the regulations for next season. The unfortunate players were two of our reigning junior world champions. Their behavior in the face of this misfortune was immaculate, and their team ended up winning the division and earning promotion to the 2nd division in spite of this bad board. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 14 23:44:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:44:21 +1100 Received: from zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA04444 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:44:15 +1100 Received: from compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.1]) by zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA17750 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 13:44:10 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06952 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 13:44:08 +0100 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 13:44:08 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199802141244.NAA06952@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Standard Shuffling Algorithm Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The above is sufficient, but as Jesper has pointed out, probably not > necessary. The requirement, as he said, is that all statistics of > interest to bridge players be consistent with randomness. By > experiment, a 48 bit seed seems to suffice; perhaps even 32 bits or > fewer would be enough. I don't think that a TD should make use of an insufficient shuffling algorithm despite better knowledge. Microprocessors use ever longer registers, encryption is forced to move towards using longer bit lengths, only the bridge community moves backwards?! And towards the interest of the bridge players, the argument can be reversed. Using longer bit seeds will also be consistent with randomness, so do they have to know? But of course programmers should be supported by the availability of a free and well published standard random number generator and shuffling algorithm. > Even if it is possible to determine all subsequent boards from a known > seed, it is (I believe even for a supercomputer) impossible to determine > the seed from a particular (set of) board(s). > > I cannot prove this mathematically, but my intuition says that the > problem of reestablishing the seed from a set of hands must be more > complex than the programming of a computer to win a world championship. http://www.best.com/~thomaso/decode/ shows how to map a bridge hand to a unique number from 1 to 53644737765488792839237440000 and backwards. And this is done quite fast: "I was able to encode and decode 1000 hands in 10 seconds on a SPARCstation LX". This forms a problem of its own. If we start with a specific deal, and use only the minimum number of 96 bits for a seed value, then the corresponding seed value can be computed directly from hand layout. So we need more bits to hide the real seed value. > What does provide security is the fact that the payoff > for cracking one of these seed values is fairly trivial compared to the > amount of money necessary to build a cracking box. (I'm not going to > spend $250,000 no matter how many match points it might net me in the > long run). With the internet and more and more of fast but also idle computers, loose clustering for large computations, e.g. cracking cyphers, will become more commonplace, even though it is already done today. So it's not you who spends $250,000 but, but your PC will be part of a community. Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 15 05:48:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:48:16 +1100 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08140 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:47:49 +1100 Received: from s_foxy.p2p.sci-nnov.ru (foxy.p2p [194.190.176.114]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id VAA19113 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:45:24 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199802141845.VAA19113@adm.sci-nnov.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Alertable doubles(Was: ACBL Rule of Coincidence) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:31:26 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > >To avoid these problems, I encourage partners and team mates to alert > >any double which they would ever consider pulling. This seems to > >protect opponents from misinterpreting the double and to protect us > >from accusations or whatever when we pull. > > That seems rather over the line. I don't believe that there is *any* > double, even the purest of pure penalty doubles, which partner would *never > consider* pulling on any hand whatsoever. Thus "alert any double which > they would ever consider pulling" is the same as "alert any double, > regardless of its agreed meaning", which can't be appropriate. > Why not? As we state it in Russia and AFAIK (as far as I know :-) in some other countries no double or redouble should be alerted because there a lot of different meanings for doubles and redoubles in the same casees in different partnership and it is very difficult to draw the line between alertable and nonalertable double. May be we can suggest this solution to all NCBOs? Your comments are welcome. Sergei Litvak, RBL Chief TD. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 15 06:51:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 06:51:24 +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 GAA08320 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 06:51:17 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1023439; 14 Feb 98 19:40 GMT Message-ID: <5g7d8QAH5c50EwEI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:03:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: >> >>David Martin wrote: >> >>>At pairs, the players who passed >>>>on the **sorted** hands are not my opponents and the information conveyed >>>>by >>>>their negligence damages another completely innocent pair. >> >> Negligence? Since when has it been negligence to pass **unsorted** hands? >> >>######### The double asterisks above are my additions now. *'Sorted'* above >>referred to a hand which had been sorted at the immediately previous table >>prior to an auction that was passed out and the hand then immediately >>returned to board without shuffling by a player who does not normally sort >>his hand after the play has been concluded. Clearly, the next player to >>receive this hand might well receive UI in this situation, particularly when >>in 3rd seat after two passes. I would call this negligence although I accept >>that the Law only states that the player shall return his hand to the correct >>pocket of the board after play has ceased. >> >>To answer your question, which BTW does not relate to my previous posting, it >>is equally negligent for a player who 'always' sorts his hand after play has >>ceased and then forgets, to pass on an *unsorted* hand that reveals the order >>of his played cards to the next recipient of his hand. ########### Reading the above, and failing to find the original posting, I am not sure whether I made a mistake in my posting by mixing sorted and unsorted: quite possible, given the quote. BUT Why is it negligence to sort or not sort? I don't care whether it is someone who normally sorts and forgets, or someone who normally does not and does on a specific occasion. I find it hard to consider it negligence when it is not illegal. Players are not told that they should, or should not, sort, so how can it be negligent? If it matters, and I think there are some who are not particularly impressed with the importance of this thread , then it is time there was a regulation. But until there is, I do not see how you can refer to failure to be consistent as negligent. -- 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 Feb 15 06:53:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 06:53:44 +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 GAA08338 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 06:53:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1023442; 14 Feb 98 19:40 GMT Message-ID: <2hBOcmAv7d50EwUJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 18:14:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: theoritical question In-Reply-To: <34E4C001.5976@UQSS.UQuebec.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreuil wrote: >At 11:29 AM 2/13/98 -0500, APion wrote: >What law(s) applies to a couple of partners that leave a room after 7 >rounds of a 9 rounds and don't come back? > >Forgetting laws and penalities, what practical solution should you use >(movement and results) when such an incident happens (a pair decide to >stop playing and retunr home after some rounds)? Worst when you already >had a pair not playing (half a table)? Change the movement, adjust >scores, etc..? The movement is completed with two pairs having to sit out in the final two rounds. According to the EBU Tournament Director's Guide: 80.25 Withdrawals/non-arrival and stand-by contestants 80.25.4 Not all play all - withdrawal part way through a session All scores obtained against the withdrawn contestant stand. Any contestant required to 'sit out' as the result of the withdrawal receives, in a standard pairs contest, 60% per board not played or session average, whichever is higher. Of course the Guide has no force legally except in EBU events. However, it is a very useful book to have for such things as this. It is a good method for *any* sponsoring organisation to have the rule that for anything not covered by their own regulations the EBU Guide applies. I do not believe there is anything you can do about someone who is going to sit out twice except apologise. Presumably they will realise that the defaulting pair _either_ had an emergency requiring them to leave _or_ is going to be dealt with suitably. -- 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 Feb 15 07:06:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 07:06:55 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA08373 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 07:06:50 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1023440; 14 Feb 98 19:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:37:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: law 72b1 and law 23 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980208104059.006d8238@maxnet.co.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk louis arnon wrote: >If we read law 23 we see that the director can give an adjusted score >if the offender at the time of his irregularity could have known that there >would be damage to the non offending side. >In law 72b1 is written nearly the same but adjusted the phrase that the >offending side gained advantage through the irregularity. >What does this mean? I do not think that the slight difference in wording between the two Laws matters. In my view the main reason for the existence of Law 23 is to avoid leaving a gap in the numbering, or alternatively renumbering large numbers of Laws.[**] I believe that whenever L23 applies so does L72B1 [though not the other way round] so that L23 can be safely ignored in future. >I shall give an example >partner opens 1nt pass 1d >The unsufficient bid is not accepted and a correction is made to 6d. >According law 23 the director can give an adjusted score because there >was damage. >According 72b1 the director must investigate if the offending side gained >advantage?(6d made 6nt -1 or 6d played in the other hand then after transfer >bid) There would be no reason for the person who bid 1D to believe at the moment that he bid 1D that he could gain from his irregularity, so neither L23 nor L72B1 applies. There is no need for the Director to consider damage. These Laws are to give redress when players are in a position where if they deliberately infract they know that they might gain: of course they are written so that the Director does not need to investigate whether it was deliberate. [**] L17D Cards from wrong board is in a section called Part I - Correct Procedure, and is misplaced. I suggest that the current L23 be deleted in 2007, and L17D be renumbered as L23. This would put it in a section called Part II - Irregularities in Procedure, which would seem a better place for 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 Sun Feb 15 12:44:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:44:36 +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 MAA09089 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:44:29 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009127; 15 Feb 98 1:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:11:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: yes/no alert. In-Reply-To: <9kQOVkASk540Ew9S@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >"E.Angad-Gaur" writes >>Last evening I got the following problem: >> Board : 9 N E S W >> 1NT x(A) 2H (A)=Alert. >> p p p >> Result bad score for EW. >> >>After playing the board N says to West , why didn't you ask what the >>alert of my partner was. EW were surprised because they had not seen the >>alert-card. NS said that North alerted the x of South. At the table I asked >>N to demonstrate how he did the alert. He showed that he took the alert-card >>, put it in front of him and then took it back, like it is normal done here. >>North explained that the double was not for penalty etc. >>What is your decision ? >In the UK the bidding box regulations require the alerter to ensure that >both opponents have seen the alert. Consequently there must be some case >for adjusting. However these are EBU regulations and it is quite >possibly different on the Continent WBF recommended procedure without screens: Alerts should be made by use of the alert card; it is the responsibility of the Alerting player to ensure that his opponents are aware of the Alert. WBF recommended procedure with screens: The alerter is responsible for ensuring that his screenmate is aware of the alert. The recommended procedure is for the alerter to place his Alert card on top of the alertable call, and remove it only when the screenmate acknowledges. Other posts have detailed EBU, ACBL and Danish procedures. I think that this is one for local alert procedures. My recommendation is that any authority that does not follow the WBF/ACBL/EBU line might think about changing their procedures: it seems sensible that a method of "alerting" the opponents should require the person doing the "alerting" to be responsible for making sure that his opponents are "alerted". However, where the local regulation does not require this, I think it is reasonable that a player has alerted adequately if he has alerted in the normal way. Still, the actual case does intrigue me still: why did neither East nor West see the alert? If the alert card was put immediately in front of the player by the edge of the table, and removed fairly quickly, and this is the normal method, then again it seems that the method is wrong. If it was put in the middle of the table, why did neither player see 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 Sun Feb 15 12:51:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:51:23 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA09116 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:51:17 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ad1009120; 15 Feb 98 1:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 00:25:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 53 cards In-Reply-To: <199802101533.JAA01811@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant C. Sterling wrote: > Interestingly, they begin their gloss of the law by saying that no >result acheived with a pack _of 52 cards_ is ever valid I think you are going to have to explain this one to me, Grant! :)))))))))))))))) Ilan Shezifi wrote: >IMO the answer to this situation is law 84E. >"If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by >law, the Director >awards an adjusted score if there is even reasonble possibility that the >non-ofending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right >to appeal (see law 81C9)" This rather ducks the issue. L84E [and L12A1, for that matter] only provide redress when there is no Law covering the situation. Most of the posters in this thread seem to think there is a Law: they just cannot agree on which one. :)) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 15 13:02:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:02:12 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA09173 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:02:04 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009159; 15 Feb 98 1:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:18:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alertable doubles(Was: ACBL Rule of Coincidence) In-Reply-To: <199802141845.VAA19113@adm.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: >Why not? As we state it in Russia and AFAIK (as far as I know :-) in some >other countries no double or redouble should be alerted because there a lot >of different meanings for doubles and redoubles in the same casees in >different partnership and it is very difficult to draw the line between >alertable and nonalertable double. >May be we can suggest this solution to all NCBOs? >Your comments are welcome. I think it is a **terrible** idea on the first round of bidding, and the reason given for this rule is not true on the first round. If it goes 1H * are you really suggesting it is a good method that I have to ask ***every time*** in case it shows spades? or hearts? or six clubs and a four card major? It may be a reasonable idea on later rounds, but not on the first round. I bet that anyone who plays strange first round doubles gets an advantage from using them and opponents not asking. -- 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 Feb 15 13:03:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:03:18 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA09193 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:03:13 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009158; 15 Feb 98 1:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:00:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Inadmissible X In-Reply-To: <27898.9802121717@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >> S W N E >> 1D 1S X North not having bid >> > >Although this looks like an omission in L32, it is not clear that we >should make up extra bits of L32. L32 tells us to cancel the double >and apply L26B. It then makes further stipulations in various >circumstances, none of these circumstances are that North doubles, >so there are no further stipulations when North doubles: EW may bid >freely. Doesn't feel right! I would certainly be tempted the L32B2 route [surely not A, as someone suggested], but I believe that Robin's opinion is the only legal one. We already have one omission in L32 [double at LHO's turn when this hand has not previously called]: now we seem to have another. Both positions are rare but there seems no reason why they should not be covered. -- 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 Feb 15 13:09:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:09:01 +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 NAA09234 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:08:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac1009122; 15 Feb 98 1:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 00:19:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 53 cards In-Reply-To: <199802090912.EAA17274@fern.us.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Barnfield wrote: >I think L1, rather than L13 or L14 is relevant. See 1.1 of the EBL Commentary >on the 1987 Laws. In summary the board is cancelled. In a match, depending on >the circumstances, a redeal may be appropriate. "Duplicate Contract Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting ...". It is suggested that if the deal has been played with 53 cards then it is not Bridge, because of this Law. So how is the logic different if a deal is played with 51 cards? It is not "Bridge" for exactly the same reason, but you do not throw the deal out: you apply L14. Therefore, you cannot use L1 to cancel the play of a hand that does not contain 52 cards. Before someone points out that *this* situation is different, because there were two H8s, so you cannot say [as L1 continues] "... , consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits ..." and going on to specify them, exactly the same objection would apply if there was *no* H8. So I do not believe that we can use L1. Herman De Wael wrote: >L1 : Bridge is played with 52 cards. >To all intents and purposes, that extra H8 is not a card at all. >South has no redress if he had bid too high with an extra card - he >should have counted his cards. >There should also be no redress in the other direction now that the >contract is made. This is also wrong, for the same reason. It is not a L1 ruling. Why should you pretend that a card is not a card? I also cannot find any logic that says that a non-offending side should not be allowed redress because the contract has been made! Hirsch Davis wrote: >I'm not sure I understand the logic here. I agree that L13 has >disqualified itself by footnote, and that L14 does not apply. No, that cannot be correct. The footnote says that in a particular situation then you move to L14. _Either_ the situation exists, and you use L14, _or_ it does not, and then L13 is not disqualified by the footnote. -- 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 Feb 15 13:12:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:12:48 +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 NAA09264 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:12:43 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac1009119; 15 Feb 98 1:38 GMT Message-ID: <5OPlX8A93i50EwnS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:51:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 50 different and 2 the same (was :RE: 53 cards) In-Reply-To: <199802102351.SAA13289@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >It might be reasonable to change the laws to allow results to stand >when it can be determined without doubt that the error had no effect. Great! I would love to be the Director trying to find out whether a six beat a five when it should lose to a four. How about a three and an eight? We do not want such a change, thanks! Mark Abraham wrote: >To illustrate, exchanging a deuce and a trey might enable a defender >playing odd/even discards to give a different signal on a given hand, that >might enable their partner to defend differently... determining _without >doubt_ that the misduplication of cards would have had no effect may not be >a simple task. Exactly! Steve Willner wrote: >On the other hand, that could easily lead to controversy, so maybe it's >better to have an unambiguous requirement to throw out the board. I >agree with Adam that it seems reasonable to ignore the strict rule in >less formal games. I think that is for another thread! -- 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 Feb 15 13:16:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:16:04 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA09295 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:15:58 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2016636; 15 Feb 98 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:50:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 53 cards In-Reply-To: <199802091555.KAA12155@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Does "deficient" here mean "having less than 13 cards" or does it >> mean "incorrect"? >In the ACBL Laws version, it seems clear to me that 'deficient' means >'fewer than 13 cards'. L13 consistently uses 'incorrect'; L14 >consistently uses 'deficient'. L14 has no mention of extra cards. >Also, in normal English usage, 'deficient' means lacking some essential >part or quality. 'Defective' (or of course 'incorrect') would be a >more appropriate word for a wrong number that could be either too many >or too few. (Compare L67, Defective Trick.) I agree with this. I think we have to use logic sometimes to resolve doubtful points. Both my dictionaries allow 'deficient' _either_ to mean lacking in some essential _or_ to mean short numerically. It is therefore not wrong to assume the latter meaning when it seems logical, as above, and considering the heading 'Missing Card'. >In the original problem, it seems an ArtAS should be given under L13 >unless all four players agree to let the result stand. Presumably the >TD would wish to ask before the players know the result at the other >table. Errr - why? There was a suggestion that the card affected the auction, so I would rule that it cannot be corrected and played normally with no change of call. A+A- without the option! In fact, this is my view of the correct answer. I have explained in another article why I do not believe this to be a L1 case. That makes it a L13 case, or a L14 case. The logic above suggests to me that it is a L13 case, and the second paragraph shows why I am not offering the players an option. Accordingly, it does not matter whether it was discovered before or after the claim. It was suggested somewhere in this thread that it would not be clear which H8 was the real one. I bet the one that was not real was in the 14 card 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 Sun Feb 15 13:16:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:16:29 +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 NAA09311 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:16:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2016625; 15 Feb 98 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:51:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling the Game In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >On a similar point, playing in the Australian Swiss Pairs a few months ago, >the following situation occured. The defence partner and I used to 1NT >openings varied with the strength of the 1NT. For most of our partnership >experience our opponents had generally used a strong one (OKbridge), but >our table opponents (top Australian players) were using a weak one. LHO >opened a 12-14 1NT, pard called 2C (systemically single-suited) which I >alerted, and when asked, I proceeded to explain was for the majors. After a >confused auction the opponents settled in 3S. Partner (wrongly) attempted >to correct my explanation before my opening lead but was stopped from doing >so by LHO. During the play of the hand, director was called by RHO >(declarer) and the situation explained, including the inference that >partner thought 2C had another meaning. Upon further questioning, I >recalled that our agreements over strong/weak NT were spelled out on our >CC, but RHO and TD couldn't find it. LHO then suggested I leave the table >so that pard could give an explanation without UI. Experienced TD >concurred. Towards the end of the hand I deduced from AI that pard was >single-suited in hearts. I returned and 3S made for a flattish board. > >I had never heard of such practice before - could/should a player be asked >to leave in this way, given that I already have the UI that partner thinks >my explanation was incorrect? Or should the MI already given by me lead to >an adjusted score? If the TD considers that a sensible result is more likely to be obtained from sending a player away from the table, then why not? MI and UI can both be reduced. So answering generally, rather than this specific case [which is confusing!], yes, it seems a desirable practice in some cases. Note the following extract from the EBU Orange Book: 5.2.5 When you know your partner's call is conventional, but cannot remember its meaning, you should alert and, if asked for its meaning, refer your opponents to your convention card. If they still want more information, the TD should be called to ensure that any unauthorised information does not affect partner's actions. (The TD may require you to leave the table in order to ask your partner for the explanation). >If we had been playing behind screens, RHO declaring would have a 50% >chance of getting the correct explanation. If he had received the wrong one >(from me) he would not have the information from partner that I may have >given MI, would not have called TD, and probably misread the hand and >failed. When the MI came to light, score adjustment would occur. I am >inclined to think the ruling should be the same in each case. I think we consider what would have happened behind screens a little too much. The screen scenario is *quite* different in the case you quote, and seems irrelevant. -- 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 Feb 15 13:17:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:17:08 +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 NAA09325 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:17:03 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2016624; 15 Feb 98 1:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:51:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980212173338.006b50cc@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dave Kent wrote: >This is my first post to the group so I should probably introduce myself. My >name is David Kent from Ottawa, Canada and although I am a 'certified' >director, the last time I directed was at my university club in 1980. I >really do enjoy the repartee between some of the best bridge legal minds in >the world and I have been a lurker on this newsgroup for about one year. Hi! Nice to hear from you. >I have no cats, but I am a cat person Good enough! Michael S. Dennis wrote: >The reason there is no basis for an appeal is that the director has not, >technically speaking, provided a ruling, there having been no irregularity >upon which to rule. The director has not exercised any judgement, >necessarily, since none is called for unless the participants can identify >an irregularity. Why should the *participants* identify an irregularity? That is the TD's job! If the TD has decided that there was no irregularity, that *is* his ruling! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 15 15:22:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:22:48 +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 PAA09604 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:22:43 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 5QGUa06011 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:22:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52f66ad4.34e66d89@aol.com> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:22:30 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ACBL alert procedure Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In reply to my statement that natural opening bids at the one level that are non-forcing and unlimited do not require an Alert, despite what a TD might said, Axeman wrote: > The man who told me is probably the ACBL's best director and most > knowledgeable about regulations and procedures. I believe this is known as "damning with faint praise." While some of the Alert Procedure language might be interpreted as requiring an Alert for such opening bids, there are these two very explicit statements under Part VI: OPENING SUIT BIDS, RESPONSES AND REBIDS 1. 1C, 1D: Not Alertable if natural (three or more cards in a minor) and non- forcing. 2. 1H, 1S: Not Alertable if natural (four or more cards in a major) and non- forcing. I don't see how some sophistic argument about full disclosure can get around these two clear statements. ACBL directors sometimes require Alerts for a call that they feel should be Alerted, even though the ACBL Alert Procedure does not require it. Often they are showing more common sense than the BoD, as in this case. There is no doubt that unlimited opening bids at the one level SHOULD be Alertable, but ACBL TDs do not have the power to make that decision. For sportsmanship's sake, I think it would be a good idea to Pre-Alert: "We have no forcing opening bids." Just today a sectional TD told me that I have to Alert a natural jump overcall of 2NT, because opponents would expect that to be Unusual Notrump. That is logical, analogous to the requirement for Alerting a strong jump overcall in a suit, but there is no such requirement in the ACBL Alert Procedure. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 15 15:23:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:23:00 +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 PAA09612 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:22:54 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb191.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.191]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01836 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:22:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980214232306.006c196c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:23:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980212173338.006b50cc@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:51 AM 2/15/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>The reason there is no basis for an appeal is that the director has not, >>technically speaking, provided a ruling, there having been no irregularity >>upon which to rule. The director has not exercised any judgement, >>necessarily, since none is called for unless the participants can identify >>an irregularity. > > Why should the *participants* identify an irregularity? That is the >TD's job! If the TD has decided that there was no irregularity, that >*is* his ruling! > The original question concerned whether this "ruling" was appealable. Although you have not specifically answered that question, the drift of your comments seems to be that it is. This despite the fact that 1) no irregularity has been alleged by anyone and 2) no evidence of an irregularity has been brought forth. Whether the obvious conclusion (that this situation does not require further intervention on the part of the TD) should be considered a "ruling" is, perhaps, a semantic quibble. But if you think that such a conclusion should be appealable, I offer the following alternative scenario: In declaring 3NT at pairs, I am dismayed upon opening the score sheet to find that nearly all the other declarers played the hand one trick better. I summon the director for a ruling. Presented with the above facts, he "rules" that I didn't play the hand very well, and the score should stand. Is this ruling appealable? I submit that there is no substantive legal difference between the posted situation and this one. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 15 15:27:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:27:41 +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 PAA09639 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:27:37 +1100 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA09807 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 14:27:35 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 14:27:35 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alertable doubles(Was: ACBL Rule of Coincidence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > Sergei Litvak wrote: > > >Why not? As we state it in Russia and AFAIK (as far as I know :-) in some > >other countries no double or redouble should be alerted because there a lot > >of different meanings for doubles and redoubles in the same casees in > >different partnership and it is very difficult to draw the line between > >alertable and nonalertable double. > >May be we can suggest this solution to all NCBOs? > >Your comments are welcome. > > I think it is a **terrible** idea on the first round of bidding, and > the reason given for this rule is not true on the first round. > > If it goes 1H * are you really suggesting it is a good method that I > have to ask ***every time*** in case it shows spades? or hearts? or > six clubs and a four card major? > > It may be a reasonable idea on later rounds, but not on the first > round. I bet that anyone who plays strange first round doubles gets an > advantage from using them and opponents not asking. > In Australia we have a similar Alerting policy. A number of common actions are defined as "self alerting". These include cue bids of the opponents suit, all doubles and redoubles, all calls above the level of 3NT, all skip bids etc. None of these require a "physical" alert and the opposition is expected to treat them as though they have been alerted and ask accordingly. Although there are pluses and minuses, on the whole it works pretty well. Before the start of a round, the opponents are required to ascertain the pair's basic system structure, NT range, two-level bids etc. There is also an onus on disclosure via pre-alerts of any unusual treatment of a possible self alerting action. The average player knows exactly what to check up on before commencing the round (transfer prempts for example) and they don't get caught out! Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 01:06:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:06:23 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12801 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:06:15 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-163.uunet.be [194.7.13.163]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA14365 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:06:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E6A532.97ECD69F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 09:20:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 50 different and 2 the same (was :RE: 53 cards) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <5OPlX8A93i50EwnS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday in the Belgian second division they called me because one player had two seven of diamonds ! I answered that he would get two beers if he managed to take the last trick with that one. Could you imagine what would have happened if they had been in different hands and BOTH players had held on to it in order to take the last trick? I'm still looking for that deck with two threes of diamond !! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 01:14:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:14:05 +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 BAA12829 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:13:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1003593; 15 Feb 98 14:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:53:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980214232306.006c196c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>The reason there is no basis for an appeal is that the director has not, >>>technically speaking, provided a ruling, there having been no irregularity >>>upon which to rule. The director has not exercised any judgement, >>>necessarily, since none is called for unless the participants can identify >>>an irregularity. >> Why should the *participants* identify an irregularity? That is the >>TD's job! If the TD has decided that there was no irregularity, that >>*is* his ruling! >The original question concerned whether this "ruling" was appealable. >Although you have not specifically answered that question, the drift of >your comments seems to be that it is. This despite the fact that 1) no >irregularity has been alleged by anyone I do not agree with this statement. No irregularity has been *identified* by anyone, but that is not the same as no irregularity has been alleged by anyone. When a player bring a "strange" sequence to the TD's attention, he does so because of the possibility that it was caused by an irregularity. Whether he identifies a possible irregularity or not, he is alleging that an irregularity has taken place, and asking the TD to rule on the matter. It is not polite to allege things explicitly, but the implicit possibility is clearly there. >and 2) no evidence of an >irregularity has been brought forth. I do not agree with this statement. Of course there is some evidence of an irregularity: the strange sequence. If a dead body is lying in the middle of a road, that is some evidence that a person has been hit by a vehicle that is no longer there. It is not proof, of course: it may turn out to be a pedestrian who staggered into the road, dying from a heart attack, with no vehicle anywhere around. Naturally the police will investigate, and later a "ruling" will emerge, part of the ruling being whether there was any crime. In our case there is some evidence from the auction. The TD will make such investigation as he sees fit and then deliver his ruling. > Whether the obvious conclusion (that >this situation does not require further intervention on the part of the TD) >should be considered a "ruling" is, perhaps, a semantic quibble. I do not agree with this statement. It is hardly a "semantic quibble" that you are writing off a large proportion of rulings as non-rulings. In more cases than not a player brings a situation to the TD's notice and he makes a ruling. That is what is happening here. Admittedly, rude, ill-advised and unethical players make a lot of allegations explicitly. But polite, sensible and ethical players don't: why should they? According to your definition of a "ruling" when a sensible player calls the TD to the table and tells him the situation without making an allegation out loud the TD does not make a ruling? > But if you >think that such a conclusion should be appealable, I offer the following >alternative scenario: > >In declaring 3NT at pairs, I am dismayed upon opening the score sheet to >find that nearly all the other declarers played the hand one trick better. >I summon the director for a ruling. Presented with the above facts, he >"rules" that I didn't play the hand very well, and the score should stand. >Is this ruling appealable? Of course. You cannot keep his deposit: let the AC do it! >I submit that there is no substantive legal difference between the posted >situation and this one. Exactly. -- 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 Feb 16 02:13:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 02:13:57 +1100 Received: from imo23.mail.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA13123 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 02:13:52 +1100 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id STXTa04924 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:13:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <84b61a94.34e70603@aol.com> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:13:05 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Violation or psych? Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk North holds AKQ T65 752 QJT7 South holds 63 QJ987 A9 8542 The auction with north dealer, E-W vul: N-S play a 12-14 notrump 1NT P P Double P P 2D Double P P 2H P P Dbl All pass Making 2 Has E-W been damaged? What if South claims he psyched, with the absolute intention of trying to get doubled? What does it take to believe south? Is it his stature as a player? Is it dependent upon production of system notes? Should there not be a strict rule to apply? Should there not be an effort to avoid different rulings based upon personalities or ability to argue one's position? What if N-S plays Jacoby transfers, but no discussion whether it is on after having passed originally and over a double? The East - West hands: West East T 54 J9872 32 AK4 KT43 QJ86 AK93 6 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 09:07:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA14622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:07:40 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA14617 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:07:30 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client278c.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.140]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA02974 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:07:20 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Alertable or Non Alertable Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:10:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3a5e$7e7b7980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01BD3A5E.7E7B7980" 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_001C_01BD3A5E.7E7B7980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated = boards throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair = share of headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings = for different reasons. Game All Dealer S =20 N 853 AJ8763 74 K7 W = E J = AT9764 5 = 92 KQT985 A2 AJ986 542 S KQ2 KQT4 J63 QT3 =20 S W N E 1NT 3D 3H P P P The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the = TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted = that it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that = the bid was NF. How would you rule? In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply. ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BD3A5E.7E7B7980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The East Wales Congress this weekend = had=20 computer dealt duplicated boards throughout and some boards presented = more than=20 a directors' fair share of headaches. The following deal was the cause = of=20 several rulings for different reasons.
 
Game All     = Dealer=20 S
          &nbs= p;            = ;          =20
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;     =20 N
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;=20 853
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;=20 AJ8763
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;=20 74
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;=20 K7
          &nbs= p;        =20 W            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;       =20 E
          &nbs= p;  =20 J            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;        =20 AT9764
          &nbs= p;   =20 5            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;      =20 92
          &nbs= p;  =20 KQT985           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;        =20 A2
          &nbs= p;  =20 AJ986           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;           =20 542
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;    =20 S
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 KQ2
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 KQT4
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20 J63
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =            =20 QT3 
 
S          &nb= sp; =20 W            =     =20 N            =      =20 E
1NT        =20 3D            = ; =20 3H            = ;    =20 P
P          &nb= sp;   =20 P
 
 
The 3H bid was not alerted and after = the play of=20 the hand   E called the TD and claimed damage. He assumed that = as the=20 3H bid was not alerted that it was forcing. He said that he would have = bid if he=20 had known that the bid was NF. How would you rule?
 
In Wales the Directives of the = English Bridge=20 Union apply.
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01BD3A5E.7E7B7980-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 11:00:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:00:26 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14846 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:00:22 +1100 Received: from [150.203.96.38] (rsclt1-38.anu.edu.au [150.203.96.38]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA13414 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:01:01 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:01:01 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated boards >throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair share of >headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings for >different reasons. > >Game All Dealer S > > N > 853 > AJ8763 > 74 > K7 > W E > J AT9764 > 5 92 > KQT985 A2 > AJ986 542 > S > KQ2 > KQT4 > J63 > QT3 > >S W N E >1NT 3D 3H P >P P > > >The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the >TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted that >it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that the >bid was NF. How would you rule? > >In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply. > Was there a partnership agreement about this auction? Are EBU Directives such that this agreement would make the bid alertable? If there were no partnership agreement here then surely an alert can neither be made nor required. In Australia, aside from the actions deemed "self-alerting" (all doubles, redoubles, skip bids, cue bids of opponents suits, bids above 3NT, as spelled out by Laurence Kelso previously) an alert is required in any situation where the call may have "a meaning which the opponents may not expect." This includes weak bids that sound strong, strong bids that sound weak and various forcing/non-forcing situations. Bids like negative free bids, non-forcing 2/1 situations and correctable bids thus become alertable. This would seem to raise the question whether the 3H in the above auction would be expected to be forcing or non-forcing, however the wording uses "may" so in any such ambiguous situation an alert would be required. In the absence of any agreement, the bid does not have a meaning that the opponents "may not expect", and would thus not be alertable. Any inference that the partner of the 3H bidder could draw from the context of the auction is also available to the opponents and I would see no grounds for redress. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 11:41:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:17 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14931 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:14 +1100 Received: from [150.203.96.38] (rsclt1-38.anu.edu.au [150.203.96.38]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA15740 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:33 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:41:33 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: Alertable doubles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Sergei Litvak wrote: > >>Why not? As we state it in Russia and AFAIK (as far as I know :-) in some >>other countries no double or redouble should be alerted because there a lot >>of different meanings for doubles and redoubles in the same casees in >>different partnership and it is very difficult to draw the line between >>alertable and nonalertable double. >>May be we can suggest this solution to all NCBOs? >>Your comments are welcome. > > I think it is a **terrible** idea on the first round of bidding, and >the reason given for this rule is not true on the first round. I don't agree. Say the auction goes 1D - 1S - X. Although the following list cannot be exhaustive, possible meanings could be a) penalty b) informative c) I have 4H and 6+ HCP d) I have 4H and 10+ HCP (to make a 2-level response) e) I have 4H and 4C f) I have an undisclosed competitive hand g) I have diamond support In these times most duplicate players should expect that this double is some strain of negative double - generally showing some number of hearts, possibly clubs and some values. OK, we think, so any double that is not "negative" could be considered alertable. But what about c), d) and e) above? All are "negative" in orientation and I would certainly expect to meet types c) & e) in the course of a weekend congress. Can we lump them together and say that they are all equally alertable? Then the onus would still be on the opposition to ascertain exactly what species of negative double the opening side uses. The absence of an alert would need clarification also. The same would be true if we required an alert for a "negative" double. The opposition would still need to ask to tell between the 6+ possibilities suggested above. The Australian (and Russian) policy of deeming the double to be self-alerting has merit, a) because there is no argument about whether or not a particular double is alertable, conventional, natural, etc. etc. b) consistency is achieved across multiple auctions c) UI is never given by the presence/absence of an alert d) the opposition can protect themselves from accusations of giving UI to partner by asking about every double, rather than just the ones in which they are interested e) as discussed above, the presence of the alert can only give a vague description of the bid, and further inquiry would be needed for full disclosure to occur anyway > If it goes 1H * are you really suggesting it is a good method that I >have to ask ***every time*** in case it shows spades? or hearts? or >six clubs and a four card major? Yep. Unless the SO manages to stipulate exactly what 1H-X means if alerted or not alerted, you need to ask to take the correct action. A self-alerted double is no different. In practice, a glance at the opponents CC suffices most of the time. > It may be a reasonable idea on later rounds, but not on the first >round. I bet that anyone who plays strange first round doubles gets an >advantage from using them and opponents not asking. I do play strange doubles in second seat with one partner, and we are required by regulation to prealert them to our opponents before the start of a round. If we were required only to alert them at the table, most people would ignore the alert, thinking it was takeout, and we would still derive this supposed advantage from using them and the opponents not asking about them. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 12:21:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:21:22 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA15068 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:21:16 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2673.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.115]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA18809 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:21:09 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Fw: Alertable or Non Alertable Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:25:31 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3a79$c55e7e40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: Mark Abraham Date: Monday, February 16, 1998 1:21 AM Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable >The partnership agreement was that the bid was not forcing. >The EBU directive as it may apply to this , reads " it is >natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or >non-forcing in a way that your opponents might not expect." >Certainly a number play this as non-forcing, but equally some >play it as forcing. >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Abraham >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Date: Monday, February 16, 1998 1:03 AM >Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable > > >>>The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt >duplicated boards >>>throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' >fair share of >>>headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings >for >>>different reasons. >>> >>>Game All Dealer S >>> >>> N >>> 853 >>> AJ8763 >>> 74 >>> K7 >>> W >E >>> J >AT9764 >>> 5 >92 >>> KQT985 >A2 >>> AJ986 >542 >>> S >>> KQ2 >>> KQT4 >>> J63 >>> QT3 >>> >>>S W N E >>>1NT 3D 3H P >>>P P >>> >>> >>>The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E >called the >>>TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not >alerted that >>>it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known >that the >>>bid was NF. How would you rule? >>> >>>In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply. >>> >> >>Was there a partnership agreement about this auction? Are EBU >Directives >>such that this agreement would make the bid alertable? If there >were no >>partnership agreement here then surely an alert can neither be >made nor >>required. >> >>In Australia, aside from the actions deemed "self-alerting" (all >doubles, >>redoubles, skip bids, cue bids of opponents suits, bids above >3NT, as >>spelled out by Laurence Kelso previously) an alert is required >in any >>situation where the call may have "a meaning which the opponents >may not >>expect." This includes weak bids that sound strong, strong bids >that sound >>weak and various forcing/non-forcing situations. Bids like >negative free >>bids, non-forcing 2/1 situations and correctable bids thus >become >>alertable. >> >>This would seem to raise the question whether the 3H in the >above auction >>would be expected to be forcing or non-forcing, however the >wording uses >>"may" so in any such ambiguous situation an alert would be >required. In the >>absence of any agreement, the bid does not have a meaning that >the >>opponents "may not expect", and would thus not be alertable. Any >inference >>that the partner of the 3H bidder could draw from the context of >the >>auction is also available to the opponents and I would see no >grounds for >>redress. >> >>Mark Abraham >> >> >> > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 14:15:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:15:49 +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 OAA15278 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:15:13 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1022937; 16 Feb 98 2:39 GMT Message-ID: <+kGctPCxZ450EwFn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:21:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable In-Reply-To: <01bd3a5e$7e7b7980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We do seem to have some difficulties reading some of the posts. I know that Anne has had some difficulties with line lengths, and there is a totally unreadable effort on RGB at the moment from another poster. Please could everyone avoid proportional fonts: avoid tabs: set a right margin at 72 spaces, or if that is not possible, then use carriage returns at the end of every line in diagrams, no more than 72 characters across. I have edited Anne's post to make it easier to read: Anne Jones posted: The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated boards throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair share of headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings for different reasons. Game All Dealer S 853 W N E S AJ8763 1NT 74 3D 3H AP K7 J AT9764 5 92 KQT985 A2 AJ986 542 KQ2 KQT4 J63 QT3 The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted that it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that the bid was NF. How would you rule? In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply. -- 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 Feb 16 14:30:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:30:24 +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 OAA15313 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:30:18 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1000801; 16 Feb 98 3:28 GMT Message-ID: <6Xi$5UAdv650Ewno@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 03:00:45 +0000 To: Anne Jones Cc: bridge laws From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable In-Reply-To: <01bd3a5e$7e7b7980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bd3a5e$7e7b7980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated boards >throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair share of >headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings for different >reasons. > >Game All Dealer S > > N > 853 > AJ8763 > 74 > K7 > W E > J AT9764 > 5 92 > KQT985 A2 > AJ986 542 > S > KQ2 > KQT4 > J63 > QT3 > >S W N E >1NT 3D 3H P >P P > > >The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the TD and >claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted that it was >forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that the bid was NF. How >would you rule? > >In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply. Whether its forcing or not, its not alertable. End of story. Both treatments are common. -- 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 Mon Feb 16 14:33:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:33:24 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15333 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:33:19 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2002617; 16 Feb 98 3:28 GMT Message-ID: <5XY$ZSA1t650EwmZ@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 02:59:01 +0000 To: RCraigH@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Violation or psych? In-Reply-To: <84b61a94.34e70603@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <84b61a94.34e70603@aol.com>, RCraigH@aol.com writes >North holds AKQ > T65 > 752 > QJT7 > >South holds 63 > QJ987 > A9 > 8542 > >The auction with north dealer, E-W vul: N-S play a 12-14 notrump > >1NT P P Double >P P 2D Double >P P 2H P >P Dbl All pass > snip In the UK I would treat this as a psyche because in the UK everything is off after a double. In the ACBL game I have discovered it is mostly still on. So ruling in the UK I rule a psyche. In ACBL-land I'd have to check the cc, and if there was nothing written I'd need some time to think. Certainly South can pull his own 2D to 2H regardless of North's failure to alert (or non-failure for that matter). He cannot have a worse fit in 2H and may have a better one. This leaves us with the question of MI to the oppo. Would West have doubled if he'd known it showed H? Yes. Would W have doubled if he'd known it showed D? Maybe not. On balance I'd leave it alone and let the AC handle 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 Mon Feb 16 20:18:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:18:16 +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 UAA16135 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:18:07 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id BAA15116; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma015024; Mon, 16 Feb 98 01:12:08 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA04780; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 04:16:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199802160916.EAA04780@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Feb 98 09:02:55 GMT Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote (as regards hand sorting, when passing a board from one table to another): > If it matters, and I think there are some who are not particularly >impressed with the importance of this thread , then it is time there >was a regulation. I think we are a long way short of needing a regulation on this point. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells. England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 20:31:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:31:15 +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 UAA16162 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:31:10 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id BAA17371; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:25:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma017251; Mon, 16 Feb 98 01:25:08 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA07413; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 04:29:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199802160929.EAA07413@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Feb 98 09:19:16 GMT Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones posted: >The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated >boards throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair >share of headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings >for different reasons. > >Game All Dealer S > > 853 W N E S > AJ8763 1NT > 74 3D 3H AP > K7 >J AT9764 >5 92 >KQT985 A2 >AJ986 542 > KQ2 > KQT4 > J63 > QT3 > >The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the >TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted >that it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that >the bid was NF. How would you rule? > >In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply. Where I play, I think the expected meaning of 3H is NAT and NF. Thus I would rule "no adjustment". Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 16 22:19:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:19:11 +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 WAA16607 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:19:00 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:18:47 GMT Date: Mon, 16 Feb 98 11:18:45 GMT Message-Id: <16402.9802161118@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable Cc: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: (I have reformatted this, hope I've still got the hand right.) ----- Begin Included Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Alertable or Non Alertable Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:10:15 -0000 The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated boards throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair share of headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings for different reasons. Game All Dealer S N 853 AJ8763 74 K7 W E J AT9764 5 92 KQT985 A2 AJ986 542 S KQ2 KQT4 J63 QT3 S W N E 1NT 3D 3H P P P The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted that it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that the bid was NF. How would you rule? In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply. ----- End Included Message ----- The relevent directive says (something like) a call should be alerted if it is unusually/unexpectedly forcing or non-forcing. IMHO it is not unusual to play 1NT - ? - 3suit as forcing or as non-forcing (for any call by opponents). Therefore, in the auction above, I do not think 3H should be alerted whether it is forcing or non-forcing. What call was East going to make which was more attractive over a NF 3H? 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 Feb 17 01:34:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:34:53 +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 BAA19312 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:34:46 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1019514; 16 Feb 98 13:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:42:04 +0000 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: <199802160916.EAA04780@fern.us.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199802160916.EAA04780@fern.us.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@eur ope.notes.pw.com writes >David Stevenson wrote (as regards hand sorting, when passing a board from one >table to another): > >> If it matters, and I think there are some who are not particularly >>impressed with the importance of this thread , then it is time there >>was a regulation. > >I think we are a long way short of needing a regulation on this point. > >Steve Barnfield >Tunbridge Wells. England 7C Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. NB Restore not Return. To me restoration implies putting back to its original form. Thus if they have been made up at the table they should be restored sorted and if they've been randomly dealt, or selected by dealing machine from a randomly ordered pack then they should be restored unsorted, in random order. In any event returning them to the board in the order played is not restoration. IMO we have the regulation already. -- 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 Feb 17 02:38:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:38:14 +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 CAA19664 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:38:09 +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 KAA04996 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17279; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:38:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:38:04 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802161538.KAA17279@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > In declaring 3NT at pairs, I am dismayed upon opening the score sheet to > find that nearly all the other declarers played the hand one trick better. > I summon the director for a ruling. Presented with the above facts, he > "rules" that I didn't play the hand very well, and the score should stand. > Is this ruling appealable? Good grief! Of course the ruling is appealable as a matter of law. In this example, I don't think much of your chances of getting your deposit back. Or of avoiding a conduct action. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 03:05:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 03:05:21 +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 DAA19755 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 03:05:15 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb239.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.239]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA21937 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:05:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980216110519.006b8af8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:05:19 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980214232306.006c196c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:53 PM 2/15/98 +0000, David S wrote: > When a player bring a "strange" sequence to the >TD's attention, he does so because of the possibility that it was caused >by an irregularity. Whether he identifies a possible irregularity or >not, he is alleging that an irregularity has taken place, and asking the >TD to rule on the matter. It is not polite to allege things explicitly, >but the implicit possibility is clearly there. Your inventiveness in matters of bridge law continues to surprise me. I have performed a text search of the Laws (1987 version, unfortunately), and find no reference to "strange sequences". If we are to agree to apply this concept (without benefit of any legal authority, but no reason to let the Laws stand in the way), we shall need some guidance. What, exactly, is a "strange" sequence, and in particular, how does it differ from merely bad bidding? Is it just bidding which differs from how a particular opponent or TD would choose to bid? If a TD rules that in fact, a "strange sequence" has occurred, is the NS (Normal Side) entitled to redress if the sequence has resulted in damage? Do the "strange" bidders have some legal obligation to defend their bids? What exactly are the legal implications if the Strangers are unwilling/unable to effectively defend their thinking? Oh, and one other small matter. It is clearly a violation of L74 ("...annoy or embarass") to aver that the opponents have engaged in "strange" bidding, or alternatively to employ such euphemisms as "suspicious", "fishy", "bizarre", "knuckleheaded", or the like. In view of your broad reading of this particular law (cf "Lying"), how would you recommend the NS express their concern to a TD? Or is "strange bidding" such a serious offense that L74 should be suspended for these cases? It may take some time to sort out these complex questions. In the meanwhile, let me propose the following set of stock responses to a TD who is illegally and unnecessarily inquiring into your intentions in an allegedly "strange" sequence: 1. "Por favor?" 2. "Gee, I'm not, like, really into introspection, you know?" 3. "But I thought that was standard!" 4. "I don't know." These should, of course, be delivered in a friendly and cooperative manner, lest you get slapped with the additional undefined offense of "Suspicious" behavior. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 05:41:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:41:44 +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 FAA20300 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:41:38 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1015833; 16 Feb 98 18:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:07:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable In-Reply-To: <16402.9802161118@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: [s] >The relevent directive says (something like) a call should be alerted >if it is unusually/unexpectedly forcing or non-forcing. > >IMHO it is not unusual to play 1NT - ? - 3suit as forcing or as >non-forcing (for any call by opponents). Therefore, in the auction >above, I do not think 3H should be alerted whether it is forcing or >non-forcing. I agree. >What call was East going to make which was more attractive over a NF 3H? One that he now knows is more successful? -- 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 Feb 17 06:41:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:41:53 +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 GAA20709 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:41:47 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004536; 16 Feb 98 19:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:45:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >7C Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket >corresponding to his compass position. > >NB Restore not Return. To me restoration implies putting back to its >original form. Thus if they have been made up at the table they should >be restored sorted and if they've been randomly dealt, or selected by >dealing machine from a randomly ordered pack then they should be >restored unsorted, in random order. In any event returning them to the >board in the order played is not restoration. IMO we have the regulation >already. If someone pays you a 10 ukp note for a session at the YC, and then does not play because the partner you arranged for him does not turn up, you would restore his 10 ukp to him. But it does not need to be the same note, or even a note: to restore him his money does *not* imply in the original form. Restore means put back: the form needs separate comment. -- 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 Feb 17 06:46:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:46:57 +1100 Received: from cosmos1.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos1.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA20776 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:46:52 +1100 Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca) by cosmos1.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26668; Mon, 16 Feb 98 14:46:07 EST Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA19108 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:45:12 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199802161945.OAA19108@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:45:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980216110519.006b8af8@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Feb 16, 98 11:05:19 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis writes: > > At 01:53 PM 2/15/98 +0000, David S wrote: > > > When a player bring a "strange" sequence to the > >TD's attention, he does so because of the possibility that it was caused > >by an irregularity. Whether he identifies a possible irregularity or > >not, he is alleging that an irregularity has taken place, and asking the > >TD to rule on the matter. It is not polite to allege things explicitly, > >but the implicit possibility is clearly there. > > Your inventiveness in matters of bridge law continues to surprise me. I > have performed a text search of the Laws (1987 version, unfortunately), and > find no reference to "strange sequences". No inventiveness here. "Strange" fairly clearly means concealed partnership understanding. For which see Law 40B B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. Note that this is the only basis for review. Is there reason to believe that there is a concealed understanding (implicit - as in Tony's example or explicit when you have a pair of overt cheats) ? (Rest deleted. You're not adding to the discussion Michael.) -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 06:52:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:52:31 +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 GAA20799 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:52:23 +1100 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v2.02) with ESMTP id OAA15812 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id OAA15688; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:52:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:52:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802161952.OAA15688@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" >> In declaring 3NT at pairs, I am dismayed upon opening the score sheet to >> find that nearly all the other declarers played the hand one trick better. >> I summon the director for a ruling. Presented with the above facts, he >> "rules" that I didn't play the hand very well, and the score should stand. >> Is this ruling appealable? > >Good grief! > >Of course the ruling is appealable as a matter of law. > >In this example, I don't think much of your chances of getting your >deposit back. Or of avoiding a conduct action. > This appeal may even be perfectly valid. Suppose you are the best player in the room/country/world, and find that the field has played the hand 1 trick better than you. If you feel that the director hasn't investigated this hand to your satisfaction (say he's busy, doesn't like you, and tries to brush you off) then of course you should appeal. It wouldn't be the first time a board was mis-scored by the field, fouled at the previous table-- or that the score was put on the wrong traveller! The caveat is that it is up to the player to have a good bridge reason for making an appeal, since numerous frivolous appeals makes bridge less fun for everyone. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 06:56:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:56:36 +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 GAA20824 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 06:56:30 +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 OAA27628 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17525; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:56:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 14:56:41 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802161956.OAA17525@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ron Johnson > L40B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited ... > Note that this is the only basis for review. Not "the only." A call made in violation of L16A (UI) is also possible. Rarely will one have to decide which of these two possibilities is the actual case. The score adjustment will most likely be the same for either. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 07:37:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:37:19 +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 HAA20945 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 07:37:14 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004511; 16 Feb 98 19:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:45:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980216110519.006b8af8@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 01:53 PM 2/15/98 +0000, David S wrote: > >> When a player bring a "strange" sequence to the >>TD's attention, he does so because of the possibility that it was caused >>by an irregularity. Whether he identifies a possible irregularity or >>not, he is alleging that an irregularity has taken place, and asking the >>TD to rule on the matter. It is not polite to allege things explicitly, >>but the implicit possibility is clearly there. > >Your inventiveness in matters of bridge law continues to surprise me. I >have performed a text search of the Laws (1987 version, unfortunately), and >find no reference to "strange sequences". If we are to agree to apply this >concept (without benefit of any legal authority, but no reason to let the >Laws stand in the way), we shall need some guidance. I regret that until now I have done you the honour of taking your remarks seriously. I see now that I need not have bothered. Congratulations on being the first member of BLML ever to be put into my killfile. -- 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 Feb 17 08:30:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:30:21 +1100 Received: from cosmos1.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos1.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21159 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:30:10 +1100 Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca) by cosmos1.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27424; Mon, 16 Feb 98 16:30:23 EST Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA20448 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:29:28 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199802162129.QAA20448@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:29:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199802161956.OAA17525@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Feb 16, 98 02:56:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > > > From: Ron Johnson > > > L40B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited > ... > > Note that this is the only basis for review. > > Not "the only." A call made in violation of L16A (UI) is also possible. > > Rarely will one have to decide which of these two possibilities is the > actual case. The score adjustment will most likely be the same for > either. > You're right of course. Sloppy language on my part. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 08:54:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:54:22 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21310 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:54:11 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h53.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id AAA07287; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:54:02 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34E95ECF.253F@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:56:32 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re_Alert..._and_Psyche... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_VIEW.DOC" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_VIEW.DOC" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ÔÒ⡱÷4@Ö Hi all:) At the beginning of my letter I should beg all of yours pardon in several problem: 1. Sorry in advance for my poor English 2. Sorry, but I am not professional TD that’s why I am not keen with the Laws at your level 3. Sorry for my too-many-words-letter but the problem is too important for me and I’d like to be understood Several words about myself: I am playing bridge from 1963 in former Soviet Union, organized bridge clubs in Lvov and Sankt-Petersburg, had player’s and TD’s practice. During years taught so how to play bridge as to how to be TD. Now I am living in Moscow, an ordinary she-cat, named Chia, is full member (may be - even main member) of mine family. With great interest and pleasure I looked to discussions that rose in different cases, described in BLML. But do not you see that these discussions touched only one part of our common deal - the Laws? I agreed that it is ruling part but not the only. In any society (even the most democratic) there are rights that are not written in the Laws of that society. Usually such rights (and obligations) are the most basic and natural: right to live, right to breath, etc. Our bridge society also have such rights - they are formulated in bridge Legend (Tradition) - the second ruling part of our bridge life. One may construct a lot of examples but I remind only one more: the Holy Bible and the Holy Legend? both of them rule our common Christian life. And one of such rights (and obligations) is that bridge is the game where participants are playing and struggling for their best result, using every means allowed in bridge - but only allowed one. And the word “struggling” is no less important as any other word. Another rights are: right for common-sense decision, right for mistake (it does be an integral part of any game, not only bridge), right for receive so lost as profit by means of mistake, etc. I am rather old-fashioned player, that’s why I ask you to rethink any bridge case from both side: 1. Is there any infraction that might damage opponent 2. Do non-offending side their best during table-struggle (and this second point cannot be resolved without estimation of the level and potential ability to struggle of this non-offending side). Sure, it seems to contradict with demand that any decision s 74 K7 W E J AT9764 5 92 KQT985 A2 AJ986 542 S KQ2 KQT4 J63 QT3 S W N E 1NT 3D 3H P P P The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted that it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that the bid was NF. How would you rule? In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply.” The discussion touched problems of NS. Why did not any notice the East’s words that he would have bid if he had known that 3 hearts were NF? For me these words were the most important (and I appreciate sincerity of East): he decided not to struggle, expecting great profit. Why did not he ask at the moment of taking his final decision to pass? Might he afraid waking up the opponent and his potential changing of bid? Or might he decide to continue struggle (in case 3 Hearts were NF) by means of TD or even Appeal Committee? Even if there were no such direct thoughts in East’s mind - he made his own decision not to struggle (although his hand with 2 sure tricks after vulnerable partner’s bid might prompt possible common-sense-bids 3 Spades - in-passing to 4 Diamonds or direct 4 Diamonds). Moreover, for my personal opinion all arguments might be turn over: if 3 Hearts were forcing it meant that opponents expected to win at least 600 points. But 2 Aces with Diamond fit after vulnerable partner’s overcall 3 Diamonds usually would provide to 9 tricks in Diamonds (rare - 8 tricks - still better than 600). But in case if there would be established Spades fit (or something more in partner’s hand - as in that case) there might be even 10 tricks... That means that in case of forcing 3 Hearts 3 Spades were right bid too. Of course if you were going to struggle. Less probably - but similar thoughts and reasons might influent on final West’s Pass cause he still did not exhausted his hand... And last note - in case N-S won the contract only (it is not known from A.Stone’s report). Another problem: what happened during card-play? After Diamond opening lead there were not too hard to West to establish Spade trick by ruffing. It seemed that E-W did not struggle not only in the bidding - neither they did in card-playing. And nobody (neither TD, nor AC) can correct bridge mistakes. Summary: E-W pair received what they earned in this board. That’s why my opinion is that E-W side should not receive any compensation. Moreover, if their bridge level is high - they should not receive their deposit back (if the case was discussed in AC and may be even be reprimanded). And it does not matter which Directives are applied... On the contrary, the N-S position in the case seems to depend on the applied Directives and there is no room for me to discussed the matter cause I do not know EBU Directives at all. Common-sense-position prompts that N-S result rather should not be adjusted. After all by his Pass South showed (if not to East - but to West) that 3 Hearts were NF.. If he would not passed - that would be the real problem... Cause without his explanation nobody knew what were the reason of not-passing: system demands (then rather minimum strength) or bridge decision in NF-position (then rather maximum strength). Nevertheless final TD’s decision for N-S depends on the Directives. 2 case: Do not remember who wrote: “North hould be made independence from personality of conflicted parties. But I remind one more common-sense position: the higher one’s position - the more responsibility he has. And during my TD practice I never ruled low-level-players under the same severity as high-level-one. Guess that a most of you too... As conclusion I ask to make verdicts based not only on strictly the Laws but on common-sense bridge decision - when it is necessary, of course. All that too long (sorry!) preface may illustrated with two discussed examples: 1 case: Anne Jones wrote: “The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated boards throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair share of headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings for different reasons. Game All Dealer S N 853 AJ8763 á!á-Â$êÏðôîâíûïýëLaws (with full respect to the Laws). UTHORCOMMENTS CREATEDATEEDITTIMEFILENAMEFILESIZEKEYWORDS LASTSAVEDBYNUMCHARSNUMPAGESNUMWORDS PRINTDATEPRIVATERDREVNUMSAVEDATESUBJECTTCTEMPLATETITLEXE ALPHABETICARABICCAPSCARDTEXT CHARFORMAT DOLLARTEXTFIRSTCAPHEXLOWER MERGEFORMATORDINALORDTÏ--CREATEDATEEDITTIMEFILENAMEFILESIZEKEYWORDS LASTSAVEDBYNUMCHARSNUMPAGESNUMWORDS PRINTDATEPRIVATERDREVNUMSAVEDATESUBJECTTCTEMPLATETITLEXE ALPHABETICARABICCAPSCARDTEXT CHARFORMAT DOLLARTEXTFIRSTCAPHEXLOWER MERGEFORMATORDINALORDTEXTROMANUPPERABSROUNDDEFINEDINTANDFALSEMAXMINMODAVERAGECOUNTNOTORPRODUCTIFSIGNSUMTRUE" D D#+--4@Ö óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó CHi all:) At the beginning of my letter I should beg all of yours pardon in several problem: 1. Sorry in advance for my poor English 2. Sorry, but I am not professional TD that’s why I am not keen with the Laws at your level 3. Sorry for my too-many-words-letter but the problem is too important for me and I’d like to be understood Several words about myself: I am playing bridge from 1963 in former Soviet Union, organized bridge clubs in Lvov and Sankt-Petersburg, had player’s and TD’s practice. During years taught so how to play bridge as to how to be TD. Now I am living in Moscow, an ordinary she-cat, named Chia, is full member (may be - even main member) of mine family. With great interest and pleasure I looked to discussions that rose in different cases, described in BLML. But do not you see that these discussions touched only one part of our common deal - the Laws? I agreed that it is ruling part but not the only. In any society (even the most democratic) there are rights that are not written in the Laws of that society. Usually such rights (and obligations) are the most basic and natural: right to live, right to breath, etc. Our bridge society also have such rights - they are formulated in bridge Legend (Tradition) - the second ruling part of our bridge life. One may construct a lot of examples but I remind only one more: the Holy Bible and the Holy Legend? both of them rule our common Christian life. And one of such rights (and obligations) is that bridge is the game where participants are playing and struggling for their best result, using every means allowed in bridge - but only allowed one. And the word “struggling” is no less important as any other word. Another rights are: right for common-sense decision, right for mistake (it does be an integral part of any game, not only bridge), right for receive so lost as profit by means of mistake, etc. I am rather old-fashioned player, that’s why I ask you to rethink any bridge case from both side: 1. Is there any infraction that might damage opponent 2. Do non-offending side their best during table-struggle (and this second point cannot be resolved without estimation of the level and potential ability to struggle of this non-offending side). Sure, it seems to contradict with demand that any decision should be made independence from personality of conflicted parties. But I remind one more common-sense position: the higher one’s position - the more responsibility he has. And during my TD practice I never ruled low-level-players under the same severity as high-level-one. Guess that a most of you too... As conclusion I ask to make verdicts based not only on strictly the Laws but on common-sense bridge decision - when it is necessary, of course. All that too long (sorry!) preface may illustrated with two discussed examples: 1 case: Anne Jones wrote: “The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated boards throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair share of headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings for different reasons. Game All Dealer S N 853 AJ8763 á !êÂ$êá--Â$êáÏðôîâíûïýës and obligations in the Game of Bridge than it is enumerated in the Laws (with full respect to the Laws). , primordial belong to every bridge player, stois even more difficult because it UMPAGESNUMWORDS PRINTDATEPRIVATERDREVNUMSAVEDATESUBJECTTCTEMPLATETITLEXE ALPHABETICARABICCAPSCARDTEXT CHARFORMAT DOLLARTEXTFIRSTCAPHEXLOWER MERGEFORMATORDINALORDTÏ-)CREATEDATEEDITTIMEFILENAMEFILESIZEKEYWORDS LASTSAVEDBYNUMCHARSNUMPAGESNUMWORDS PRINTDATEPRIVATERDREVNUMSAVEDATESUBJECTTCTEMPLATETITLEXE ALPHABETICARABICCAPSCARDTEXT CHARFORMAT DOLLARTEXTFIRSTCAPHEXLOWER MERGEFORMATORDINALORDTEXTROMANUPPERABSROUNDDEFINEDINTANDFALSEMAXMINMODAVERAGECOUNTNOTORPRODUCTIFSIGNSUMTRUE" D D AKQ T65 752 QJT7 South holds 63 QJ987 A9 8542 The auction with north dealer, E-W vul: N-S play a 12-14 notrump 1NT P P Double P P 2D Double P P 2H P P Dbl All pass Making 2 Has E-W been damaged? What if South claims he psyched, with the absolute intention of trying to get doubled? What does it take to believe south? Is it his stature as a player? Is it dependent upon production of system notes? Should there not be a strict rule to apply? Should there not be an effort to avoid different rulings based upon personalities or ability to argue one's position? What if N-S plays Jacoby transfers, but no discussion whether it is on after having passed originally and over a double? The East - West hands: West East T 54 J9872 32 AK4 KT43 QJ86 AK93 6” And in this case only N-S actions were discussed. But let we sit about East and try to understand what happened in the board up to the moment of taking decision about penalty Double. Partner doubled 1 NT (might be weakened at last position) - and we tried to make it penalty. Then partner doubled penalty 2 Diamonds. How many Diamonds had partner? At least 3 (guess - usually 4)? That left at most 4 Diamonds (usually - 3 only) to South. Was the bidding of South natural? And after our Pass - continued bidding with 2 Hearts? Both suits were 4-4? Was it possible bidding at all? Guess that common bridge sense prompted to East after penalty West’s double over 2 Diamonds) that South tried to make JTB. And the only player who (might be) did not know it - was North. So there might be infraction - but East had full information about the hands. And made his free bridge decision - about penalty double. And he knew that they had at least 7 (usually - 8) cards in Diamonds. That’s why potential infraction did not influent on the East’s bridge decision. But - might it happen that East thoughts were:” There were no alert. So even if Double was wrong - we’ll fight by means of TD”?? Might be East forgot West’s penalty Double over 2 Diamonds. But unforgettable Edgar Kaplan wrote that it was very comfortable to forget the action when it was profitable. Even if there were no such direct thoughts - my opinion is that we (so players as TD) cannot agree that struggle may be make by means of TD (or AC) and that TD (or even AC) may correct bridge mistake of any player. The East’s decision were risky, but made with full information. For my opinion - it was too risky - I prefer to bid 2 Spades or 3 Diamonds... And once more decision may depend on the bridge level of conflicting side: the high is E-W level, the more clear will be attempt to struggle by not-allowed means - with correspondence conclusion. The N-S position in the case is rather clear - even if there was infraction, it did not influent on result. The reason of E-W damage was not infraction, but free East’s decision about penalty Double. East had right to double, he did - and should pay for it. Vitold Brushtunov, e-mail - vitold@elnet.msk.ru, OKB name - vitold B n Sorry - d (and lost in my PC) such a Sure - it is only my personal position, not last truth:)) But I ask you once more to rethink: if óóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóóó--)--, From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 08:59:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:59:43 +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 IAA21374 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:59:32 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA21272 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:57:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199802162157.PAA21272@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: 53 cards To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:57:23 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Feb 15, 98 00:25:38 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Interestingly, they begin their gloss of the law by saying that no > >result acheived with a pack _of 52 cards_ is ever valid > > I think you are going to have to explain this one to me, Grant! > > :)))))))))))))))) Obviously, you don't play under the auspices of the ACBL--this wouldn't be their strangest interpretation. [:)] {Sorry to pick on the ACBL--they're not that bad, really.} The gloss reads "No result achieved with a pack of 52 cards is ever considered to be valid if the pack does not conform to the specification of this Law." {L1} I thought it was curious that the "with a pack of 52 cards" clause was added, since it seems to be an idle wheel. [Unless they're just leaving open '51 card' cases to fall under L14.] > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Yours, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 09:04:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:04:54 +1100 Received: from imo27.mail.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21407 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:04:49 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 5QFVa12165 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:03:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <78a01697.34e8b7d0@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:03:58 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Bizarre Ethical Question Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In regard to passing information to the next table in the form of card order: I was kibitizing a couple of pals many years ago in the NABC Mens Pairs. Early in the session, a VERY high-ranked player, known for his success in weaker matchpoint fields, playing North, held the following hand: S-xx H-AK7xxxx D-xx C-xx. West opened 2NT, which North doubled, passed out. He then ran seven heart tricks, as the hearts were 2-2-2 around the table. I have often wondered if those seven hearts were in the order KA7xxxx when he took the hand out of the board. Suspicious guy that I am, it also occurred to me that weaker players are more apt to pass on the order in which their cards were played. Reading such hands, one can tell if a singleton lead worked or not, whether the king of trumps took a trick, etc. There was once a despicable (the adjective is Hamman's) pro who paid a confederate to feed him information during a tournament. Of course he had to leave the table continually, which people noticed. How easy it would have been for him to have the confederate (with the right table assignment) passing info by some code contained in the card arrangement. High cards to the left mean the opponents have a game, high cards in the middle mean N-S have a slam, things like that. A regulation is indeed in order: Players should be required to sort their hands before replacing them in the boards. This would not take more time, as most players sort their hands when removing them from the board. Passing an unsorted hand without permission could be a 1 matchpoint penalty. Requiring players to shuffle their hands before replacing them, as is now suggested, is not enforceable because the failure to do so is not evident. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 09:32:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:32:46 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21508 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:32:37 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client25f6.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.246]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA08769 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:32:30 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: A suit bid or not a suit bid. Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:36:54 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3b2b$61acf7c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 The hand ,which was being played at 92 tables,occasioned 11 rulings. The biggest problem was the use of 2 suited overcalls over a 1Club (alerted) opening by S. Game All Dealer S 853 W N E S AJ8763 1C 74 2NT*-?P -3D-P K7 5D - AP J AT9764 5 92 KQT985 A2 AJ986 542 KQ2 KQT4 J63 QT3 S opens 1C which is alerted. 2NT overcall by W,alerted, and N asks the meaning. He is told that it is the lower 2 of the unbid suits. "Do you mean Hs and Ds?" says N. "I suppose so "says E. The result at the table 5D making. "In the other room" 5H* + 1 N/S claim damage. If told that it was Cs and Ds N would have bid Hs. The E/W systemic agreement was "2 lower unbid suits." MI or MB? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 11:43:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:43:53 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA21977 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:43:49 +1100 Received: from [150.203.96.38] (rsclt1-38.anu.edu.au [150.203.96.38]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA11304 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:44:28 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:44:28 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The hand ,which was being played at 92 tables,occasioned 11 rulings. The >biggest problem was the use of 2 suited overcalls over a 1Club (alerted) >opening by S. >Game All Dealer S > 853 W N E S > AJ8763 1C > 74 2NT*-?P -3D-P > K7 5D - AP > J AT9764 > 5 92 >KQT985 A2 >AJ986 542 > KQ2 > KQT4 > J63 > QT3 > >S opens 1C which is alerted. 2NT overcall by W,alerted, and N asks the >meaning. He is told that it is the lower 2 of the unbid suits. "Do you >mean Hs and Ds?" says N. "I suppose so "says E. >The result at the table 5D making. >"In the other room" 5H* + 1 >N/S claim damage. If told that it was Cs and Ds N would have bid Hs. >The E/W systemic agreement was "2 lower unbid suits." >MI or MB? :-) I presume the alert of 1C was because it was some kind of Short Club, showing, maybe 2+ clubs. E was uncertain whether this constituted a bid of a suit for the purposes of the "2 lower unbid suits" of the overcall. He should state their agreement (as he did), but not surmise on the actual suits if there is doubt. I suspect there will be two schools of thought : a) 1C shows a suit, so 2NT for the two lower unbids shows H and D. In this case MB has occured and the result stands b) 1C does not show a real suit, so 2NT for the two lower unbids shows D and C. MI was given by the "I suppose so", and score adjustment would occur. Commonly such a 1C opening does in fact have a real C suit (particularly if four-card suits are opened up-the-line), or at worst three of them, and so the lower two unbid suits are H and D, so I rule that MB has occurred, unless there's a bizarre twist to the 1C opening by NS. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 12:30:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:30:13 +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 MAA22096 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:30:04 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02131; 16 Feb 98 17:27 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:44:28 PST." Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:27:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802161727.aa02131@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >The hand ,which was being played at 92 tables,occasioned 11 rulings. The > >biggest problem was the use of 2 suited overcalls over a 1Club (alerted) > >opening by S. > >Game All Dealer S > > 853 W N E S > > AJ8763 1C > > 74 2NT*-?P -3D-P > > K7 5D - AP > > J AT9764 > > 5 92 > > KQT985 A2 > > AJ986 542 > > KQ2 > > KQT4 > > J63 > > QT3 > > > >S opens 1C which is alerted. 2NT overcall by W,alerted, and N asks the > >meaning. He is told that it is the lower 2 of the unbid suits. "Do you > >mean Hs and Ds?" says N. "I suppose so "says E. > >The result at the table 5D making. > >"In the other room" 5H* + 1 > >N/S claim damage. If told that it was Cs and Ds N would have bid Hs. > >The E/W systemic agreement was "2 lower unbid suits." > >MI or MB? :-) > > I presume the alert of 1C was because it was some kind of Short Club, > showing, maybe 2+ clubs. E was uncertain whether this constituted a bid of > a suit for the purposes of the "2 lower unbid suits" of the overcall. He > should state their agreement (as he did), but not surmise on the actual > suits if there is doubt. > > I suspect there will be two schools of thought : > > a) 1C shows a suit, so 2NT for the two lower unbids shows H and D. In this > case MB has occured and the result stands > > b) 1C does not show a real suit, so 2NT for the two lower unbids shows D > and C. MI was given by the "I suppose so", and score adjustment would > occur. > > Commonly such a 1C opening does in fact have a real C suit (particularly if > four-card suits are opened up-the-line), or at worst three of them, and so > the lower two unbid suits are H and D, so I rule that MB has occurred, > unless there's a bizarre twist to the 1C opening by NS. I don't know about this . . . it seems most likely to me that E-W have never discussed what to do in this situation. I have an agreement with my partners that "short clubs" and Precision 1D openers are treated just like real suits for this purpose (so 2NT here would show reds), but I believe lots of players just haven't thought about it. The lawbook (footnote to 75D2) says the director should determine the players' actual agreement, but in a case like this, it seems wrong for the director to try to interpret what their actual agreement of "two lower unbid suits" *should* mean. If they don't have a clear agreement, they don't have one---the director isn't supposed to assume that they do and reconstruct what it might be. East gave MI when he implied that they have an agreement. I'd adjust to 5H undoubled down 2. I'm also trying to figure out how 5H doubled made an overtrick. Unless, of course, East ducked his spade ace three times and carefully unblocked the 10 to let declarer win a trick with the 8, and West ducked the club ace three times and unblocked the jack to let declarer win the 10 . . . (Unless the original poster meant 5H doubled making 1 [i.e. down 4]???) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 12:36:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:36:58 +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 MAA22128 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 12:36:50 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004591; 17 Feb 98 1:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:00:05 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>7C Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket >>corresponding to his compass position. >> >>NB Restore not Return. To me restoration implies putting back to its >>original form. Thus if they have been made up at the table they should >>be restored sorted and if they've been randomly dealt, or selected by >>dealing machine from a randomly ordered pack then they should be >>restored unsorted, in random order. In any event returning them to the >>board in the order played is not restoration. IMO we have the regulation >>already. > > If someone pays you a 10 ukp note for a session at the YC, and then >does not play because the partner you arranged for him does not turn up, >you would restore his 10 ukp to him. But it does not need to be the >same note, or even a note: to restore him his money does *not* imply in >the original form. > No I'd return him his money. I know I'm being picky here but why this use of the word restore when return would be the natural word? We'll wait for the ticket returns, we'll return the deposit but we don't return the cards to the board, we *restore* them > Restore means put back: the form needs separate comment. > Given that most good players do attempt to disguise the order played shouldn't we encourage them? and do we really need to amend L7C? -- 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 Feb 17 13:27:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:27:33 +1100 Received: from mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA22208 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:27:25 +1100 Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.68.130.231]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA11384 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:26:41 +0000 Message-ID: <34E8F532.AC310D65@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 21:25:54 -0500 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en]C-WorldNet (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question References: <78a01697.34e8b7d0@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: > > A regulation is indeed in order: Players should be required to sort their > hands before replacing them in the boards. This would not take more time, as > most players sort their hands when removing them from the board. Passing an > unsorted hand without permission could be a 1 matchpoint penalty. Requiring > players to shuffle their hands before replacing them, as is now suggested, is > not enforceable because the failure to do so is not evident. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) This suggestion seems to imply that everyone sorts their hand the same way. Based on the way I (semi)sort my hand [at one point I didn't sort my hand at all, but I've gotten older] and the hands I've kibitzed over my career, I'd say that's not the case. Or maybe we could have a new regulation requiring everyone to sort their hand the same way (a boon for those who pay attention to where their opponents pull their cards). -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 13:47:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:47:59 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22271 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:45:18 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025532; 17 Feb 98 2:32 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:31:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alertable doubles In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >>Sergei Litvak wrote: >> >>>Why not? As we state it in Russia and AFAIK (as far as I know :-) in some >>>other countries no double or redouble should be alerted because there a lot >>>of different meanings for doubles and redoubles in the same casees in >>>different partnership and it is very difficult to draw the line between >>>alertable and nonalertable double. >>>May be we can suggest this solution to all NCBOs? >>>Your comments are welcome. >> >> I think it is a **terrible** idea on the first round of bidding, and >>the reason given for this rule is not true on the first round. > >I don't agree. Say the auction goes 1D - 1S - X. Although the following >list cannot be exhaustive, possible meanings could be >a) penalty >b) informative >c) I have 4H and 6+ HCP >d) I have 4H and 10+ HCP (to make a 2-level response) >e) I have 4H and 4C >f) I have an undisclosed competitive hand >g) I have diamond support > >In these times most duplicate players should expect that this double is >some strain of negative double - generally showing some number of hearts, >possibly clubs and some values. > >OK, we think, so any double that is not "negative" could be considered >alertable. But what about c), d) and e) above? All are "negative" in >orientation and I would certainly expect to meet types c) & e) in the >course of a weekend congress. Can we lump them together and say that they >are all equally alertable? Then the onus would still be on the opposition >to ascertain exactly what species of negative double the opening side uses. >The absence of an alert would need clarification also. This is where we disagree. If the bidding goes 1D 1S x to you, and you hold a mediocre hand with a medium spade holding you are probably willing to bid 2S *unless* it is a penalty double. So in the ACBL you bid 2S if it is not alerted without worries, and in the EBU you would probably bid 2S only if it is alerted. In many situations on the first round players only want a general idea of the call, just enough to stop them having to ask all the time. Other simple examples: 2S from pd, dbl: in the EBU this is normally takeout, and that is not alertable, so without further questions you can pre-empt or whatever if it is not alerted. When you start to compare c, d and e above many bidding decisions do not need to know which! Just penalties, takeout or other would help a lot of people. Of course if you need to know detail then you have to ask, with or without alerts. But your method requires questions at times when you should not have to always ask. The original reason quoted for this regulation was that many doubles are becoming doubtful. Sure they are, on later rounds of the auction, but people have much better defined agreements on the first round. When I discussed this earlier by email with someone else who reads BLML he also said it would be very difficult in Australia to make a workable rule for this type of double. Well, I would follow the EBU idea of simplicity in alerting is better than total accuracy, so let's try this: 1 Do NOT alert any double after opener has rebid. 2 Alert any double of a natural bid that is for penalties 3 Alert any double of a natural bid that shows one or more suits 4 Alert any double of a conventional bid that shows any other suit 5 Do NOT alert any other double >The same would be true if we required an alert for a "negative" double. The >opposition would still need to ask to tell between the 6+ possibilities >suggested above. > >The Australian (and Russian) policy of deeming the double to be >self-alerting has merit, >a) because there is no argument about whether or not a particular double is >alertable, conventional, natural, etc. etc. >b) consistency is achieved across multiple auctions >c) UI is never given by the presence/absence of an alert >d) the opposition can protect themselves from accusations of giving UI to >partner by asking about every double, rather than just the ones in which >they are interested >e) as discussed above, the presence of the alert can only give a vague >description of the bid, and further inquiry would be needed for full >disclosure to occur anyway While this is correct, this is basically showing the disadvantages of alerting in **any** situation. Experience suggest that alerting gets rid of more problems than it creates. >> If it goes 1H * are you really suggesting it is a good method that I >>have to ask ***every time*** in case it shows spades? or hearts? or >>six clubs and a four card major? > >Yep. Unless the SO manages to stipulate exactly what 1H-X means if alerted >or not alerted, you need to ask to take the correct action. A self-alerted >double is no different. > >In practice, a glance at the opponents CC suffices most of the time. Of course, if there is a suitable CC this may be true. I would not like to try and do it with a quick glance at an ACBL CC, nor a WBF one, nor a EBU 20. [The EBU 20A is designed for funny doubles, but the EBU 20 which is simpler is regrettably more common]. >> It may be a reasonable idea on later rounds, but not on the first >>round. I bet that anyone who plays strange first round doubles gets an >>advantage from using them and opponents not asking. > >I do play strange doubles in second seat with one partner, and we are >required by regulation to prealert them to our opponents before the start >of a round. If we were required only to alert them at the table, most >people would ignore the alert, thinking it was takeout, and we would still >derive this supposed advantage from using them and the opponents not asking >about them. I think on consideration that I was somewhat out of line with my remark. If you pre-alert them that helps some people - not me, I think pre-alerts are a pain in the neck. However, with the worries created by the alerting of doubles, people will notice pre-alerts. My apologies: I should have said: I bet that many people who play strange first round doubles get an advantage from using them and opponents not asking. ------- One last thought: good players tend to find out what is going on to a much greater degree: poor players tend not to enquire so much, often making deductions from alerts [even though these are sometimes wrong]. Could it be that your alert regulation is designed to benefit better players and disadvantage poorer ones? -- 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 Feb 17 14:33:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:33:07 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA22393 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:32:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023091; 17 Feb 98 3:24 GMT Message-ID: <3jXu8TA63P60EwsK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 03:03:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bizarre Ethical Question In-Reply-To: <34E8F532.AC310D65@worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Kopera wrote: >Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: >> >> A regulation is indeed in order: Players should be required to sort their >> hands before replacing them in the boards. This would not take more time, as >> most players sort their hands when removing them from the board. Passing an >> unsorted hand without permission could be a 1 matchpoint penalty. Requiring >> players to shuffle their hands before replacing them, as is now suggested, is >> not enforceable because the failure to do so is not evident. >> >> Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) > >This suggestion seems to imply that everyone sorts their hand the same >way. Based on the way I (semi)sort my hand [at one point I didn't sort >my hand at all, but I've gotten older] and the hands I've kibitzed over >my career, I'd say that's not the case. Or maybe we could have a new >regulation requiring everyone to sort their hand the same way (a boon >for those who pay attention to where their opponents pull their cards). Well, I don't think we will get Marv's regulation, though I quite like it. But your objection is not really much of one, because Marv's regulation will [a] Avoid the basic problem of unsorted order [b] Allow the recipient to accept the sender's order [c] Allow the recipient to sort quicker into his own order [d] Allow the recipient to shuffle and start again! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 14:42:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:42:00 +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 OAA22412 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:41:50 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2023092; 17 Feb 98 3:24 GMT Message-ID: <7DStkWAs6P60EwPe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 03:06:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >I presume the alert of 1C was because it was some kind of Short Club, >showing, maybe 2+ clubs. FYI: under EBU/WBU regulations an opening bid of 1C that may be made on _three+_ clubs is alertable. -- 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 Feb 17 15:49:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA22572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:49:44 +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 PAA22567 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:49:38 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb8.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.8]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA09753 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:49:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980216234850.006b5e58@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:48:50 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <199802161956.OAA17525@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:56 PM 2/16/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: Ron Johnson > >> L40B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited >... >> Note that this is the only basis for review. > >Not "the only." A call made in violation of L16A (UI) is also possible. > >Rarely will one have to decide which of these two possibilities is the >actual case. The score adjustment will most likely be the same for >either. > I got into trouble with David so I will try to be careful here. It sounds like you are saying that you might well adjust the score without a determination that any specific infraction has occurred (not necessarily in this situation but possibly in a related setting). Please accept my apologies if this is not your meaning, but if it is, this is a pretty gross abuse of directorial authority. The Laws make clear that a score adjustment is a redress for an actual irregularity. How can an AC manage an appeal if the TD won't even specify the charges? Mike From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 15:52:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA22596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:52:52 +1100 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA22589 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 15:52:31 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb8.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.8]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA23957 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:52:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980216235231.006b9b10@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:52:31 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: <01bd3b2b$61acf7c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:36 PM 2/16/98 -0000, Anne wrote: >The hand ,which was being played at 92 tables,occasioned 11 rulings. The >biggest problem was the use of 2 suited overcalls over a 1Club (alerted) >opening by S. >Game All Dealer S > 853 W N E S > AJ8763 1C > 74 2NT*-?P -3D-P > K7 5D - AP > J AT9764 > 5 92 >KQT985 A2 >AJ986 542 > KQ2 > KQT4 > J63 > QT3 > >S opens 1C which is alerted. 2NT overcall by W,alerted, and N asks the >meaning. He is told that it is the lower 2 of the unbid suits. "Do you >mean Hs and Ds?" says N. "I suppose so "says E. >The result at the table 5D making. >"In the other room" 5H* + 1 >N/S claim damage. If told that it was Cs and Ds N would have bid Hs. >The E/W systemic agreement was "2 lower unbid suits." >MI or MB? :-) > MB. No damage. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 16:28:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:28:12 +1100 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22657 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:28:06 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port13.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.63]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA06064; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:26:35 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:26:35 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199802170526.QAA06064@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Stevenson From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:06 AM 17/02/1998 +0000, you wrote: >Mark Abraham wrote: > >>I presume the alert of 1C was because it was some kind of Short Club, >>showing, maybe 2+ clubs. > then DWS replied: > FYI: under EBU/WBU regulations an opening bid of 1C that may be made >on _three+_ clubs is alertable. > I don't speak for all Australian directors, but where I direct, the 2 card club opening (5 card major, 4cd diamond) is de rigeur. I ask for it to be alerted, and I rule that it does not show a suit (if lead penalties are called for). The 3 cd club suit (as in better minor), I think, generally does not require an alert here. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 16:29:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:29:04 +1100 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.118]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA22672 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:29:00 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port13.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.63]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA06665; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:28:31 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:28:31 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199802170528.QAA06665@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Stevenson From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:06 AM 17/02/1998 +0000, you wrote: >Mark Abraham wrote: > >>I presume the alert of 1C was because it was some kind of Short Club, >>showing, maybe 2+ clubs. > then DWS replied: > FYI: under EBU/WBU regulations an opening bid of 1C that may be made >on _three+_ clubs is alertable. > I don't speak for all Australian directors, but where I direct, the 2 card club opening (5 card major, 4cd diamond) is de rigeur. I ask for it to be alerted, and I rule that it does not show a suit (if lead penalties are called for). The 3 cd club suit (as in better minor), I think, generally does not require an alert here. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 17:59:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:59:00 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA22989 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:58:55 +1100 Received: from [150.203.96.38] (rsclt1-38.anu.edu.au [150.203.96.38]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA25205; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:59:35 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:59:35 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Tony Musgrove From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> then DWS replied: > >> FYI: under EBU/WBU regulations an opening bid of 1C that may be made >>on _three+_ clubs is alertable. >> >I don't speak for all Australian directors, but where I direct, the 2 card >club opening (5 card major, 4cd diamond) is de rigeur. I ask for it to be >alerted, and I rule that it does not show a suit (if lead penalties are >called for). The 3 cd club suit (as in better minor), I think, generally >does not require an alert here. AFAIK, ABF regulations specify a 3-card club suit is not alertable, whereas a 2-card club suit is. Of course in most clubs hardly anybody knows or cares. Mark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 17:59:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA23009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:59:26 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA23003 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:59:21 +1100 Received: from [150.203.96.38] (rsclt1-38.anu.edu.au [150.203.96.38]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA25226 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:00:02 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:00:02 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: Alertable doubles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:31 17/2/98, David Stevenson wrote: >Mark Abraham wrote: >>>Sergei Litvak wrote: >>OK, we think, so any double that is not "negative" could be considered >>alertable. But what about c), d) and e) above? All are "negative" in >>orientation and I would certainly expect to meet types c) & e) in the >>course of a weekend congress. Can we lump them together and say that they >>are all equally alertable? Then the onus would still be on the opposition >>to ascertain exactly what species of negative double the opening side uses. >>The absence of an alert would need clarification also. > > This is where we disagree. If the bidding goes 1D 1S x to you, and >you hold a mediocre hand with a medium spade holding you are probably >willing to bid 2S *unless* it is a penalty double. So in the ACBL you >bid 2S if it is not alerted without worries, and in the EBU you would >probably bid 2S only if it is alerted. In many situations on the first >round players only want a general idea of the call, just enough to stop >them having to ask all the time. Yes. Under the ABF one would glance at the CC for the box wherein negative doubles are indicated, or in the absence of a CC, ask "What does the double mean?" and get the answer required. It requires marginally more effort for advancer to enquire about this than he would need to in the EBU or ACBLand. It requires none if you take the simple step of skimming the opponents CC after you sit. > Other simple examples: 2S from pd, dbl: in the EBU this is normally >takeout, and that is not alertable, so without further questions you can >pre-empt or whatever if it is not alerted. So lemme get this straight, in the EBU, a double by responder of a one-level overcall to a suit opening has to be alerted if it is takeout-oriented (negative) but not if it's penalty. But when it's a weak two opening, the opponents can make a takeout double and not have it alerted. What about a weak jump overcall? Which rule applies? What about a 3-level overcall? I'm being deliberately obtuse there - my point is that as soon as you start creating alert regulations to fit particular sequences you run into problems. Novices and many club level players won't know what doubles to alert or not, TDs need an encyclopaedia of alert situations, meanings of sequences evolve over time and the alert structure may no longer be appropriate, exceptional sequences occur, grey areas exist, etc. Keeping it simple creates a situation where the regulation is black and white, at the cost of slight inconvenience to players whose opponents have neglected to bring a CC to the table (in theory this would never happen in an ABF congress). > The original reason quoted for this regulation was that many doubles >are becoming doubtful. Sure they are, on later rounds of the auction, >but people have much better defined agreements on the first round. > > When I discussed this earlier by email with someone else who reads >BLML he also said it would be very difficult in Australia to make a >workable rule for this type of double. Well, I would follow the EBU >idea of simplicity in alerting is better than total accuracy, AMEN > so let's try this: > >1 Do NOT alert any double after opener has rebid. >2 Alert any double of a natural bid that is for penalties >3 Alert any double of a natural bid that shows one or more suits >4 Alert any double of a conventional bid that shows any other suit >5 Do NOT alert any other double Referring back to the two situations above, 1D 1S X would require an alert whether X was penalty (#2), or negative (#3) showing either H or H+C. [In fact only a double that did not suggest a suit and was not penalty, i.e. "card-showing" would not be alertable...] In the 1D 1S X case, #2 & #3 simply reduce to the ABF regulations - the double is alerted and you know nothing about it until you ask or consult the CC. 2S X likewise would require alerting in either case. I suggest revising the above list, omitting #3, to : 1. Do NOT alert any double after opener has made a second call. 2. Alert any double of a natural bid that is for penalties. 3. Alert any double of a conventional bid that does not show a holding in the suit doubled. 4. Do NOT alert any other double. The revised wording of the new #3 allows for doubles showing strength but not necessarily the doubled suit to be alertable. (Such doubles might be made of multi two openings, transfers, transfer preempts, "fert" bids, etc.) This approaches the better of both worlds - few questions will be required in the first round of many auctions, and no it-was-alertable/no-it-wasn't fracas emerge later. Doubtless some creative person will find a need for a further revision to the rules above. We still have the problem that a "card-showing" double will be indistinguishable from a takeout-oriented one. > While this is correct, this is basically showing the disadvantages of >alerting in **any** situation. Experience suggest that alerting gets >rid of more problems than it creates. I suppose in effect the self-alerting doubles place the onus on the opposition to protect themselves. It makes the legal position clear, though. >>In practice, a glance at the opponents CC suffices most of the time. > > Of course, if there is a suitable CC this may be true. I would not >like to try and do it with a quick glance at an ACBL CC, nor a WBF one, >nor a EBU 20. [The EBU 20A is designed for funny doubles, but the EBU >20 which is simpler is regrettably more common]. I see - there would need to be some correlation between the contents required on a CC and the alert regulations. >If you pre-alert them that helps some people - not me, I think >pre-alerts are a pain in the neck. So long as you (and your partnership) are sufficiently experienced to contend with whatever bizarre openings / overcalls / passes your opponents can devise, then you are welcome to consider pre-alerts aggravating. I'm sure many pairs find them useful to quickly revise / invent their defence to them. As the person who has to pre-alert, I know I find them a pain :-) > One last thought: good players tend to find out what is going on to a >much greater degree: poor players tend not to enquire so much, often >making deductions from alerts [even though these are sometimes wrong]. >Could it be that your alert regulation is designed to benefit better >players and disadvantage poorer ones? Perhaps not by design... but that is a minor point :-) In an ideal world, all the various alert structures can work. This assumes all players know them all, can apply them without confusion, etc. I think the point you raise is interesting, but in practice the lack of enquiry or false deductions made occur late in the auction when players who don't ask, or deduce wrongly, are likely to do so irrespective of the alert regulations. The set of rules above reduces to the ABF rule after the first round of bidding... IMHO most of the time that the ABF alert regulation *might* benefit a player who bothers to inform themselves, will occur after the first round. Anyway, such a player is taking advantage of information available to him and the rest of the field... surely a player who perseveres in ignorance must accept some responsibility for the outcomes? Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 20:12:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:12:23 +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 UAA23340 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:12:18 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018001; 17 Feb 98 9:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 02:01:09 +0000 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980214232306.006c196c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980214232306.006c196c@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 01:51 AM 2/15/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> ............................ >>>The reason there is no basis for an appeal is that the director has not, >>>technically speaking, provided a ruling, >> >> > .................................... >In declaring 3NT at pairs, I am dismayed upon opening the score sheet to >find that nearly all the other declarers played the hand one trick better. >I summon the director for a ruling. Presented with the above facts, he >"rules" that I didn't play the hand very well, and the score should stand. >Is this ruling appealable? > Labeo: What the Director rules, perhaps, is that there is no law that decrees you shall make the same number of tricks as nearly all the other declarers. That ruling, if appealed, would be dealt with by the chief director (93B1); he might possibly (!) think the appeal without merit and apply such penalty as the sponsoring organisation has authorised. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 20:23:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:23:39 +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 UAA23378 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:23:33 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1011898; 17 Feb 98 9:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:38:06 +0000 To: John Probst Cc: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In message <199802160916.EAA04780@fern.us.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@eur >ope.notes.pw.com writes >>David Stevenson wrote (as regards hand sorting, when passing a board from one >>table to another): >> >>> If it matters, and I think there are some who are not particularly >>>impressed with the importance of this thread , then it is time there >>>was a regulation. >> >>I think we are a long way short of needing a regulation on this point. >> >> >7C Each player shall restore his original thirteen cards to the pocket >corresponding to his compass position. > >NB Restore not Return. To me restoration implies putting back to its >original form. Labeo: That is quite a nice try, but there is a snag; here we are hearing about restoring the thirteen cards "to" the pocket. This preposition modifies the meaning of re-instatement, putting back into its original form, and (as in 'restoring to health') inclines to the alternative meaning of 'return' or 'make restitution of'. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 21:51:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:51:23 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA23635 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:51:15 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h15.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id NAA03322; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 13:51:05 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34EA14F0.40A8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 14:53:36 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re_Aletr..._and_Psyche_3_try Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------59F64A2112A" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------59F64A2112A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry - but I'm fighting with PC for making text more readable --------------59F64A2112A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_VIEW.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_VIEW.TXT" Hi all:) At the beginning of my letter I should beg all of yours pardon in several problem: 1. Sorry in advance for my poor English 2. Sorry, but I am not professional TD that's why I am not keen with the Laws at your level 3. Sorry for my too-many-words-letter but the problem is too important for me and I'd like to be understood Several words about myself: I am playing bridge from 1963 in former Soviet Union, organized bridge clubs in Lvov and Sankt-Petersburg, had player's and TD's practice. During years taught so how to play bridge as to how to be TD. Now I am living in Moscow, an ordinary she-cat, named Chia, is full member (may be - even main member) of my family. With great interest and pleasure I looked to discussions that rose in different cases, described in BLML. But do not you see that these discussions touched only one part of our common deal - the Laws? I agreed that it is ruling part but not the only. In any society (even the most democratic) there are rights that are not written in the Laws of that society. Usually such rights (and obligations) are the most basic and natural: right to live, right to breath, etc. Our bridge society also have such rights, primordial belong to every bridge player, - they are formulated in bridge Legend (Tradition) - the second ruling part of our bridge life. One may construct a lot of examples but I remind only one more: the Holy Bible and the Holy Legend? Both of them rule our common Christian life. And one of such rights (and obligations) is that bridge is the game where participants are playing and struggling for their best result, using every means allowed in bridge - but only allowed ones. And the word "struggling" is no less important as any other word. Another rights are: right for common-sense decision, right for mistake (it does be an integral part of any game, not only bridge), right to receive so lost as profit by means of mistake, etc. I am rather old-fashioned player, that's why I ask you to rethink any bridge case from both side: 1. Is there any infraction that might damage opponent 2. Do non-offending side their best during table-struggle (and this second point is even more difficult because it cannot be resolved without estimation of the level and potential ability to struggle of this non-offending side). Sure, it seems to contradict with demand that any decision should be made independence from personality of conflicted parties. But I remind one more common-sense position: the higher one's position - the more responsibility he has. And during my TD practice I never ruled low-level-players under the same severity as high-level-one. Guess that a most of you too... As conclusion I ask to make verdicts based not only on strictly the Laws but on common-sense bridge decision - when it is necessary, of course. All that too long (sorry!) preface may illustrated with two discussed examples: 1 case: Anne Jones wrote: "The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated boards throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair share of headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings for different reasons. Game All Dealer S N 853 AJ8763 74 K7 W E J AT9764 5 92 KQT985 A2 AJ986 542 S KQ2 KQT4 J63 QT3 S W N E 1NT 3D 3H P P P The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted that it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that the bid was NF. How would you rule? In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply." The discussion touched problems of NS. Why did not any notice the East's words that he would have bid if he had known that 3 hearts were NF? For me these words were the most important (and I appreciate sincerity of East): he decided not to struggle, expecting great profit. Why did not he ask at the moment of taking his final decision to pass? Might he afraid waking up the opponent and his potential changing of bid? Or might he decide to continue struggle (in case 3 Hearts were NF) by means of TD or even Appeal Committee? Even if there were no such direct thoughts in East's mind - he made his own decision not to struggle (although his hand with 2 sure tricks after vulnerable partner's bid might prompt possible common-sense-bids 3 Spades - in-passing to 4 Diamonds or direct 4 Diamonds). Moreover, for my personal opinion all arguments might be turn over: if 3 Hearts were forcing it meant that opponents expected to win at least 600 points. But 2 Aces with Diamond fit after vulnerable partner's overcall 3 Diamonds usually would provide to 9 tricks in Diamonds (rare - 8 tricks - still better than 600). But in case if there would be established Spades fit (or something more in partner's hand - as in that case) there might be even 10 tricks... That means that in case of forcing 3 Hearts 3 Spades were right bid too. Of course if you were going to struggle. Less probably - but similar thoughts and reasons might influent on final West's Pass cause he still did not exhausted his hand... And last note - in case N-S won the contract only (it is not known from A.Stone's report). Another problem: what happened during card-play? After Diamond opening lead there were not too hard to West to establish Spade trick by ruffing. It seemed that E-W did not struggle not only in the bidding - neither they did in card-playing. And nobody (neither TD, nor AC) can correct bridge mistakes. Summary: E-W pair received what they earned in this board. That's why my opinion is that E-W side should not receive any compensation. Moreover, if their bridge level is high - they should not receive their deposit back (if the case was discussed in AC and may be even be reprimanded). And it does not matter which Directives are applied... On the contrary, the N-S position in the case seems to depend on the applied Directives and there is no room for me to discussed the matter cause I do not know EBU Directives at all. Common-sense-position prompts that N-S result rather should not be adjusted. After all by his Pass South showed (if not to East - but to West) that 3 Hearts were NF.. If he would not passed - that would be the real problem... Cause without his explanation nobody knew what were the reason of not-passing: system demands (then rather minimum strength) or bridge decision in NF-position (then rather maximum strength). Nevertheless final TD's decision for N-S depends on the Directives. 2 case: Sorry - do not remember who wrote (and lost in my PC): "North holds AKQ T65 752 QJT7 South holds 63 QJ987 A9 8542 The auction with north dealer, E-W vul: N-S play a 12-14 notrump N E S W 1NT P P Double P P 2D Double P P 2H P P Dbl All pass Making 2 Has E-W been damaged? What if South claims he psyched, with the absolute intention of trying to get doubled? What does it take to believe south? Is it his stature as a player? Is it dependent upon production of system notes? Should there not be a strict rule to apply? Should there not be an effort to avoid different rulings based upon personalities or ability to argue one's position? What if N-S plays Jacoby transfers, but no discussion whether it is on after having passed originally and over a double? The East - West hands: West East T 54 J9872 32 AK4 KT43 QJ86 AK93 6" And in this case only N-S actions were discussed. But let we sit about East and try to understand what happened in the board up to the moment of taking decision about penalty Double. Partner doubled 1 NT (might be weakened at last position) - and we tried to make it penalty. Then partner doubled penalty 2 Diamonds. How many Diamonds had partner? At least 3 (guess - usually rather 4)? That left at most 4 Diamonds (usually - 3 only) to South. Was the bidding of South natural? And after our Pass - continued bidding with 2 Hearts? Both suits were 4-4? Was it possible such a bidding at all? Guess that common bridge sense prompted to East after penalty West's double over 2 Diamonds) that South tried to make JTB. And the only player who (might be) did not know it - was North. So there might be infraction - but East had full information about the hands. And made his free bridge decision - about penalty double. And he knew that they had at least 7 (usually - 8) cards in Diamonds. That's why potential infraction did not influent on the East's bridge decision. But - might it happen that East thoughts were:" There were no alert. So even if Double was wrong - we'll fight by means of TD"?? Might be East forgot West's penalty Double over 2 Diamonds. But unforgettable Edgar Kaplan wrote that it was very comfortable to forget the action when it was profitable. Even if there were no such direct thoughts - my opinion is that we (so players as TD) cannot agree that struggle may be make by means of TD (or AC) and that TD (or even AC) may correct bridge mistake of any player. The East's decision were risky, but made with full information. For my opinion - it was too risky - I prefer to bid 2 Spades or 3 Diamonds... And once more decision may depend on the bridge level of conflicting side: the high is E-W level, the more clear will be attempt to struggle by not-allowed means - with correspondence conclusion. The N-S position in the case is rather clear - even if there was infraction, it did not influent on result. The reason of E-W damage was not infraction, but free East's decision about penalty Double. East had right to double, he did - and should pay for it. Sure - it is only my personal position, not last truth:)) But I ask you once more to rethink: if there are some more rights and obligations in the Game of Bridge than it is enumerated in the Laws (with full respect to the Laws). Vitold Brushtunov, e-mail - vitold@elnet.msk.ru, OKB name - vitold --------------59F64A2112A-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 21:56:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:56:44 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA23662 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:56:35 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-203.uunet.be [194.7.13.203]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04665 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:56:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34E9578E.1D0491D@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:25:34 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980216235231.006b9b10@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > > MB. No damage. > > Mike Dennis I can be as short as that : MI. change the score. "in the absense of other proof, the TD shall presume MI" -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 22:23:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:23:23 +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 WAA23851 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:23:04 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:22:43 GMT Date: Tue, 17 Feb 98 11:22:41 GMT Message-Id: <29320.9802171122@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is this list working? I sent this yesterday and did not receive it. I have not received anything since Anne's message. Robin ----- Begin Included Message ----- From rmb1 Mon Feb 16 11:18:40 1998 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alertable or Non Alertable Cc: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk Content-Length: 1854 Anne Jones wrote: (I have reformatted this, hope I've still got the hand right.) ----- Begin Included Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Alertable or Non Alertable Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 22:10:15 -0000 The East Wales Congress this weekend had computer dealt duplicated boards throughout and some boards presented more than a directors' fair share of headaches. The following deal was the cause of several rulings for different reasons. Game All Dealer S N 853 AJ8763 74 K7 W E J AT9764 5 92 KQT985 A2 AJ986 542 S KQ2 KQT4 J63 QT3 S W N E 1NT 3D 3H P P P The 3H bid was not alerted and after the play of the hand E called the TD and claimed damage. He assumed that as the 3H bid was not alerted that it was forcing. He said that he would have bid if he had known that the bid was NF. How would you rule? In Wales the Directives of the English Bridge Union apply. ----- End Included Message ----- The relevent directive says (something like) a call should be alerted if it is unusually/unexpectedly forcing or non-forcing. IMHO it is not unusual to play 1NT - ? - 3suit as forcing or as non-forcing (for any call by opponents). Therefore, in the auction above, I do not think 3H should be alerted whether it is forcing or non-forcing. What call was East going to make which was more attractive over a NF 3H? Robin ----- End Included Message ----- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 17 23:05:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:05:43 +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 XAA23959 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:05:27 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017577; 17 Feb 98 11:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:47:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: <199802170526.QAA06064@oznet11.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: >At 03:06 AM 17/02/1998 +0000, you wrote: >>Mark Abraham wrote: >> >>>I presume the alert of 1C was because it was some kind of Short Club, >>>showing, maybe 2+ clubs. > >> then DWS replied: > >> FYI: under EBU/WBU regulations an opening bid of 1C that may be made >>on _three+_ clubs is alertable. >> >I don't speak for all Australian directors, but where I direct, the 2 card >club opening (5 card major, 4cd diamond) is de rigeur. I ask for it to be >alerted, and I rule that it does not show a suit (if lead penalties are >called for). The 3 cd club suit (as in better minor), I think, generally >does not require an alert here. I was not suggesting that EBU/WBU regulations are any better or worse than any other, but just that they were the ones in force on the actual hand, which was played in Wales. Would someone like to send me a current copy of ABF alerting regulations please? -- 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 Feb 17 23:59:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:59:20 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24054 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 23:59:13 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017578; 17 Feb 98 11:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:40:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alertable doubles In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >Yes. Under the ABF one would glance at the CC for the box wherein negative >doubles are indicated, or in the absence of a CC, ask "What does the double >mean?" and get the answer required. It requires marginally more effort for >advancer to enquire about this than he would need to in the EBU or ACBLand. >It requires none if you take the simple step of skimming the opponents CC >after you sit. Only if you remember it. I find bridge difficult enough *without* having to remember what oppos play. I played bridge before alerting, and it was a tremendous move forward in the game when alerting came in. After I have played three boards against oppos and they open [say] a Precision diamond, I like the alert because I won't remember it is Precision otherwise. Another point is that looking at a CC when oppos make a bid helps them [your looking is AI] and disadvantages your side [your looking is UI]. I know the old argument if players "always" ask but my experience is that they don't, especially at lower levels. >So lemme get this straight, in the EBU, a double by responder of a >one-level overcall to a suit opening has to be alerted if it is >takeout-oriented (negative) but not if it's penalty. But when it's a weak >two opening, the opponents can make a takeout double and not have it >alerted. What about a weak jump overcall? Which rule applies? What about a >3-level overcall? A takeout double of a natural suit bid below the four level is not alertable if partner has not called or only passed: at any other time a penalty double is not alertable. >I'm being deliberately obtuse there - my point is that as soon as you start >creating alert regulations to fit particular sequences you run into >problems. Novices and many club level players won't know what doubles to >alert or not, TDs need an encyclopaedia of alert situations, meanings of >sequences evolve over time and the alert structure may no longer be >appropriate, exceptional sequences occur, grey areas exist, etc. > >Keeping it simple creates a situation where the regulation is black and >white, at the cost of slight inconvenience to players whose opponents have >neglected to bring a CC to the table (in theory this would never happen in >an ABF congress). Glad to hear it. Does it ever happen? What about other events using ABF alerting? Local events? Club events? >I suppose in effect the self-alerting doubles place the onus on the >opposition to protect themselves. It makes the legal position clear, >though. Absolutely. So does getting rid of alerts entirely. >> One last thought: good players tend to find out what is going on to a >>much greater degree: poor players tend not to enquire so much, often >>making deductions from alerts [even though these are sometimes wrong]. >>Could it be that your alert regulation is designed to benefit better >>players and disadvantage poorer ones? > >Perhaps not by design... but that is a minor point :-) Certainly I did not mean by design. >In an ideal world, all the various alert structures can work. This assumes >all players know them all, can apply them without confusion, etc. I think >the point you raise is interesting, but in practice the lack of enquiry or >false deductions made occur late in the auction when players who don't ask, >or deduce wrongly, are likely to do so irrespective of the alert >regulations. I think I have made it clear that I am not worried about later rounds of bidding. > The set of rules above reduces to the ABF rule after the first >round of bidding... IMHO most of the time that the ABF alert regulation >*might* benefit a player who bothers to inform themselves, will occur after >the first round. Anyway, such a player is taking advantage of information >available to him and the rest of the field... surely a player who >perseveres in ignorance must accept some responsibility for the outcomes? That's back to the argument for no alerts. -- 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 Feb 18 01:48:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 01:48:13 +1100 Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA26507 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 01:48:09 +1100 Received: from 150.203.113.10 (burgmannlab7.anu.edu.au [150.203.113.10]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA28997 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 01:48:50 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <34EA3E76.7BA3@postoffice.utas.edu.au> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 01:51:48 +0000 From: Mark Abraham X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alertable doubles References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Mark Abraham wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >Yes. Under the ABF one would glance at the CC for the box wherein negative > >doubles are indicated, or in the absence of a CC, ask "What does the double > >mean?" and get the answer required. It requires marginally more effort for > >advancer to enquire about this than he would need to in the EBU or ACBLand. > >It requires none if you take the simple step of skimming the opponents CC > >after you sit. > > Only if you remember it. I find bridge difficult enough *without* > having to remember what oppos play. I played bridge before alerting, > and it was a tremendous move forward in the game when alerting came in. > After I have played three boards against oppos and they open [say] a > Precision diamond, I like the alert because I won't remember it is > Precision otherwise. I am not intending to advocate the elimination of alerts. > Another point is that looking at a CC when oppos make a bid helps them > [your looking is AI] and disadvantages your side [your looking is UI]. > I know the old argument if players "always" ask but my experience is > that they don't, especially at lower levels. Alerting (in general) creates UI problems for the alerting side. In this case, pd makes a double. You can't remember if its penalty or takeout. Or even whether this particular double is alertable as one or the other. Do you alert, and explain when asked that you can't remember? Do you bury your head in the sand and wait for the opps to claim damage from the failure to alert? Or damage from the mis-alert in the first case? Self-alerting doubles remove half of this problem - the other half is poor memory. > >Keeping it simple creates a situation where the regulation is black and > >white, at the cost of slight inconvenience to players whose opponents have > >neglected to bring a CC to the table (in theory this would never happen in > >an ABF congress). > > Glad to hear it. Does it ever happen? What about other events using > ABF alerting? Local events? Club events? Yes of course it happens. PPs aren't doled out for not having them... hence "in theory". Generally such pairs are using pretty straight-down-the-line systems and its not a problem. Some clubs are pretty slack about it, some enforce the CC regulations. Same as some clubs expect full adherence to the alert regulations and some turn a blind eye. This would not be endemic to a particular SO either. I this point is off on a tangent. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 18 02:53:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 02:53:06 +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 CAA26919 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 02:53:01 +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 KAA25607 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:52:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18061; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:53:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:53:14 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802171553.KAA18061@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Rule of Coincidence X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > I got into trouble with David so I will try to be careful here. Oh, don't worry. My skin is much thicker than David's. :-) > It sounds > like you are saying that you might well adjust the score without a > determination that any specific infraction has occurred One certainly needs an infraction in order to adjust. But if there are two or more possible infractions, and I believe a preponderance of the evidence suggests at least one has occurred, and the adjustment is the same no matter which one it is, I am simply not going to waste energy deciding which of the possibilities is the most likely one. > How can an AC manage an appeal if the TD won't even specify the charges? If more than one infraction is possible, the AC will have to consider all of them anyway. Such a case is inherently complicated, but the TD having stated a belief about which infraction occurred will not simplify it. The AC still has to consider all possibilities, although again if the adjustment is not affected, the AC may not need to decide which one was the actual infraction. You still haven't addressed my admittedly extreme example (1NT on a three-count, pass on 15 points). Do you care whether it is UI or CPU? Do you have any doubt it is one or the other? (Well, we all might have _some_ small amount of residual doubt, but would you really consider not adjusting?) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 18 07:50:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 07:50:04 +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 HAA28180 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 07:49:51 +1100 Received: from default (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA22892 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:49:31 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802172049.VAA22892@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:49:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote (ruling on a hand in Anne Jones' posting): > >The hand ,which was being played at 92 tables,occasioned 11 rulings. The > >biggest problem was the use of 2 suited overcalls over a 1Club (alerted) > >opening by S. > >Game All Dealer S > > 853 W N E S > > AJ8763 1C > > 74 2NT* ?P 3D P > > K7 5D AP > > J AT9764 > > 5 92 > >KQT985 A2 > >AJ986 542 > > KQ2 > > KQT4 > > J63 > > QT3 (hand edited a bit to try to improve legibility) > >S opens 1C which is alerted. 2NT overcall by W,alerted, and N asks the > >meaning. He is told that it is the lower 2 of the unbid suits. "Do you > >mean Hs and Ds?" says N. "I suppose so "says E. > >The result at the table 5D making. > >"In the other room" 5H* + 1 > >N/S claim damage. If told that it was Cs and Ds N would have bid Hs. > >The E/W systemic agreement was "2 lower unbid suits." > >MI or MB? :-) > > I presume the alert of 1C was because it was some kind of Short Club, > showing, maybe 2+ clubs. E was uncertain whether this constituted a bid of > a suit for the purposes of the "2 lower unbid suits" of the overcall. He > should state their agreement (as he did), but not surmise on the actual > suits if there is doubt. It looks as if their agreement is "hearts and diamonds provided that the opening bid shows genuine clubs; possibly but not certainly clubs and diamonds if the 1C opening does not show genuine clubs." That, then, is what E should be saying. Not mentioning the actual suits (but leaving it for S to work out) would be arrogant and not in keeping with the phrase "full explanation" in L20F1. > > I suspect there will be two schools of thought : > > a) 1C shows a suit, so 2NT for the two lower unbids shows H and D. In this > case MB has occured and the result stands > > b) 1C does not show a real suit, so 2NT for the two lower unbids shows D > and C. MI was given by the "I suppose so", and score adjustment would > occur. I subscribe to a third school of thought, then: c) The agreement is as I suggested above. "I suppose so" is, under the circumstances, an earnest attempt to clarify exactly that. There is no MI and no MB. Of course, there is no irregularity, and the score stands. North is damaged by the ambiguity of EW's agreement, but not by the failure to disclose it. > Commonly such a 1C opening does in fact have a real C suit (particularly if > four-card suits are opened up-the-line), or at worst three of them, and so > the lower two unbid suits are H and D, so I rule that MB has occurred, > unless there's a bizarre twist to the 1C opening by NS. I am not sure that I can endorse this approach. You are fairly close to telling the players, while acting as a TD, where they should draw the line between deciding that a 1C opening is genuine. That is not for us to decide, but for the players to work out, while keeping the opponents fully informed. ---------------------------------------- Mike Dennis had this reaction to the same hand: > MB. No damage. I will quibble with this too. "MB" and "no damage" rarely have a place in the same ruling, since damage due to a MB does not earn any redress. Saying "no damage" anyway might be construed as rejecting North's claim that he would have bid hearts if he had not gotten the impression that W held hearts. Surely you cannot mean that, so it seems that "no damage" might be a bit hasty. The issue must be whether North should receive redress for the damage sustained. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 18 11:50:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:50:29 +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 LAA28977 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:50:24 +1100 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA02490 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:50:21 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:50:20 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > I was not suggesting that EBU/WBU regulations are any better or worse > than any other, but just that they were the ones in force on the actual > hand, which was played in Wales. > > Would someone like to send me a current copy of ABF alerting > regulations please? For those interested souls, a copy of the above regulations may be found at: http://rgb.anu.edu.au/ABF/geninf/alert.html Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 18 15:20:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:20:18 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29457 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:19:58 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1010259; 18 Feb 98 4:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:49:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re_Aletr..._and_Psyche_3_try In-Reply-To: <34EA14F0.40A8@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold Brushtunov wrote: >1. Sorry in advance for my poor English Don't worry. >2. Sorry, but I am not professional TD that's why I am not keen with the Laws >at your level Lots of people on this group are not TDs at all, and we discuss at several levels. > Several words about myself: I am playing bridge from 1963 in former >Soviet Union, organized bridge clubs in Lvov and Sankt-Petersburg, had player's >and TD's practice. During years taught so how to play bridge as to how to be TD. >Now I am living in Moscow, an ordinary she-cat, named Chia, is full member (may >be - even main member) of my family. Very nice to hear from you, and about Chia. [s] > On the contrary, the N-S position in the case seems to depend on the >applied Directives and there is no room for me to discussed the matter cause I >do not know EBU Directives at all. The EBU Directive says that if the bid is normally understood as forcing then it requires an alert if it is played as non-forcing. However, whether it is normally understood as forcing is a difficult question. [s] >Even if there were no >such direct thoughts - my opinion is that we (so players as TD) cannot agree >that struggle may be make by means of TD (or AC) and that TD (or even AC) may >correct bridge mistake of any player. It will often be harsh to not correct mistakes when the player should not be in such a position because of an infraction. It really depends on how silly a mistake it is. In NAmerica it does not need to be very silly for there to be no adjustment: in Europe we generally adjust unless an action seems so silly that a player might be gambling, hoping that if the gamble loses the TD will give him his result back. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 18 15:19:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:19:53 +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 PAA29450 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:19:45 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010280; 18 Feb 98 4:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:08:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alertable doubles In-Reply-To: <34EA3E76.7BA3@postoffice.utas.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >> Glad to hear it. Does it ever happen? What about other events using >> ABF alerting? Local events? Club events? > >Yes of course it happens. PPs aren't doled out for not having them... >hence "in theory". Generally such pairs are using pretty >straight-down-the-line systems and its not a problem. Some clubs are >pretty slack about it, some enforce the CC regulations. Same as some >clubs expect full adherence to the alert regulations and some turn a >blind eye. This would not be endemic to a particular SO either. I this >point is off on a tangent. My point is that alerting such doubles saves problems when CCs are not available. -- 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 Feb 18 15:25:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:25:47 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29483 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:25:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1007562; 18 Feb 98 3:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 18:49:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re_Aletr..._and_Psyche_3_try In-Reply-To: <34EA14F0.40A8@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold Brushtunov wrote: >1. Sorry in advance for my poor English Don't worry. >2. Sorry, but I am not professional TD that's why I am not keen with the Laws >at your level Lots of people on this group are not TDs at all, and we discuss at several levels. > Several words about myself: I am playing bridge from 1963 in former >Soviet Union, organized bridge clubs in Lvov and Sankt-Petersburg, had player's >and TD's practice. During years taught so how to play bridge as to how to be TD. >Now I am living in Moscow, an ordinary she-cat, named Chia, is full member (may >be - even main member) of my family. Very nice to hear from you, and about Chia. [s] > On the contrary, the N-S position in the case seems to depend on the >applied Directives and there is no room for me to discussed the matter cause I >do not know EBU Directives at all. The EBU Directive says that if the bid is normally understood as forcing then it requires an alert if it is played as non-forcing. However, whether it is normally understood as forcing is a difficult question. [s] >Even if there were no >such direct thoughts - my opinion is that we (so players as TD) cannot agree >that struggle may be make by means of TD (or AC) and that TD (or even AC) may >correct bridge mistake of any player. It will often be harsh to not correct mistakes when the player should not be in such a position because of an infraction. It really depends on how silly a mistake it is. In NAmerica it does not need to be very silly for there to be no adjustment: in Europe we generally adjust unless an action seems so silly that a player might be gambling, hoping that if the gamble loses the TD will give him his result back. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 18 16:43:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA29619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 16:43:22 +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 QAA29614 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 16:43:13 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb140.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.140]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA23713 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:42:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980218004308.006ba32c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:43:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: <199802172049.VAA22892@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:49 PM 2/17/98 +0100, Jens wrote: >Mike Dennis had this reaction to the same hand: > >> MB. No damage. > >I will quibble with this too. "MB" and "no damage" rarely have a >place in the same ruling, since damage due to a MB does not earn any >redress. Saying "no damage" anyway might be construed as rejecting >North's claim that he would have bid hearts if he had not gotten the >impression that W held hearts. Surely you cannot mean that, so it >seems that "no damage" might be a bit hasty. The issue must be >whether North should receive redress for the damage sustained. > You are right, of course. I should have said no redress. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 18 21:06:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:06:51 +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 VAA00349 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:06:41 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:06:36 GMT Date: Wed, 18 Feb 98 10:06:34 GMT Message-Id: <2997.9802181006@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: I was lost; was Re: Alertable or Non Alertable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all I asked >Is this list working? Thanks to those who replied personally telling me that the list was well but I was unsubscribed. I have resubscribed, hopefully I will see this message. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 00:53:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:53:05 +1100 Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.cais.net [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03162 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:53:00 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic160.cais.com [207.226.56.160]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA01757 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:35:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980218085520.006cdf40@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:55:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980214232558.006b796c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980213111420.006dfbe4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980212123857.006b2630@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 PM 2/14/98 -0500, Michael wrote: >Your position on this issue is surprising to me, given the consistently >anti-authoritarian tone in several of your previous postings. > >I tend toward the "strict constructionist" school of constitutional >interpretation myself, though I can see good arguments for a broader >viewpoint in that context. The US Constitution differs from the Laws of >Duplicate Bridge in a couple of key respects: > >1. Despite their comparable length (I suspect the Laws are actually >slightly longer), the Constitution has a far broader scope in defining the >legal and governmental foundation for a nation, as compared to the narrow >formal domain which is duplicate bridge. > >2. Those who are empowered to apply and interpret the Constitution are >generally given a much more rigorous education in the process than is >provided to TD's and AC members. > >As a result, it seems to me considerably less desirable for bridge jurists >to take a broad view of their authority to interpret the Laws than it might >be for jurists in the "real world". To allow TD's, especially, relatively >unfettered license to rule as they see fit, in the name of sportsmanship or >the integrity of the game, is to invite the kind of jack-booted arbitrary >exercise of power which I think we both find abhorrent. Don't like psyches >or aggressive preempts? Then ban them as "remarks likely to annoy or >embarass." Bothered by bad bidding which results in a good unearned score? >Just dial up an ill-defined "Rule of Concidence" to set things to rights. >Think people shouldn't use super-weak NT openings? Then by all means use >your power to "regulate conventions" as a fig leaf to effectively prohibit >them. > >We both know TD's (and at least one SO) who seem to reason along exactly >these lines, creatively stretching the Laws to defend their view of what is >best for the game. I much prefer a director who is knowledgeable about the >Laws and committed to their strict and consistent application. I have found myself opposed to many of the policies implemented by the ACBL, ranging from Classic Bridge to Zero Tolerance, but have never claimed that the Laws precluded them from adopting such policies, ill-advised though they may be. (I also support much of what the ACBL has done, but agreement doesn't provide fuel for commentary on BLML or r.g.b). As a "loose constructionist", I take the position that the letter of the law contextualizes, constrains and exemplifies the spirit of the law, and that regulations should accord with that spirit in addition to abiding strictly by the letter. That means that I decry the use of presumed "loopholes" in the law by which SOs can blatantly violate the spirit of the law while "justifying" their violations as being such as to remain within the narrowly constituted letter of the law. This is precisely what the ACBL has done in the cases Michael cites. One must start with the assumption that the lawmakers said what they wanted to say as clearly as they could say it (which may, not surprisingly, have been problematical in some areas), and have not deliberately built in obscure or esoteric language for the purpose of keeping generations of lawyers in work finding ways to justify the legality of actions which the law appears on its face to prohibit. A principle of loose constructionism is that clearly definitive language, whether the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." or L40's "A player may make any call or play...", constrains us from allowing those statements to be violated based on the literal implications of other language. Just as constitutional scholars have concluded that the explicit constraints of the Bill of Rights imply an implicit "right to privacy" that, although not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, can be clearly inferred from the explicit prohibitions that establish the context for it, so, for example, does L40 create an "implicit right" to be unfettered in one's purely natural bidding methods. When the ACBL justifies its policy on psychs by citing the laws on partnership agreements, or justifies its policy on mini-NT openings by citing the laws on regulation of conventions, it is justifying blatant violations of the spirit of L40 by finding those alleged loopholes elsewhere in the language of the law. But I think even the people who laud those policies would have to admit that they are "taking advantage" of legal loopholes for what they consider to be the good of the game, rather than following the spirit of L40 as clearly intended. Their moral position, in my view, is analogous to those who would blatantly violate the First Amendment in the name of protecting children by banning all adult entertainment from all media, on the grounds that if it is disseminated children might see it, and we surely don't want that. The U.S. constitution provides us with a system of checks and balances, but in the ACBL the people who interpret the law and the people who enforce it are the same people. And the U.S. constitution makes the latter group responsible to the electorate, which isn't the case in the ACBL either (we had a recent thread on that topic). That leaves the system rife for abuse -- and abuse it they do. As a body with no power, no responsibility and no axe to grind, we of BLML can and do take a clearer view of the laws, work from the premise that the laws "say what they mean and mean what they say", and disregard the lawyers who flog the loopholes that let them ignore the clear intent of the laws "for the greater good". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 04:25:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:25:45 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04207 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:25:39 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb223.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.223]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08197 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:25:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980218122551.006bc984@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:25:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: <34EAC108.886A48B7@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980216235231.006b9b10@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980218010322.006b80b4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:07 PM 2/18/98 +0100, Herman wrote: >But all "the evidence" we can ever obtain in this forum might not be >evidence enough. > >In cases of two-suiters, I never believe the "evidence to the contrary". > >discussed in the context of L75B: >> >> B. Violations of Partnership Agreements >> It is not improper for a player to violate an announced partnership >> agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual >> violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must >> be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents >> that he has violated an announced agreement; and if the opponents are >> subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such >> violation, they are not entitled to redress. >> > >That rule has often been misused. >Players still have to prove their correct agreement, and then they have >to make sure that partner has no knowledge whatsoever of the kind of >"but partner often forgets ...". > The standard that the Laws specify is not one of "proof", but only one of "evidence". In practice, there are only limited sources of such evidence. In the ACBL, the convention cards provide a checkoff under the heading "Unusual Notrump" for either the minors or the the two lower unbid. Certainly if both players' cards are checked "2 lower unbid", this is evidence. Alternatively, the players could provide system notes that back up their claim. Proof? No, not in the mathematical sense at any rate. The players may have amended their agreements and neglected to amend their documentation, or perhaps the documentation provides a general rule without detailing specifically agreed-to exceptions. But it IS evidence. To simply ignore it is to elevate your personal judgement above the requirements of the Laws. As a TD, you do have the power to do so, but not the authority. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 04:25:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:25:03 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04194 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:24:54 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb223.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.223]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA14512 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:24:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980218122504.006c1b10@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:25:04 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980218085520.006cdf40@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980214232558.006b796c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980213111420.006dfbe4@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19980212123857.006b2630@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:55 AM 2/18/98 -0500, Eric wrote: >As a "loose constructionist", I take the position that the letter of the >law contextualizes, constrains and exemplifies the spirit of the law, and >that regulations should accord with that spirit in addition to abiding >strictly by the letter. That means that I decry the use of presumed >"loopholes" in the law by which SOs can blatantly violate the spirit of the >law while "justifying" their violations as being such as to remain within >the narrowly constituted letter of the law. This is precisely what the >ACBL has done in the cases Michael cites. > >One must start with the assumption that the lawmakers said what they wanted >to say as clearly as they could say it (which may, not surprisingly, have >been problematical in some areas), and have not deliberately built in >obscure or esoteric language for the purpose of keeping generations of >lawyers in work finding ways to justify the legality of actions which the >law appears on its face to prohibit. > >A principle of loose constructionism is that clearly definitive language, >whether the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." or L40's "A >player may make any call or play...", constrains us from allowing those >statements to be violated based on the literal implications of other >language. Just as constitutional scholars have concluded that the explicit >constraints of the Bill of Rights imply an implicit "right to privacy" >that, although not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, can be >clearly inferred from the explicit prohibitions that establish the context >for it, so, for example, does L40 create an "implicit right" to be >unfettered in one's purely natural bidding methods. > >The U.S. constitution provides us with a system of checks and balances, but >in the ACBL the people who interpret the law and the people who enforce it >are the same people. And the U.S. constitution makes the latter group >responsible to the electorate, which isn't the case in the ACBL either (we >had a recent thread on that topic). That leaves the system rife for abuse >-- and abuse it they do. As a body with no power, no responsibility and no >axe to grind, we of BLML can and do take a clearer view of the laws, work >from the premise that the laws "say what they mean and mean what they say", >and disregard the lawyers who flog the loopholes that let them ignore the >clear intent of the laws "for the greater good". > Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think we're mostly on the same side here, although we differ in our application of the terminology "strict" and "loose". For discussion purposes, I would like to clarify what I mean by these terms. A "loose" constructionist views the law (bridge or real) as a flexible tool whose interpretation can reasonably be molded in support of a higher purpose. The loose view is that since no law can ever be so precise and complete as to embrace the rich fabric of human experience, we will always have to interpret, and since we all bring agendas to the act of interpretation, there is nothing wrong (and perhaps much right, in the greater scheme of things) with bending or stretching the law to accommodate our point of view. -Thus lying is illegal, because L74 prohibits comments likely to annoy or embarass. -Thus mini-notrumps can be effectively banned, because the law bestows upon an SO the right to regulate conventions. -Thus Herman, inter alia, can choose to ignore "evidence of partnership agreements" in the current thread "A Suit Bid or Not a Suit Bid", because "evidence" is a somewhat squishy word which can be interpreted in whatever way suits the broader purposes of the TD. (Note: I assume that Herman's "broader purposes" in that matter are honorable and well-intentioned, but they are extraneous to the strict requirement of the Laws.) The "strict" constructionist, OTOH, is committed first and foremost to the law itself. When confronted with a problem in legal analysis, he strives to set aside his personal views about the outcome, and seeks in a neutral way to discover how the law speaks to the issue at hand. (LC: "What a load! We all have our axes to grind. SC just won't admit to his.") -Thus if the Laws are actually mute on the general subject of Lying (and I appreciate that not everyone shares this view :-)), where they are quite specific on other, comparable, acts, then lying is not generally illegal, even if we believe it to be seriously unethical and "inimical to the interests of the game." -Thus the ACBL does not actually have the legal authority (though they clearly have the power) to effectively ban mini-notrumps, because a neutral reading of the Laws makes clear, as you have suggested, that the Laws confer substantial freedom on players in the natural methods they choose to employ. -Thus we must rule in favor of EW in the unusual notrump case, if they do have reasonable evidence that the partnership agreement is as stated, even if this feels like a miscarriage of justice. My pricipal objection to the "loose" approach is that those who use it are effectively conflating "power" and "authority", and in doing so they weaken the protection of the law against despotism. When liberal jurists in the '60s and '70s used creative interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to rule in favor of policies that I happened to like, they legitimized and paved the way for more conservative jurists of the '80s and 90's to rule in favor of policies I often find appalling. When the ACBL can get away with abusing the Laws to trample on the mini-notrump, which is a method I have no interest in using, then they are perhaps emboldened to go after other styles, such as aggressive preempts. And if we argue in favor of a TD's or AC's right to interpret the Laws broadly, we should not be surprised when that power is wielded against our interests in a way which may be technically defensible, but is clearly contrary to a neutral reading. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 04:38:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:38:29 +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 EAA04309 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:38:22 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id JAA06759; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:32:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma006737; Wed, 18 Feb 98 09:32:08 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA23048; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:36:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199802181736.MAA23048@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 18 Feb 98 15:29:00 GMT Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk elandau @ cais.com wrote: ... much snipped >A principle of loose constructionism is that clearly definitive language, >whether the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." or L40's "A >player may make any call or play...", constrains us from allowing those >statements to be violated based on the literal implications of other >language. Just as constitutional scholars have concluded that the explicit >constraints of the Bill of Rights imply an implicit "right to privacy" >that, although not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, can be >clearly inferred from the explicit prohibitions that establish the context >for it, so, for example, does L40 create an "implicit right" to be >unfettered in one's purely natural bidding methods. ... much snipped Of course the USA is a fine country, and one which is rightly proud of its history. I suspect I am like many in this country, and elsewhere, in freely acknowledging the debt that we in the free world owe to the USA. The fact that I can write this is testimony to the debt we owe. I say this to emphasise that I am pro-USA, and not at all negative about it. Despite this, I would be grateful for a short explanation (say 100 words) as to why interpretation of the US Constitution is relevant to interpretation of the Laws of Bridge. The one is local to one country: the other international. The one is absolutely vital to that country (and, because of the importance of the USA to the free world, elsewhere): the other is only a game, and not that important a game. The one was largely written 200+ years ago: the other re-written last year. Personally I see more differences than similarities. If interpretation of the US Constitution is relevant, then why not interpretation of UK law? ... EU law (I understand from my microscopic knowledge of UK and EU law that the approach to interpreting the two was historically very different, but is converging)? What about the law of other countries who are members of the WBF? Steve Barnfield Tunbrige Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 05:22:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:22:40 +1100 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04452 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:22:32 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA28343 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:21:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:22:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802181822.NAA15338@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19980218122551.006bc984@pop.mindspring.com> (msd@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis writes: > The standard that the Laws specify is not one of "proof", but only one of > "evidence". In practice, there are only limited sources of such evidence. > In the ACBL, the convention cards provide a checkoff under the heading > "Unusual Notrump" for either the minors or the the two lower unbid. > Certainly if both players' cards are checked "2 lower unbid", this is > evidence. The problem here is that the definition of "bid suit" isn't clear; it's a fuzzy concept. Is 1C which is often opened on three cards a bid suit? (Probably yes.) Is 1C which can be opened on 4-4-3-2 but is usually three cards long a bid suit? (I normally play that it is, so that 2C over this 1C is Michaels.) Is 1C which is opened on a balanced 13-15 regardless of minor lengths or an unbalanced hand with clubs a bid suit? Is a Precision nebulous diamond which can be opened on 4-4-1-4 a bid suit? Is a nebulous diamond which can be opened on a void a bid suit? -- 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 Feb 19 06:44:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 06:44:17 +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 GAA04963 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 06:44:10 +1100 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Wed, 18 Feb 98 14:43:52 EST Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa24526; 18 Feb 98 14:44 EST Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA18908 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:44:16 -0500 (EST) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199802181944.OAA18908@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:44:16 -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 >Despite this, I would be grateful for a short explanation (say 100 >words) as to why interpretation of the US Constitution is relevant to >interpretation of the Laws of Bridge. The one is local to one country: >the other international. The one is absolutely vital to that country >(and, because of the importance of the USA to the free world, >elsewhere): the other is only a game, and not that important a game. >The one was largely written 200+ years ago: the other re-written last >year. Personally I see more differences than similarities. The methods of interpretation offered in earlier posts illustrate how one document, considered to be the common basis for millions of people, can have different meanings based on its interpretation. More importantly, a person's (or group's) interpretation of law affects how one applies the law. Supreme Court rulings over the years illustrate this well, especially as the interpretive beliefs of the Court have changed. Of course, this is true for any law: the Torah, EU law, the Quran, you name it. Unfortunately not everyone is familiar with every law. Someone living under UK, EU, or whatever law could have offered a similar history of interpretation. In the case you cited, someone (I don't recall the original poster, but I assume the poster was American) gave their most familiar example. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 06:56:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 06:56:09 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04999 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 06:56:03 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA07511; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:55:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca3-06.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.102) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007480; Wed Feb 18 13:55:02 1998 Message-ID: <34EB3B92.2D42@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:50:42 -0800 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix5.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis References: <199802181736.MAA23048@fern.us.pw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com wrote: > > elandau @ cais.com wrote: > > ... much snipped > > >A principle of loose constructionism is that clearly definitive language, > >whether the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." or L40's "A > >player may make any call or play...", constrains us from allowing those > >statements to be violated based on the literal implications of other > >language. Just as constitutional scholars have concluded that the explicit > >constraints of the Bill of Rights imply an implicit "right to privacy" > >that, although not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, can be > >clearly inferred from the explicit prohibitions that establish the context > >for it, so, for example, does L40 create an "implicit right" to be > >unfettered in one's purely natural bidding methods. > > ... much snipped > > Of course the USA is a fine country, and one which is rightly proud of its > history. I suspect I am like many in this country, and elsewhere, in freely > acknowledging the debt that we in the free world owe to the USA. The fact that > I can write this is testimony to the debt we owe. > > I say this to emphasise that I am pro-USA, and not at all negative about it. > > Despite this, I would be grateful for a short explanation (say 100 words) as to > why interpretation of the US Constitution is relevant to interpretation of the > Laws of Bridge. The one is local to one country: the other international. The > one is absolutely vital to that country (and, because of the importance of the > USA to the free world, elsewhere): the other is only a game, and not that > important a game. The one was largely written 200+ years ago: the other > re-written last year. Personally I see more differences than similarities. > > If interpretation of the US Constitution is relevant, then why not > interpretation of UK law? ... EU law (I understand from my microscopic > knowledge of UK and EU law that the approach to interpreting the two was > historically very different, but is converging)? What about the law of other > countries who are members of the WBF? > > Steve Barnfield > Tunbrige Wells, England Interesting point. We Americans look at the US Constitution as the end result of thousands of years of legal evolution. In the Christian world today (including England, of course), all laws derive from multiple sources, from the Bible through the Magna Carta. The US Constitution is an embodiment of the principles established in those various sources, and include fundamental freedoms and rights: the rights to due process of law, equal access, equal justice, etc. The Laws of Bridge use the same principles. I suspect that the reference to the US Constitution was a shorthand method to allude to the basic legal principles that support it and the Laws of Bridge. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 07:22:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:22:26 +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 HAA05069 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:22:18 +1100 Received: from default (cph8.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.8]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA06903 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:22:05 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802182022.VAA06903@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 19:47:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: BLML's role vs. NCBOs (was : Lying and Legal Analysis) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > The U.S. constitution provides us with a system of checks and balances, but > in the ACBL the people who interpret the law and the people who enforce it > are the same people. And the U.S. constitution makes the latter group > responsible to the electorate, which isn't the case in the ACBL either (we > had a recent thread on that topic). That leaves the system rife for abuse > -- and abuse it they do. As a body with no power, no responsibility and no > axe to grind, we of BLML can and do take a clearer view of the laws, work > from the premise that the laws "say what they mean and mean what they say", > and disregard the lawyers who flog the loopholes that let them ignore the > clear intent of the laws "for the greater good". This is an interesting view of BLML. I venture that it is a special view, fueled by the tradition in North America for bashing the ACBL. I for one have power, responsibility, and even a minor axe or two to grind. True, all of this concerns the DBF, not the ACBL, but I an official of that body: I serve on its Appeals Committee, which also functions as the NCBO Laws committee. We are the highest authority in our NCBO for interpreting as well as enforcing the law. I am probably the one person in Denmark who has most influence on the official policy regarding the interpretation of "logical alternative", and I was the one who drafted our slightly controversial regulations against dumping. Jesper who is also among the early members of BLML, is even more powerful to the extent that he has the major and final say on the DBF's tournament regulations. Sergei and Rusty have similar positions in Russia and South Africa. I obviously don't accept Eric's "they vs. us" attitude to NCBOs. In our country, a person who is capable of making such excellent analyses of BLML subject matter as Eric would be highly attractive as a member of a relevant committee, and the normal reason for his not having power or responsibility would be that he did not want to or did not have the time. The DBF is largely organized in the same way as the ACBL. There is a layer of indirection less, reflecting quite well that we don't cover a continent, but only a country about twice the the size of Maryland. There are no checks and balances, and we probably abuse our power much the same way that the ACBL does, although we don't get flamed as much on BLML or r.g.b. To me, BLML is an opportunity to exchange views on BLML subject matter with my peers. Until we caught on to the Internet, such opportunities were very difficult to come by, and it was especially difficult to develop intimate enough knowledge of others' views to be able to make that exchange productive. If you will, BLML is very much part of my power base in my somewhat powerful position at the DBF. This is, paradoxically, quite the opposite role of what Eric perceives. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 07:31:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:31:24 +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 HAA05092 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:31:18 +1100 Received: from mike ([38.30.134.206]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA14798 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:31:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980218153128.006c27b4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:31:28 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: <199802181822.NAA15338@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19980218122551.006bc984@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:22 PM 2/18/98 -0500, David G wrote: >Is 1C which is often opened on three cards a bid suit? (Probably yes.) >Is 1C which can be opened on 4-4-3-2 but is usually three cards long a >bid suit? (I normally play that it is, so that 2C over this 1C is >Michaels.) Is 1C which is opened on a balanced 13-15 regardless of >minor lengths or an unbalanced hand with clubs a bid suit? Is a >Precision nebulous diamond which can be opened on 4-4-1-4 a bid suit? >Is a nebulous diamond which can be opened on a void a bid suit? > > I take your point, but if you're in a new partnership, having agreed that you will play unusual to show the 2 lower unbid, wouldn't you assume the auction 1D (alert) - 2nt showed the round suits? If we have a general rule, it should apply generally, except where we have outlined specific exceptions. (Which reminds me, I need to take up this issue with my favorite partner, and then make sure our system notes reflect the more detailed understanding). But the real problem is deeper than possible confusion about the bid suits. East quite properly provided what he considered to be the systemic agreement ("2 lower unbid"), and as stipulated in the original posting, that explanation was in fact correct. Imagine the uproar concerning the following: AJx Jxx Qx KTxxx Kxx xxxx KTxxx xx AJxxx Kxxx -- Jxx QTx AQx Tx AQxxx S deals and opens some nebulous brand of 1C. W overcalls 2nt, N enquires and East, on the flimsy pretext that the partnership has not discussed 2nt over this particular 1C opening, claims "no partnership understanding". Subsequently, EW are allowed to declare 3D for a top, since neither N nor S are comfortable bidding their clubs in the teeth of the possible 5-card club suit in the W hand. It turns out that EW do have an agreement that 2nt shows "the 2 lower unbid". Have NS been damaged by the CPU? It seems to me they have a substantially better case than the original NS pair. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised (though I wouldn't like it) if E were given a PP for having deliberately concealed his "knowledge". Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 08:42:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:42:25 +1100 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA05332 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:42:09 +1100 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA27556 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:41:51 -0600 (CST) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA01180; Wed, 18 Feb 98 15:41:49 CST Message-Id: <9802182141.AA01180@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 98 15:43 CST From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: 53 cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had something similar at the club about one month ago. With just a few tricks left to play, declarer called the TD because she had too many cards left. It turned out that she had started the hand holding 15 cards, where the two extra cards belonged to the previous board of that round. I ruled Av-/Av+, and was amazed that this error wasn't noticed earlier in the hand. Here are some quotes from previous posts in this thread. >From: "Grant C. Sterling" >Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:33:40 -0600 (CST) > > I know this does not have the force of law, but FWIW the ACBL >apparently interprets L1 in exactly this way. [In their guide for club >directors, anyway, "Duplicate Decisions".] They specify that all results >of play with an invalid deck are negated, even if the problem is trivial >["two deuces of clubs but no three"]. > Interestingly, they begin their gloss of the law by saying that no >result acheived with a pack _of 52 cards_ is ever valid--obviously, they >hadn't thought of 53. :) Second quote (reformatted) >From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com >Date: Tue, 10 Feb 98 16:46:45 GMT > >I didn't read far enough into the EBL Commentary on L1. >EBL 1.3(b) says "If an extra card is found in a player's hand >during the auction or play it is removed. There is no redress >for the offending side (L7B1)." I'd have to think harder about >whether 1.3(b) is right or sensible - but that is how I'd rule, >certainly in England, and possibly elsewhere too. I don't think >the fact that there has been a claim acquiesced to is relevant. This seems reasonable if none of the extra cards have been played yet. However, what happens if an extra card has already been played to a trick before the TD was called? Does its removal then create a situation covered by L67A1 or L67B1? If there are no hand records, it will be quite difficult for the TD to identify the extra card at this point in order to apply L67, and still allow play to continue. Do you still agree that this is a "sensible" procedure? One amusing aspect of this occurs when the extra card was led to a previous trick. After the TD removes it and applies L67B1b, we may find that a player revoked when it was his lead! -- Barry Wolk | pi r^2 Dept of Mathematics | That is wrong. University of Manitoba | Cakes are square. Winnipeg Manitoba Canada | Pie are round. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 08:57:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:57:34 +1100 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA05400 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:56:52 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa13500; 18 Feb 98 13:55 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:31:28 PST." <3.0.1.32.19980218153128.006c27b4@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:55:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802181355.aa13500@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > I take your point, but if you're in a new partnership, having agreed that > you will play unusual to show the 2 lower unbid, wouldn't you assume the > auction 1D (alert) - 2nt showed the round suits? I would, personally. (Unless the 1D opening was strong, forcing, artificial, in which case I'd assume 2NT showed minors.) But that doesn't mean that other partnerships necessarily do the same thing. I've been around for a while, so I think this is the best thing to assume, but less-experienced partnerships often get confused about this. So I think it's a mistake to assume that another partnership will have this rule as one of their implicit agreements. > If we have a general rule, > it should apply generally, except where we have outlined specific > exceptions. Again, this may be a good general principle, if you're a player. If you're a director, you have no authority to assume this principle is being used by a partnership you've been called to rule on. If you have evidence that this is how the partnership thinks, fine; but if you don't, you can't assume their actual agreement is "2 lower unbid" over nebulous openings, just because *you* think the above is a good principle to follow. Many partnerships play by a somewhat inferior meta-rule: "If we have a general rule, but there's a situation where we're not sure whether it applies, wing it and hope partner guesses right." > (Which reminds me, I need to take up this issue with my > favorite partner, and then make sure our system notes reflect the more > detailed understanding). > > But the real problem is deeper than possible confusion about the bid suits. > East quite properly provided what he considered to be the systemic > agreement ("2 lower unbid"), and as stipulated in the original posting, > that explanation was in fact correct. No, there's no evidence from the original posting that there *was* any systemic agreement. If there's no agreement about whether the opener's club bid is a "suit", there's no agreement about what 2NT means, even if the card is marked "2 lower unbid". (Except that it definitely shows diamonds.) East said the bid showed hearts and diamonds, and this was MI because there really wasn't any agreement (as far as anyone can tell). And if they don't have an agreement, you CANNOT, as a director, say "well, I think it's a good idea to assume that a general rule still applies if there's no specific exception; therefore I'll assume that 2NT=reds is the actual agreement." The fact is, the original post indicated that the hand was played 92 times and required rulings 11 times. It's not clear that all 11 situations were the same, but if this happened several times over short clubs, it seems to provide clear evidence that lots of pairs just don't know for sure what they're playing over short clubs and nebulous diamonds. My experience bears this out (I have a fair amount of experience playing Precision and 2-way club systems). And because there is so much confusion, it doesn't make any sense for the director to assume a systemic agreement, when the chance is so good that there isn't one. > Imagine the uproar concerning the > following: > > AJx > Jxx > Qx > KTxxx > Kxx xxxx > KTxxx xx > AJxxx Kxxx > -- Jxx > QTx > AQx > Tx > AQxxx > > S deals and opens some nebulous brand of 1C. W overcalls 2nt, N enquires > and East, on the flimsy pretext that the partnership has not discussed 2nt > over this particular 1C opening, claims "no partnership understanding". > Subsequently, EW are allowed to declare 3D for a top, since neither N nor > S are comfortable bidding their clubs in the teeth of the possible 5-card > club suit in the W hand. > > It turns out that EW do have an agreement that 2nt shows "the 2 lower > unbid". IMHO, E was remiss. He should have said "We play 2 lower unbid, but I'm not completely sure whether this means minors or red suits in this case." Just saying "No partnership understanding" isn't good enough. If, with this explanation, NS are still reluctant to bid clubs, I'd blame the result on bad luck that East had a longer holding in West's known suits than in the ones nobody was sure about. If that weren't the case, EW would likely get a poor result, assuming they obeyed the rules of the game. However, North should probably have bid clubs anyway. Most nebulous clubs openers still have a real suit most of the time. (I guess it depends on just how nebulous the opener was.) So I actually wouldn't have that much sympathy for NS. > Have NS been damaged by the CPU? It seems to me they have a > substantially better case than the original NS pair. They might have a case if East said "no partnership understanding." However, if East had told everything he knew (they play 2 lower), and was careful to point out what he didn't know for sure (which two suits over a nebulous club), NS don't have any case at all. The fact that you or I would assume this 2NT to mean red suits, if we were playing, doesn't have any bearing on anything. Of course, if this EW had encountered a similar situation before, it would be hard to convince me that they didn't really have at least an implicit agreement. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 12:47:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:47:37 +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 MAA05904 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:47:27 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1023617; 19 Feb 98 1:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 01:34:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Revoke penalty MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I had the revoke established tonight by question "having none?" which in the UK *does* establish it. I allowed the player to correct the card which is clear to do, and they abviously have a penalty card. How do you now rule the one/two trick penalty, I'm not entirely clear on this. Is it still based on taking a trick in the suit which the player failed to follow? -- 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 Thu Feb 19 18:59:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:59:59 +1100 Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA06460 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:59:52 +1100 From: Mlfrench@aol.com Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 5LJGa01990; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 02:59:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5929dd55.34ebe670@aol.com> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 02:59:41 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: john.strauch@juno.com, rapid1@home.com, Jimkirkham@aol.com, woodhere@hotmail.com, howie@interaccess.com, bartle1@san.rr.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There has developed among many ACBL TDs and some ACs an inclination to award a combination of assigned and artificial scores when making a score adjustment for some violation of Law or ACBL regulation. The practice is illegal, often illogical, and unfair to the field. A classic example is St Louis NABC Appeal Case No. 8, from the LIfe Masters Pairs: North S- 986 H- K3 D- T2 C- KQ6543 West East S- Q53 S- KJT7 H- J76 H- AQT54 D- A853 D- J974 C- AT8 C- South S- A42 H- 982 D- KQ6 C- J972 As a result of misinformation given to E-W, the TD and AC ruled that E-W, who played 2H making four, were prevented from bidding their heart game. I am not giving the bidding or the logic for the decision, because that is a side issue. Those interested can view the whole matter at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html. Anyway, the TD had assigned a score of +620 to E-W, -620 to N-S. N-S appealed, the AC agreed with the TD's finding, but in addition to the assigned scores of +620/-620 also provided that the score adjustment would be Avg+ for E-W if that was better than +620, and Avg- for N-S if that was worse than -620. They gave no reason for the change in score adjustment. The artificial score option was illegal because L12C1 makes clear that an artificial score is awarded only when it's impossible to come up with an assigned score ("no result can be obtained"), which is hardly ever the case. It was illogical because East undoubtedly would have made +620 in a heart game, having missed the diamond intra-finesse for eleven tricks when he played 2H. Plus 620 turned out to be close to average, so E-W received Avg+. Per L12C1 and L88 Avg+ is a 60% score, or the pair's percentage on all the other hands, whichever is greater. With no likelihood that the play would go differently in a game contract, there is no justification for giving E-W a greater matchpoint result than would result from +620. This is the most favorable result that was likely for E-W, and the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for N-S. L12C2 does not call for any further indeminification for E-W or punishment for N-S. It was unfair to the field because artificial scores hurt those who have done well on a board, and give a real "windfall" to those who have done badly. An artificial score is considered a "missing result," as if the board had been fouled for one round, and the matchpoint calculations for others in the field result in a reduction in the score for good results and an increase in the score for bad results. No cold tops, no cold bottoms. That's not right. Anyone who has lost an event because of getting only 11.96 matchpoints instead of 12 for a top will not consider this insignificant. Suppose that +620 had been a bad score because most pairs were bidding game and taking 11 tricks. Then the non-offending side would be receiving a below- average score for +620 and the offending side an above-average score. Is that wrong? Are non-offenders supposed to be guaranteed a good result and offenders a bad one? There is nothing in the Laws that says so, but that seems to be the opinion of most TDs and many ACs. It appears at first sight that this misapplication of the Laws is caused by a misinterpretation of L12C1 and L88, which say that an innocent side getting an artificial score must receive 60% of the available matchpoints, or their actual percentage on all other deals, whichever is greater. That applies only to artificial score adjustments, not to assigned scores. While it is perhaps understandable that TDs make this mistake, it is hard to believe that the supposedly more knowledgeable members of ACs would make the same error. Actually they don't, at least at the NABC level, because they justify the mixing of artificial and assigned scores as follows (quote from a highly placed person in NABC AC proceedings): "It has been accepted practice...to award a pair a specific score or Average Plus, whichever is greater, under the condition that the Committee (or Director) believes that the pair should be protected up to a certain minimum score (or should never receive better than a certain maximum score). For example, consider that the Committee believes that a pair was headed for an above average result, but could not have scored any worse than plus 420 without the infraction. The Committee wishes to protect the non-offenders with a minimum score of Average Plus or the result of plus 420 if that is better than Average Plus. The reciprocal reasoning would apply to the offenders. They might deserve a score of (say) minus 420 or Average Minus, whichever is worse. So they get the result of minus 420, but in no case should they get better than an Average Minus." Slavery was also an "accepted practice," but that didn't make it right. Even if this were a valid way of handling score adjustment, it should not have been applied to Case 8, where E-W were clearly headed for +620 and no more, a less than 60% result. Perhaps my source would agree, so I'll quote an example he gives to justify mixed adjustments: "A player pulls his partner's double, which was made after a huddle. The Committee decides not to allow the pull, but can't decide how the opponents would have fared in the doubled contract. The very worst they might have done is minus 100, but better scores (some of them very good like 590, etc.) were possible, whose likelihoods were quite impossible to determine. The Committee decides that, since some of the scores are undoubtedly very good for the non- offenders ("windfalls"), they wish them to get the matchpoints for minus 100 (minimum) or Average Plus, whichever is greater. Thus, in case minus 100 is not especially good for them, the pair gets Average Plus (or the percentage of their game, if that is better) in lieu of one of the very good "windfall" results whose liklihood is indeterminate. Reciprocal arguments can be applied to the offenders." Where do I start? If there was one chance in three (the official ACBL Laws Commission guideline for "the most favorable result that was likely") for +590, then the non-offenders should get that score assigned to them, possibly a cold top. If the chance is less than that, they get -100, period, even if it's not a good score, because that's all they have coming per L12C2. But suppose it is true that the AC cannot make such a calculation accurately. Then they use judgment. Each of the three (the usual number) members, after discussing the matter, writes down his/her opinion of the most favorable result likely. If two or more agree, that's it. If none agree, take the middle result, that's it. If the resulting assigned score is +590, and that yields a cold top, it may be be a "windfall," but it is the proper score. If (in the ACs judgment) the +590 probability is less than 1/3, but at least 1/6 (the guideline for "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable"), then the non-offenders get a -100 score and the offenders a -590 score. The resulting matchpoint percentages are not a factor in the decision. This is not rocket science. Some of the problem may be due to TD/AC laziness. It often takes time and mental effort to judge the probabilities of outcomes in an assigned contract. Using mixed types of adjustment is the easy way out, but it's the wrong way out. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 21:20:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:20:57 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA06847 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:20:51 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-74.uunet.be [194.7.13.74]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03285 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:20:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34EBFB75.50FFD6B7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:29:25 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <5929dd55.34ebe670@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: (a lot) > I want to comment on the specific case where a pair playing 2H+2 get an adjusted score of 4H=, but rounded up to 60% if it is less. There can be a good reason for this practice (I have not examined the case closely enough to see if this was in fact the reason, but ...). Suppose you are playing 2H. You look at the table and know you are in a bad contract. You might already be thinking about a possible ruling. Anyway, you might well be playing either below average concentration, or even with some extra safety in mind. In some cases this is clear, and we can apply what I have called the principle of returned normality. Only when we are absolutely certain that what happens in 2H will also happen in 4H do we clearly rule +420. When the difference in the playing of the contracts is very clear, we might rule +450. But sometimes this is not clear. The AC can decide that they cannot determine a correct result to 4H. They can therefor quite reasonably award an artificial score of 60%. The fact that they allow to leak out that their score adjustment is to +420 or 60%, whichever is higher, should not matter. They might just as well do this behind closed doors and only award the higher of the two. As to the argument that the "missing" score affects the result for the top pairs : By saying that the AC cannot determine what the result will be in 4H, and awarding 60%, they are in fact saying that the score can be anything. But of course it cannot go higher than 510, so a pair that scores +1600 is in a sense damaged. Yes, I can feel with Marv here. So the better score would be something like : 5% of +510, 25% of +480, 40% of +450, 25% of +420 and 5% of -50, with a correct formula of calculation dealing with that problem and which leaves all scores of 520 and higher totally unaffected. Now I can calculate this, but that's for another time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 21:20:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:20:50 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA06840 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:20:44 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-74.uunet.be [194.7.13.74]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA03281 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:20:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34EBF6F4.FAB0396D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:10:12 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980216235231.006b9b10@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980218010322.006b80b4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980218122551.006bc984@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > At 12:07 PM 2/18/98 +0100, Herman wrote: (Michael sent this to me personally - so I answered same - but the discussion is worth while - anyway you see the previous comments) > > >But all "the evidence" we can ever obtain in this forum might not be > >evidence enough. > > > >In cases of two-suiters, I never believe the "evidence to the contrary". > > > >discussed in the context of L75B: > >> > >> B. Violations of Partnership Agreements > >> It is not improper for a player to violate an announced partnership > >> agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual > >> violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must > >> be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents > >> that he has violated an announced agreement; and if the opponents are > >> subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such > >> violation, they are not entitled to redress. > >> > > > >That rule has often been misused. > >Players still have to prove their correct agreement, and then they have > >to make sure that partner has no knowledge whatsoever of the kind of > >"but partner often forgets ...". > > > > The standard that the Laws specify is not one of "proof", but only one of > "evidence". Please stop mincing words when not important. I am talking here, not writing a legal document. I don't take time to look up every single piece of law text while I'm writing down what I think. (but you are correct of course) > In practice, there are only limited sources of such evidence. > In the ACBL, the convention cards provide a checkoff under the heading > "Unusual Notrump" for either the minors or the the two lower unbid. > Certainly if both players' cards are checked "2 lower unbid", this is > evidence. So is the fact that -apparently- at least one player at the table thought the clubs were "unbid". Unless it is clearly marked that unbid also means clubs in whatever system, I have two pieces of evidence that I can believe. I think the laws still require me to believe the most damning piece of evidence. But this is getting us nowhere fast. Let's agree that both apporaches are possible and that it is up to TD and AC to weigh the evidences and reach a conclusion. My whole intention in replying to Michael's original post was to show him that his quick response (one line) was way too fast a decision. > Alternatively, the players could provide system notes that back > up their claim. Proof? No, not in the mathematical sense at any rate. The > players may have amended their agreements and neglected to amend their > documentation, or perhaps the documentation provides a general rule without > detailing specifically agreed-to exceptions. But it IS evidence. To simply > ignore it is to elevate your personal judgement above the requirements of > the Laws. As a TD, you do have the power to do so, but not the authority. > Please explain that last bit. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 22:09:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:09:17 +1100 Received: from dir.bris.ac.uk (dir.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA06988 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:09:03 +1100 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dir.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-LOCAL (PP); Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:07:44 +0000 Received: from pc19.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc19 [137.222.80.59]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA08479 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:02:59 GMT From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Achieving equity Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:01:19 +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 Law 12C3 says: "Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity." How is "achieving equity" usually interpreted? I'll be grateful for any comments, but I'm particularly interested in whether it means achieving equity on the particular board involved, or whether it can include achieving equity in the event as a whole. The real-life event that got me wondering (I hasten to add that I have no gripes about the decision): In a county knock-out match last December our teammates were given wrong information about the opponents' bidding that caused them to bid 4H (which was doubled and went two down) rather than 3NT. With the result at the table, we would have lost the match by a couple of IMPs. The TD adjusted the result to 3NT-1 (best likely result for our side), making us win by a similar margin, but advised our opponents to appeal. A couple of days later (the match finished late and it wasn't possible to assemble an AC at the time) the AC readjusted the result to 3NT-3, which was an extremely unlikely result, and I presume was designed to tie the match on the grounds that it was "inequitable" that the match should be decided by this decision. Is this a proper application of Law 12C3? And if so, was it necessary for the AC to devise a result (3NT-3) which would tie the match? What if there hadn't been any possible result that would tie the match (e.g., if we needed 1 IMP on the board to tie and we'd scored +50 at our table, so a score of between -10 and -30 was needed at the other table)? Jeremy. ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 19 22:47:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:47:55 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA07090 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:47:48 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client27ae.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.174]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id LAA05854 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:47:37 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Re: Revoke penalty Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:52:23 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3d2c$d7092cc0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 3:14 AM Subject: Revoke penalty >I had the revoke established tonight by question "having none?" which in >the UK *does* establish it. I allowed the player to correct the card >which is clear to do, and they abviously have a penalty card. I do not think that it is so clear. L63c says that once established, and it is, then it may not be corrected exc., at T12, and under provisions of L42/43(but that does not apply here). I would rule that play should continue, the revoke being established, and any card which had been a substitute attempt would be an exposed card. > How do you >now rule the one/two trick penalty, I'm not entirely clear on this. Is >it still based on taking a trick in the suit which the player >failed to follow? I now do not have any difficulty with the one/two trick penalty of L64. I wonder if others agree with me on this one? >-- >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 Feb 20 01:25:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 01:25:23 +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 BAA09801 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 01:25:14 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bkinis.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id JAA26697 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma026625; Thu, 19 Feb 98 09:24:44 -0500 Received: from lnsun39.morgan.com (lnsun39.morgan.com [140.14.98.39]) by cwmail1.morgan.com (8.8.5/hub v1.75) with ESMTP id OAA00895 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:24:43 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id OAA02628 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:24:42 GMT Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:24:42 GMT Message-Id: <9802191424.ZM2626@ms.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Simple Systems Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There's a thread on r.g.b. at the moment on the subject of SOs restricting natural bids (e.g. 9-12 no-trumps) on a Law 40D basis. I don't want to go over that again, but it got me wondering what the status of "simple systems" games is. IIRC, the EBU simple system bans natural weak twos, weak jump overcalls, etc. I think we can all agree that these games are a good thing, but are they games of duplicate bridge? And does it matter if they're not? Cheers, Ed From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 02:01:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:01:48 +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 CAA10132 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:01:40 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002994; 19 Feb 98 14:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:15:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores In-Reply-To: <34EBFB75.50FFD6B7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Mlfrench@aol.com wrote: (a lot) >In some cases this is clear, and we can apply what I have called the >principle of returned normality. Only when we are absolutely certain >that what happens in 2H will also happen in 4H do we clearly rule +420. >When the difference in the playing of the contracts is very clear, we >might rule +450. >But sometimes this is not clear. The AC can decide that they cannot >determine a correct result to 4H. They can therefor quite reasonably >award an artificial score of 60%. L12C2 would require a score of +450 if they cannot decide. If the AC gives them +420 <<>> 60%, and +450 is an 80% board, then the players have lost 20% through the AC's inability to follow the Law. If +450 is a 20% board, then their opponents have lost 40% through the AC's inability to follow the Law. Neither seems fair. In Europe the AC might easily give 50% +450, 50% +420. That has the advantage that it does not depend on whether these are good or bad scores. >Yes, I can feel with Marv here. > >So the better score would be something like : 5% of +510, 25% of +480, >40% of +450, 25% of +420 and 5% of -50, with a correct formula of >calculation dealing with that problem and which leaves all scores of 520 >and higher totally unaffected. > >Now I can calculate this, but that's for another time. Since I feel strongly about this damage to the field nonsense, perhaps you could do me the favour of calculating it now. No need to show the calculation, which would no doubt be beyond me, but the final effect. How much are players scores likely to be affected here? Since you seem to be talking about big fields, let us say that there are 100 pairs, 15 getting more than +510. How much would what you perceive as a fairer ruling affect pairs who get more than +515, and how much less than +515? -- 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 Feb 20 02:09:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:09:27 +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 CAA10175 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:09:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002993; 19 Feb 98 14:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:47:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke penalty In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I had the revoke established tonight by question "having none?" which in >the UK *does* establish it. I allowed the player to correct the card >which is clear to do, and they abviously have a penalty card. How do you >now rule the one/two trick penalty, I'm not entirely clear on this. Is >it still based on taking a trick in the suit which the player failed to >follow? *coff* RTFLB. L63B makes it clear that it is not established. [I have already had a brisk little interlude on BLML on what I think of this Law.] However the penalty provisions apply as though it was. So there is a major penalty card. Thus whenever this occurs you hit them with *two* penalties. If the offender should have played a spade, but played a club, he now plays a spade, and the club is a major penalty card. [a] If the spade wins the trick, it is a two-trick revoke [so long as his side wins a subsequent trick], OR ELSE [b] If the offender wins a subsequent **with a spade**, it is a two- trick revoke [so long as his side wins another subsequent trick], OR ELSE [c] It is a one-trick revoke [so long as his side wins another subsequent trick]. You may think that this is not what was intended. Perhaps not. But [fortunately] the Law is quite clear. There is *no* reference to the offending player winning the revoke trick *with the revoking card*, just winning the revoke trick. Let us see. If partner leads a spade, dummy plays the king, and you play the ace of clubs despite holding S AQ3, then the CA will be a major penalty card, and declarer will often gain a trick because of that. Furthermore, you should probably replace the CA with the SQ! The only way to avoid a two-trick revoke is not to take this trick [so do not play the SA] *and* not to win a subsequent spade trick. You will have to discard the SA, of course, but at least if you play the SQ to this trick you do not need to discard it as well! I still believe that the three trick penalty that will happen as a result of this Law with fair frequency makes this Law unfair. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 03:10:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:10:09 +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 DAA10336 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 03:10:02 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id IAA29072; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma029060; Thu, 19 Feb 98 08:03:42 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23155; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:08:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199802191608.LAA23155@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 19 Feb 98 15:00:31 GMT Subject: Re: BLML's role vs. NCBOs (was : Lying and Legal Analysis) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> The U.S. constitution provides us with a system of checks and balances, but >> in the ACBL the people who interpret the law and the people who enforce it >> are the same people. And the U.S. constitution makes the latter group >> responsible to the electorate, which isn't the case in the ACBL either (we >> had a recent thread on that topic). That leaves the system rife for abuse >> -- and abuse it they do. As a body with no power, no responsibility and no >> axe to grind, we of BLML can and do take a clearer view of the laws, work >> from the premise that the laws "say what they mean and mean what they say", >> and disregard the lawyers who flog the loopholes that let them ignore the >> clear intent of the laws "for the greater good". > >This is an interesting view of BLML. I venture that it is a special >view, fueled by the tradition in North America for bashing the ACBL. > >I for one have power, responsibility, and even a minor axe or two to >grind. True, all of this concerns the DBF, not the ACBL, but I an >official of that body: I serve on its Appeals Committee, which also >functions as the NCBO Laws committee. We are the highest authority >in our NCBO for interpreting as well as enforcing the law. I am >probably the one person in Denmark who has most influence on the >official policy regarding the interpretation of "logical >alternative", and I was the one who drafted our slightly >controversial regulations against dumping. > >Jesper who is also among the early members of BLML, is even more >powerful to the extent that he has the major and final say on the >DBF's tournament regulations. Sergei and Rusty have similar >positions in Russia and South Africa. > >I obviously don't accept Eric's "they vs. us" attitude to NCBOs. In >our country, a person who is capable of making such excellent >analyses of BLML subject matter as Eric would be highly attractive as >a member of a relevant committee, and the normal reason for his not >having power or responsibility would be that he did not want to or >did not have the time. I'd like to think the same is true in England. >The DBF is largely organized in the same way as the ACBL. There is >a layer of indirection less, reflecting quite well that we don't >cover a continent, but only a country about twice the the size of >Maryland. There are no checks and balances, and we probably abuse >our power much the same way that the ACBL does, although we don't >get flamed as much on BLML or r.g.b. > >To me, BLML is an opportunity to exchange views on BLML subject >matter with my peers. Well said! I play a very minor role in relation to interpretation of the Laws, providing regulations, and discipline, in the English Bridge Union (EBU). Thus to that extent I'm part of the establishment. In fact I believe the majority of the elected members of the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee subscribes to BLML. It's early days yet, but I find this beneficial. >Until we caught on to the Internet, such >opportunities were very difficult to come by, and it was especially >difficult to develop intimate enough knowledge of others' views to >be able to make that exchange productive. I'm very impressed you manage to do this, in view of the large number of contributors. I've found this level of knowledge very slow to build up. Indeed in some ways I quite like treating each posting on its merits. >If you will, BLML is very >much part of my power base in my somewhat powerful position at the >DBF. This is, paradoxically, quite the opposite role of what Eric >perceives. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 04:15:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 04:15:49 +1100 Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA10562 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 04:15:37 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb203.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.203]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA32493 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:15:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980219121546.006c65e4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:15:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: <34EBF6F4.FAB0396D@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980216235231.006b9b10@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980218010322.006b80b4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980218122551.006bc984@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:10 AM 2/19/98 +0100, you wrote: >> In practice, there are only limited sources of such evidence. >> In the ACBL, the convention cards provide a checkoff under the heading >> "Unusual Notrump" for either the minors or the the two lower unbid. >> Certainly if both players' cards are checked "2 lower unbid", this is >> evidence. > >So is the fact that -apparently- at least one player at the table >thought the clubs were "unbid". >Unless it is clearly marked that unbid also means clubs in whatever >system, I have two pieces of evidence that I can believe. >I think the laws still require me to believe the most damning piece of >evidence. > >But this is getting us nowhere fast. > >Let's agree that both apporaches are possible and that it is up to TD >and AC to weigh the evidences and reach a conclusion. > >My whole intention in replying to Michael's original post was to show >him that his quick response (one line) was way too fast a decision. > >> Alternatively, the players could provide system notes that back >> up their claim. Proof? No, not in the mathematical sense at any rate. The >> players may have amended their agreements and neglected to amend their >> documentation, or perhaps the documentation provides a general rule without >> detailing specifically agreed-to exceptions. But it IS evidence. To simply >> ignore it is to elevate your personal judgement above the requirements of >> the Laws. As a TD, you do have the power to do so, but not the authority. >> > >Please explain that last bit. There is certainly some room for disagreement on the case as presented, and my original answer was too glib by half. But my later discussions with you were aimed at more general themes, in particular your claim that the misbidding/misexplaining side was obligated to "prove" misbid rather than misexplanation, and your stated predisposition to ignore all evidence in these types of situations generally. My disagreement over your repeated references to "proof" was not intended as a semantic quibble. The principle you cited in your original post requires the TD to assume MI "in the absence of evidence to the contrary." This is a different standard than "proof", and my feeling is that part of our disagreement is over precisely this difference. The Laws do not mandate that the evidence be overwhelming or irrefutable, merely that the alleged offenders have something to back up their claim of misbid, rather than MI. But my other difficulty was over your statement that "In cases of two-suiters, I never believe the 'evidence to the contrary'". Perhaps I have misunderstood, but it seems that you are saying that the issue of whether the club suit was or was not a real suit bid is, for you at least, a red herring. So for example, even had the club bid been natural and unalerted, and even if EW had system notes or identically marked convention cards backing up their claim of misbid, you would rule MI. If I have misinterpreted your statement, then PLEASE STOP READING HERE, as the rest of my remarks are (as usual, per DS) way off base. Still with us? Fine. I take for granted that your approach in this situation is rooted in your long years of experience as both a player and director, and that your reasons for this policy reflect your demonstrated commitment to ensuring equity for the NOS. But whatever your reasons, there can be no serious dispute that this policy is directly contrary to the specific requirements laid out in L74. That law makes quite clear that players are not to be punished (via ruling) for misbids that result in misunderstanding and poor results for their opponents, so long as they can provide evidence for the claim that the opponents were given correct information about system agreements (and of course, in the absence of UI or other problems). Now it is true that "evidence" is at least a somewhat flexible concept, and it is technically possible to argue that this flexibility confers broad latitude on the TD to accept or refuse any information offered in evidence. But I don't believe, and don't really accept that you believe, that such latitude is the intent of L74. Certainly the TD is responsible for evaluating whether any evidence offered is plausible and/or relevant, but this evaluation should be in the context of a neutral analysis, and not with a pre-determined stance that summarily rejects (or accepts, for that matter) any such claim. Your point that the misbid (if such it is) suggests on its face a lack of agreement is a good one, and perhaps a sufficient argument _in equity_ to justify your approach. But that will be true whenever the explanation for a bid and the actual hand are in substantial conflict. Whether we like the policy spelled out in L74B or not, it clearly anticipates that this issue will be resolved in favor of the misbidders when they can support their claim. For you as TD (or as an AC member) to use the nebulous quality of "evidence" to categorically dismiss such claims is an abuse of your power to rule. In point of fact, your power to rule in this way is beyond challenge (as is the honorability of your intentions, in any event). But your authority to do so, as conferred by the Laws subject to a fair and neutral reading, is doubtful. IMO, at any rate. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 05:29:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 05:29:43 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10805 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 05:29:37 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client27b0.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.176]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA22527 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:29:23 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Claim Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:22:13 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3d63$4ce6e960$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 S is declarer in a heart contract. Dummy's last 6 cards are S-AK H- J765 E is on lead and leads a Club. Declarer says" I'm going to ruff small in dummy, draw the last trump with the HJ, and the rest of the tricks are mine." West says" if you are ruffing small I will ruff with the H10 and you will lose one trick". TD ruled L45 "You have nominated a small trump so that card is played. It is careless not irrational to play a small trump, you have already done so.You lose one trick" AC ruled L70 "It would be irrational to under-ruff.You make all six tricks" Your comments please. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 05:48:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 05:48:49 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10964 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 05:48:44 +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 NAA27300 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:48:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA19780; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:49:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:49:03 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802191849.NAA19780@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > AC ruled L70 "It would be irrational to under-ruff.You make all six > tricks" Correct. Also the TD gets sent for retraining, and West gets conduct action (probably just a warning if this is a first offense) for wasting everybody's time. The only weakness in declarer's claim was in its form, not in its substance. We _want_ people to claim when they can do so (L74B4), and we shouldn't rule against claims unless there is a genuine flaw in them. Not even West believes that declarer would have underruffed if play had continued. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 06:07:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:07:59 +1100 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11100 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:07:46 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA28818; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:06:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:07:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802191907.OAA18549@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Jeremy Rickard on Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:01:19 +0000 (GMT)) Subject: Re: Achieving equity Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy RIckard writes: > Law 12C3 says: > "Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may > vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity." > How is "achieving equity" usually interpreted? I'll be grateful for any > comments, but I'm particularly interested in whether it means achieving > equity on the particular board involved, or whether it can include > achieving equity in the event as a whole. I've always assumed that equity belongs to the board, and the Appeals Committee shouldn't even know the match score. > A couple of days later (the match finished late and it wasn't possible > to assemble an AC at the time) the AC readjusted the result to 3NT-3, > which was an extremely unlikely result, and I presume was designed to > tie the match on the grounds that it was "inequitable" that the match > should be decided by this decision. This shows the problem with the committee knowing the match score. The AC chose to rule the match a tie by assigning an impossible result, independent of what happened on the board. Or worse, suppose that the AC has decided to award a mixed score, say X% of the IMPs for +1430 and (100-X)% of the IMPs for +680, because it doesn't have a good basis to decide whether a difficult-to-bid slam would be reached without misinformation. (Whether such scores are allowed is a separate matter; they do occur, and in fact such a ruling might be given in the interest of restoring equity and not giving the non-offenders a 13-IMP bonanza for a slam they probably wouldn't reach.) The other table was +680 and led the match by 3 IMPs without this board. Therefore, if the AC rules that X=20%, the swing of 2.6 is not enough to affect the match; if it rules that X=25%, the swing of 3.25 is enough. I don't think the knowledge of the critical value of X is relevant information to the AC. -- 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 Feb 20 06:17:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:17:37 +1100 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA11149 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:17:31 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa19756; 19 Feb 98 11:15 PST To: bridge laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:22:13 PST." <01bd3d63$4ce6e960$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:15:21 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802191115.aa19756@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > S is declarer in a heart contract. > Dummy's last 6 cards are > S-AK H- J765 > E is on lead and leads a Club. > Declarer says" I'm going to ruff small in dummy, > draw the last trump with the HJ, and the rest of the tricks > are mine." > West says" if you are ruffing small I will ruff with the H10 > and you will lose one trick". > TD ruled L45 "You have nominated a small trump so that card is played. > It is careless not irrational to play a small trump, you have already > done so.You lose one trick" > AC ruled L70 "It would be irrational to under-ruff.You make all six > tricks" > Your comments please. > Law 45 doesn't apply at all. It has to do with when a card has been played, but the small trump in dummy wasn't played--it was mentioned as part of the claim statement. Law 70D applies here. The overruff is a "successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement", so it's not allowed if there's an alternative *normal* line that would be less sucessful. However, if underruffing is deemed irrational, then there is *no* normal line that 70D would apply to, so the overruff is allowed and declarer's claim is accepted. I agree with the committee that underruffing is irrational, not careless. I suppose one *could* carelessly underruff, if he closed his eyes and didn't notice that West played a trump. But by this criterion, there would never be such a thing as an irrational play---all plays, even the really terrible ones, could be considered "careless" on the grounds that claimer might not have noticed which cards were played, or might have been careless about which card he was pulling from his own hand, or something like that. I can't believe that the term "careless" was intended to apply to plays made because one wasn't looking at the opponents' plays (except, perhaps, in a beginner's game). So the AC's ruling is correct. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 06:26:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:26:30 +1100 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA11187 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:26:23 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20346; 19 Feb 98 11:25 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Feb 1998 13:49:03 PST." <199802191849.NAA19780@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:25:43 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802191125.aa20346@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Correct. Also the TD gets sent for retraining, and West gets conduct > action (probably just a warning if this is a first offense) for wasting > everybody's time. I don't quite agree with part about the conduct action, unless West is an expert who definitely knows better. While it's true that, as you say, "not even West believes that declarer would have underruffed if play had continued," not every West knows the details of the Laws well enough to know what the correct ruling should be. I can certainly understand an intermediate player believing that since declarer said he would ruff small, he is therefore required to ruff small no matter what happens. It takes some knowledge of the Laws to understand why that belief is wrong, and I wouldn't want to penalize or even warn someone for an offense as small as not knowing the intricacies of the Lawbook. That's what the TDs are [supposed to be] there for. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 06:42:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:42:10 +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 GAA11232 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:42:01 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA28780 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:41:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19845; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:42:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:42:22 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802191942.OAA19845@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > ...not every West knows the details of the Laws well > enough to know what the correct ruling should be. I can certainly > understand an intermediate player believing that since declarer said > he would ruff small, he is therefore required to ruff small no matter > what happens. Oh, well, fair enough. I agree that a conduct penalty is unreasonable if West is a beginner or intermediate. Still, players should understand that the basis for judging claims is what would happen if the hand were played out and NOT some microscopic flaw in the statement of the claim. Even intermediate players should know that much, I should think. If West has learned about claims from the TD in this case, his ignorance is understandable. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 07:06:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:06:58 +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 HAA11435 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:06:52 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb214.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.214]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA31600 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:06:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980219150701.006cdd0c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 15:07:01 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <01bd3d63$4ce6e960$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 2/19/98 -0000, Anne wrote: >S is declarer in a heart contract. >Dummy's last 6 cards are >S-AK H- J765 >E is on lead and leads a Club. >Declarer says" I'm going to ruff small in dummy, >draw the last trump with the HJ, and the rest of the tricks >are mine." >West says" if you are ruffing small I will ruff with the H10 >and you will lose one trick". >TD ruled L45 "You have nominated a small trump so that card is played. >It is careless not irrational to play a small trump, you have already >done so.You lose one trick" >AC ruled L70 "It would be irrational to under-ruff.You make all six >tricks" >Your comments please. > I side unequivocally with the AC. There is some (very slight) argument in favor of the proposition that both are correct, i.e., that the TD should resolve any close issue in favor of the NOS, advising the opponents of their right of appeal. But it is VERY slight. This is really not close at all. L45 does not actually apply, since at the point at which declarer claims, play ceases. Thus his proposed line must be judged strictly by the L70 standard, and obviously it would be irrational to underruff. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 08:38:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:38:14 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA11800 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:38:07 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21694 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:38:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34EC98AE.7B572EFA@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:40:14 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980216235231.006b9b10@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980218010322.006b80b4@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980218122551.006bc984@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980219121546.006c65e4@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > There is certainly some room for disagreement on the case as presented, and > my original answer was too glib by half. But my later discussions with you > were aimed at more general themes, in particular your claim that the > misbidding/misexplaining side was obligated to "prove" misbid rather than > misexplanation, and your stated predisposition to ignore all evidence in > these types of situations generally. > Put it that way, I agree with you that my statements are equally glib ! > My disagreement over your repeated references to "proof" was not intended > as a semantic quibble. The principle you cited in your original post > requires the TD to assume MI "in the absence of evidence to the contrary." > This is a different standard than "proof", and my feeling is that part of > our disagreement is over precisely this difference. The Laws do not mandate > that the evidence be overwhelming or irrefutable, merely that the alleged > offenders have something to back up their claim of misbid, rather than MI. > Agreed. The 'burden of proof' does not exist. However, since the absence of proof equals misinformation, there is some burden on offenders. Call it proof or evidence, the offenders must offer something. I agree that proof is too harsh a word and I shall use evidence in future. > But my other difficulty was over your statement that "In cases of > two-suiters, I never believe the 'evidence to the contrary'". Perhaps I > have misunderstood, but it seems that you are saying that the issue of > whether the club suit was or was not a real suit bid is, for you at least, > a red herring. So for example, even had the club bid been natural and > unalerted, and even if EW had system notes or identically marked convention > cards backing up their claim of misbid, you would rule MI. If I have > misinterpreted your statement, then PLEASE STOP READING HERE, as the rest > of my remarks are (as usual, per DS) way off base. > You've lost me again. The meaning of the 1C bid is indeed immaterial. If we are playing without screens, both opponents have access to the same information as to the meaning of the 1C opening. Then surely both should be able to arrive at the same meaning for their 2NT overcall. Then if the description does not fit the hand, there are two versions of the same convention being played. Now unless the system notes are very specific as to which of these it really is, I have evidence to both sides. I feel it is my right as director to weigh the evidences and I do believe the Laws urge me to be quite severe against possible offenders. > Still with us? Fine. I take for granted that your approach in this > situation is rooted in your long years of experience as both a player and > director, and that your reasons for this policy reflect your demonstrated > commitment to ensuring equity for the NOS. But whatever your reasons, there > can be no serious dispute that this policy is directly contrary to the > specific requirements laid out in L74. That law makes quite clear that > players are not to be punished (via ruling) for misbids that result in > misunderstanding and poor results for their opponents, so long as they can > provide evidence for the claim that the opponents were given correct > information about system agreements (and of course, in the absence of UI or > other problems). > > Now it is true that "evidence" is at least a somewhat flexible concept, and > it is technically possible to argue that this flexibility confers broad > latitude on the TD to accept or refuse any information offered in evidence. > But I don't believe, and don't really accept that you believe, that such > latitude is the intent of L74. Certainly the TD is responsible for > evaluating whether any evidence offered is plausible and/or relevant, but > this evaluation should be in the context of a neutral analysis, and not > with a pre-determined stance that summarily rejects (or accepts, for that > matter) any such claim. > > Your point that the misbid (if such it is) suggests on its face a lack of > agreement is a good one, and perhaps a sufficient argument _in equity_ to > justify your approach. But that will be true whenever the explanation for a > bid and the actual hand are in substantial conflict. Whether we like the > policy spelled out in L74B or not, it clearly anticipates that this issue > will be resolved in favor of the misbidders when they can support their > claim. For you as TD (or as an AC member) to use the nebulous quality of > "evidence" to categorically dismiss such claims is an abuse of your power > to rule. In point of fact, your power to rule in this way is beyond > challenge (as is the honorability of your intentions, in any event). But > your authority to do so, as conferred by the Laws subject to a fair and > neutral reading, is doubtful. > > IMO, at any rate. > > Mike Dennis The reason for my severity in this case is that I try to reconcile two schools of thought. In the Netherlands and more recently in Belgium, there has been a tendency to punish "ghestem"-mistakes regardless of L75. I am strongly opposed to this, but I nevertheless agree with the proponents of such systems that there is a degree of unfairness in these cases, if L75 is to be read too leniently. That is why I have suggested that in cases where the hand does not fit the description, the use of evidence is to be taken very harshly. If a player makes a call that would suit one convention, but his CC shows another one, then I feel I am allowed to rule that the CC was badly filled out. You should see what sometimes passes for a CC in our clubs, when the pairs even have one ! That is why I am quite harsh sometimes. But by now we have drifted far from the original problem. I have one more slightly related case though, but I shall start a new thread on that one : "Super-Landy ?" -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 08:38:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:38:19 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA11806 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:38:11 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21698 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:38:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34EC9C40.20D23EB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 21:55:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Super-Landy ? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As announced in my latest posting in thread "A suit bid or not" I will now present you with a strange case that happened to two club-mates. I shall warn in advance that my stance in this may seem diametrically opposed to the one I took in the other thread, but I assure you that it is only a matter of degree that makes me tilt the other way on this one. In short this is what happened : W N E S 2NT 3C X p p 3S X p p p making four. North holds six-five in the majors and to this day does not know why he bid 3C. I must add that the only time I've even heard someone seriously suggest they play Landy over anything higher than 1NT was a beginner who bid 4C over a 3NT gambling opening. It is certainly not a strange Belgian invention, in case you are wondering. The pair in question have been playing for 40 years together, at high level, and have never played anything like this convention. The director has ruled that since north did not correct 3S to 4C, he may well have known that some thing like this may well have happened before and he has ruled under L40A "provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding". The TD goes on to rule misinformation and turns 3Sx+1 into 4Sx-1, but that's another problem altogether. The ruling is in appeal at the moment. What I want to show you this for is to illustrate the difference between this case and the "a suit bid ..." one. In this case we have three pieces of evidence : 1) the hand suggests that 3C shows majors 2) the CC does not say a thing about such a convention (and cannot be ruled insufficient since a natural overcall need not be explicitely mentioned) 3) general bridge knowledge tells us that such a convention is almost non-existant In the case of 1C-2NT we also have 3 pieces of evidence : 1) the hand suggests that 2NT shows minors 2) the CC suggests (in unclear terms) red suits 3) general bridge knowledge tells us that over a short club, there can be reason to show the minors. Do you see the subtle difference ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 08:38:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:38:28 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA11814 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:38:20 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA21702 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:38:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34ECA258.7081CD5D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:21:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores 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: > > > >Yes, I can feel with Marv here. > > > >So the better score would be something like : 5% of +510, 25% of +480, > >40% of +450, 25% of +420 and 5% of -50, with a correct formula of > >calculation dealing with that problem and which leaves all scores of 520 > >and higher totally unaffected. > > > >Now I can calculate this, but that's for another time. > > Since I feel strongly about this damage to the field nonsense, perhaps > you could do me the favour of calculating it now. No need to show the > calculation, which would no doubt be beyond me, but the final effect. > How much are players scores likely to be affected here? Since you seem > to be talking about big fields, let us say that there are 100 pairs, 15 > getting more than +510. How much would what you perceive as a fairer > ruling affect pairs who get more than +515, and how much less than +515? > 100 pairs = top 198 OK 15 pairs all getting more than 510 get to keep their scores, the lowest of those (if unequal) getting 170. Let me define the "border score" now as 169 (one less) Let's say two pairs score +510, these would get 167 each. 167 equals (169 - 2), 2 being the frequency. the "border score" becomes 167-2=165. I add to the frequency (2), a minute fraction of what I awarded the "artifical score" (5%), making 2.05. So the new score becomes : 169-2.05 = 166.95 and the border score is 166.95-2.05 = 164.90 The next score is +500, achieved by 1 pair, who get 164.90-1 = 163.90, and the border score is 163.90-1 = 162.90. Next come 5 +480's and 25% of an artificial one, who score : 162.90-5.25 = 157.65 Then 20 +450's + 40% : 157.65-5.25-20.40 = 132.00 Then 45 +420's + 25% : 132.00-20.40-45.25 = 66.35 10 pairs not in game (excluding the original) 66.35-45.25-10 = 11.10 and one pair in -50, +5% of the artificial one : 11.10-10-1.05 = 0.05 The artificial score then becomes : 164.90x5% + 157.65x25% + 132x40% + 66.35x25% + 0.05x5% = 117.05 or 59.11% (I just made up the frequencies as I went along, honestly) This assures that everyone gets what they deserve, including "expected" gains against the table with no "real" result. Please understand that this is just a thought experiment, I never expect AC's to be handing out AS with this degree of uncertainty. But the practice is well suited to rulings of a kind we often see : (20% of them bidding six and 80% of four). That ruling would normally be entered as an ArtSc of whatever percentage this makes, thus deducing some points from a pair in seven redoubled, who would never be beaten by the ArtSc. But then again, if the AC can't decide what the final result shall be, isn't 7NTXX one of the options ??? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 08:41:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:41:31 +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 IAA11854 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:41:24 +1100 Received: from t2.mscf.uky.edu (128.163.132.102) by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Thu, 19 Feb 98 16:41:04 EST Received: from t5.mscf.uky.edu by t2.ms.uky.edu id aa01996; 19 Feb 98 16:21 EST Received: (from kuch@localhost) by t5.mscf.uky.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA15413 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:40:04 -0500 (EST) From: John A Kuchenbrod Message-Id: <199802192140.QAA15413@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Subject: Call from Dummy out of Turn To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:40:04 -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 This situation is slightly different from Anne's, but if the same answer exists, I apologize in advance for wasting your time. I was given the following situation (suit names made up since they weren't given to me): South is playing in a spade contract. Dummy has a stiff heart, with declarer having Axxxx in hand. On a heart lead, South play to the ace, then returns a heart. Not anticipating the 6-1 heart break, South calls for a low trump before West has the opportunity to play. West produces a trump that is higher than the lowest trump in dummy. Ruling? Declarer's lead out of turn and defender's premature play are covered explicitly, but declarer prematurely calling for a card is something that I can't find. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | kuch@ms.uky.edu | http://www.ms.uky.edu/~kuch | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 09:49:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:49:38 +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 JAA12297 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:49:26 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa01510; 19 Feb 98 14:48 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Call from Dummy out of Turn In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:40:04 PST." <199802192140.QAA15413@t5.mscf.uky.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 14:48:44 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802191448.aa01510@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > This situation is slightly different from Anne's, but if the same answer > exists, I apologize in advance for wasting your time. > > I was given the following situation (suit names made up since they weren't > given to me): > > South is playing in a spade contract. Dummy has a stiff heart, with declarer > having Axxxx in hand. On a heart lead, South play to the ace, then returns a > heart. Not anticipating the 6-1 heart break, South calls for a low trump > before West has the opportunity to play. West produces a trump that is > higher than the lowest trump in dummy. > > Ruling? Declarer's lead out of turn and defender's premature play are > covered explicitly, but declarer prematurely calling for a card is > something that I can't find. I can't find it explicitly in the Laws, either. Nevertheless, I think L45C4(a) applies: "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." This is not at all the same as Anne's situation; in her case, declarer was not designating a card to play but making a "statement of clarification" required for a claim (L68C). A related question: L57C says that, in the case John describes, there is no penalty if East plays before West. So say declarer (South) leads and calls for dummy's card before West plays, does this mean that it's legal for East to play before West? I don't know whether "legal" and "no penalty" are equivalent here. Suppose, on a different hand where declarer does this, East thought it to be to his advantage to play first---say, he can trump and save West from spending a high honor. Is it OK for East to do so, or is it illegal and/or unethical? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 10:16:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:16:47 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12381 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:16:39 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client27ba.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.186]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA30746 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:16:28 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Re Claim Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:21:16 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3d8d$13a1dd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 Just in case you are all wondering_No I was not the TD! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 10:38:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:38:36 +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 KAA12412 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:38:27 +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 SAA01407 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA20063; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:38:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 18:38:43 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802192338.SAA20063@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Call from Dummy out of Turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > A related question: L57C says that, in the case John describes, there is > no penalty if East plays before West. So say declarer (South) leads > and calls for dummy's card before West plays, does this mean that it's > legal for East to play before West? Wow, what a great question! Let me take a stab at it. L57C tells us that there is no _specific_ penalty. (In the normal case, L57A would let declarer restrict what card West could play.) But as Adam indicates, that doesn't mean the premature play by East is legal. I believe L44B and in particular the words "in turn" still apply. Even after declarer has violated this Law, defenders are still obliged to observe it. If East does play before West, I believe we should consider score adjustment under L72B1 ("could have known"). I'm not at all sure score adjustment would have been possible under the old Laws, although L84E might have been invoked. Under the new Laws, I would not invoke L84E if L72B1 does not apply. If David S. disagrees with the above, he is probably right. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 11:02:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:02:56 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12470 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:02:46 +1100 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1007411; 20 Feb 98 0:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:12:58 +0000 To: bridge laws From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: <01bd3b2b$61acf7c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bd3b2b$61acf7c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >S opens 1C which is alerted. 2NT overcall by W,alerted, and N asks the >meaning. He is told that it is the lower 2 of the unbid suits. "Do you >mean Hs and Ds?" says N. "I suppose so "says E. >The result at the table 5D making. >"In the other room" 5H* + 1 >N/S claim damage. If told that it was Cs and Ds N would have bid Hs. >The E/W systemic agreement was "2 lower unbid suits." >MI or MB? :-) It is ungrammatical to refer to the "two lower" of four suits, but at least arguably acceptable to speak of the "two lower" of three. So if East and West are native English speakers, it seems implicit in their agreement that the 1C opening excludes clubs. Perhaps I am not entirely serious. What level of language use ought one to assume? -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 11:30:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:30:06 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA12596 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:29:52 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client27a5.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.165]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA05572 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:29:33 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Claim Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:29:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3d96$a3c30e20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I pressed the button too soon. I intended to say that while I was not the director in this case, I had some sympathy. Law 68 says that the claim does not apply to the trick in progress which continues regularly. This case could now be seen to be similar to that posted by John A Kuchenbrod_Call from Dummy out of Turn? Would this observation make any difference to your thinking? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 12:13:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:13:32 +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 MAA12754 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:13:21 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa10192; 19 Feb 98 17:11 PST To: bridge laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Feb 1998 00:29:43 PST." <01bd3d96$a3c30e20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:11:56 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802191711.aa10192@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I pressed the button too soon. I intended to say that while I was not > the director in this case, I had some sympathy. Law 68 says that the > claim does not apply to the trick in progress which continues regularly. That's incorrect. The law says that the claim statement constitutes a claim if it refers to tricks other than the one currently in progress. If it refers *both* to the trick in progress *and* to other subsequent tricks, the claim laws apply as expected. This is made clear by the footnote in Law 68: ==================================================================== LAW 68 - CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress(1). . . (1) If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing ^^^^ of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorised Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play. ==================================================================== In other words, this phrase in Law 68 is only intended to remove cases where someone says "I'm going to win this trick." According to the Law, this isn't a claim and isn't covered by the claim laws 68-71. In the given case, declarer said he was going to take all six tricks. So this phrase in L68, and the footnote, don't apply. > This case could now be seen to be similar to that posted by John A > Kuchenbrod_Call from Dummy out of Turn? No. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 14:46:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA13156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:46:54 +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 OAA13151 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:46:44 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2010882; 20 Feb 98 3:43 GMT Message-ID: <5CLlUpBniO70EwXH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:21:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A suit bid or not a suit bid. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Barden wrote: >Perhaps I am not entirely serious. What level of language use ought one >to assume? For spoken English, the accuracy level is roughly: Germans 96% Canadians 73% English 68% Danish 68% Australians 53% Belgians 46% [based on Hercule Poirot, not Herman] Americans 26% French 2% Now, a new one for the list of abbreviations: D&R4C. :))) -- 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 Feb 20 14:52:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA13178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:52:32 +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 OAA13173 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:52:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2010880; 20 Feb 98 3:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:27:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores In-Reply-To: <34ECA258.7081CD5D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >Yes, I can feel with Marv here. >> > >> >So the better score would be something like : 5% of +510, 25% of +480, >> >40% of +450, 25% of +420 and 5% of -50, with a correct formula of >> >calculation dealing with that problem and which leaves all scores of 520 >> >and higher totally unaffected. >> > >> >Now I can calculate this, but that's for another time. >> >> Since I feel strongly about this damage to the field nonsense, perhaps >> you could do me the favour of calculating it now. No need to show the >> calculation, which would no doubt be beyond me, but the final effect. >> How much are players scores likely to be affected here? Since you seem >> to be talking about big fields, let us say that there are 100 pairs, 15 >> getting more than +510. How much would what you perceive as a fairer >> ruling affect pairs who get more than +515, and how much less than +515? >> >100 pairs = top 198 OK >15 pairs all getting more than 510 get to keep their scores, the lowest >of those (if unequal) getting 170. > [s] >Please understand that this is just a thought experiment, I never expect >AC's to be handing out AS with this degree of uncertainty. >But the practice is well suited to rulings of a kind we often see : (20% >of them bidding six and 80% of four). >That ruling would normally be entered as an ArtSc of whatever percentage >this makes, thus deducing some points from a pair in seven redoubled, >who would never be beaten by the ArtSc. Now, Herman, how about translating this into English for us? I still do not understand what you are saying. Specifically, if it is scored in the way that is unfair in your view, how much _difference_ would it make if you score it the way you think fair? I know the answer may be above, but I really cannot understand it. If a pair gets a 60% session, what will he get after an adjustment? What size of percentage difference are we talking about? >But then again, if the AC can't decide what the final result shall be, >isn't 7NTXX one of the options ??? OK, Herman, little joke-e-poo noted. -- 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 Feb 20 20:41:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 20:41:58 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA13755 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 20:41:51 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h129.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id MAA12732; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:41:42 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34EDF931.42B6@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:44:17 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: basis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="BASIS.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BASIS.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 1. I'm happy to watch in BLML discussion about basis of our game and it's a pity it was short. With slight differences I consolidate with positions of Michael Dennis and Eric Landau. For me - their positions are almost the same. Guess "the spirit of the Laws" may be named as "Bridge Legend" too - then we said about the same too. And a most of rights and obligations of bridge players that are not explicit formulated in the Laws (and made be constructed- on basis of the Laws - only implicit) were explicit formulated in this so-called "Bridge Legend". One example: you (Declarer) leads small Spade to Dummy, where there are AQxx in Spades. LHO hesitates - and plays small. Under the Bridge Legend you have right to ask him, if he had reason to think. And under the Bridge Legend he obliges to answer positively if he had card that might fight for the trick (K of Spade in the case) and answer negatively without such a card. Legend... 2. Then I'd like to thank all the responders to my position ("Alert... and Psyche...) - so agreed as not agreed with me 3. Special thanks to M-r David Stevenson for his kind notes and analysis. David wrote:" It will often be harsh to not correct mistakes when the player should not be in such a position because of an infraction. It really depends on how silly a mistake it is. In North America it does not need to be very silly for there to be no adjustment: in Europe we generally adjust unless an action seems so silly that a player might be gambling, hoping that if the gamble loses the TD will give him his result back.". Right - but the subject of my note was rather differ: I tried- on the basis of two very cases - to explain that it became more and more noticeable a special method of competing - by means of TD or AC. In cases, where clear-cur (or almost clear-cut) bridge mistake was made. By so called "non-offending side" that might choose wrong bridge action (usually by refuse of competing in the bidding) having in mind future continue struggle (when that decision would bring lost, not profit) by calling TD and then - protesting in AC. And that so called "offending side" has its rights too: to make mistake, to receive by that mistake so lost as profit. And TD (and then - AC) should (when ruling) take into account fundamental rights and obligations of bridge players - even if they are not explicit described in the Laws. And make their ruling on common-sense ground rather than on sophisticate and scientifically-liked one. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 22:47:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:47:48 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA14005 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:47:42 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h129.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id OAA19993; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:47:36 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34EE16B3.2ED4@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:50:11 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re_claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="RE_CLAIM.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RE_CLAIM.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) It is a great pity for me - but I disagree with a most of participant of discussion in "Claim" (Anne Jones) and "Dummy Play" (John Kuchen) cases:(( For lack of place I will not repeat this cases: they said about Declarer's name (fully or partly, but clear-cut) of card that should be played from Dummy before LHO plays his card And a most of participants (and Michael Dennis too) of the discussion agreed with AC ruling that underruffing would be irrational - that's why under several articles of the Laws (discussion was about which articles should be applied) Declarer had right to replace his prematurely named card for avoid lost of trick... Really, the discussion make deeper my knowledge and understanding the Laws itself - but it was not helpful (for me) in understanding of that very cases. Why underruffing was decided as "irrational"? Should I remind you how the greatest players in grand slam played small towards Dummy AQ - and played Q after LHO played K?:) And that Declarer even did not give a start, he lost a trick with fortitude. Or didn't you hear (or see) how RHO, having KJx and seeing Dummy's AQ10x in that suit, played K after Declarer's play small to Dummy - and played A?:)) Both cases happened - and will happens in real bridge - cause players are live beings, not machines. And cause mistakes are integral part of the game. In both discussed cases Declarers made bridge mistakes playing carelessly - and after that TD (and even AC!) corrected their mistakes to their profit (and damaged their opponents) by using "the narrowly constituted letter of the Law.... and violate the spirit of the Laws" (M.Dennis). And the best proof for AC about possibility of how deep might be a mistake - is the mistake just made at the table. Both Declarers made it - and should pay. One note more. I'd like to demonstrate how deep may become the conflict it one follows this way (chosen in the discussion) to it's logical final. Let the Declarer has AQ108x in trump (Hearts) in his hand and xxx in Dummy's. Let he suspect that trumps are placed 4-1 with stiff in LHO's hand. The he leads small hearts from Dummy, RHO plays small - and Declarer hesitates. After hesitations he plays 8 of Diamonds (absolutely occasionally, it was mixed in hearts - clear case...), LHO plays his singelton trump. And at the moment Declarer (under letter of the Laws) can change his card that allows LHO to change his card without penalty... And what? New discussion?:) Bridge Legend says that nobody will play with that Declarer more. Legend... Vitold Brushtunov From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 20 23:12:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 23:12:01 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14072 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 23:11:54 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h129.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id PAA21380; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:11:48 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34EE1C60.55EC@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:14:24 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re_claim_2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) To make my position clear I'd like to add: 1. All the Declarers, described in my note, made their plans of playing premature, in their mind 2. All of them continued their plans without any interesting of opponent's play - by naming (as in discussed cases) or playing (as in my examples) 3. And after opponent's play they tried (as in discussed cases) or not tried (as the greatest players did) to correct their plans (and results) by means of TD or AC 4. It is AC who have rights and obligations to make Bridge decision - so it is AC who should not to allow such correction Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 00:09:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:09:31 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14293 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:09:25 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-146.uunet.be [194.7.13.146]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA06166 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:09:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34ED7AC9.DA1E11B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:44:57 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <34ECA258.7081CD5D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David asked me to translate into English. I'll do better, I'll translate into a table. (don't forget to set fixed widths for this) Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > 100 pairs = top 198 OK > 15 pairs all getting more than 510 get to keep their scores, the lowest > of those (if unequal) getting 170. > > Let me define the "border score" now as 169 (one less) > > Let's say two pairs score +510, these would get 167 each. > 167 equals (169 - 2), 2 being the frequency. the "border score" becomes > 167-2=165. > I add to the frequency (2), a minute fraction of what I awarded the > "artifical score" (5%), making 2.05. > So the new score becomes : 169-2.05 = 166.95 and the border score is > 166.95-2.05 = 164.90 > > The next score is +500, achieved by 1 pair, who get 164.90-1 = 163.90, > and the border score is 163.90-1 = 162.90. > > Next come 5 +480's and 25% of an artificial one, who score : > 162.90-5.25 = 157.65 > > Then 20 +450's + 40% : > 157.65-5.25-20.40 = 132.00 > > Then 45 +420's + 25% : > 132.00-20.40-45.25 = 66.35 > > 10 pairs not in game (excluding the original) > 66.35-45.25-10 = 11.10 > > and one pair in -50, +5% of the artificial one : > 11.10-10-1.05 = 0.05 > score pairs adj freq score calculation +1000 14 -- 14.00 185.00 =199.00-14.00 +520 1 -- 1.00 170.00 =185.00-14.00- 1.00 +510 2 5% 2.05 166.95 =170.00- 1.00- 2.05 +500 1 -- 1.00 163.90 =166.95- 2.05- 1.00 +480 5 25% 5.25 157.65 =163.90- 1.00- 5.25 +450 20 40% 20.40 132.00 =157.65- 5.25-20.40 +420 45 25% 45.25 66.35 =132.00-20.40-45.25 +170 10 -- 10.00 11.10 = 66.35-45.25-10.00 - 50 1 5% 1.05 0.05 = 11.10-10.00- 1.05 -- --- ------ control : 0.05-1.05 = -1 99 + 100% = 100.00 clearer ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 00:14:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:14:08 +1100 Received: from malady.cais.net (aed.aed.org [199.0.216.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA15911 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:13:58 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic159.cais.com [207.226.56.159]) by malady.cais.net (8.8.7/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA25496 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:16:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980220081632.006d5eb0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:16:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis In-Reply-To: <199802181736.MAA23048@fern.us.pw.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 PM 2/18/98 GMT, Stephen wrote: >Despite this, I would be grateful for a short explanation (say 100 words) as to >why interpretation of the US Constitution is relevant to interpretation of the >Laws of Bridge. The one is local to one country: the other international. The >one is absolutely vital to that country (and, because of the importance of the >USA to the free world, elsewhere): the other is only a game, and not that >important a game. The one was largely written 200+ years ago: the other >re-written last year. Personally I see more differences than similarities. For 200 years, legal scholars in the U.S. have debated the meaning of the "ultimate law of the land", the U.S. Constitution. Our best legal minds have pondered and debated questions like whether interpretation is to be guided by the authors' intent or by the literal words they wrote, whether lists of prohibitions such as those which appear in the Bill of Rights are exhaustive or merely illustrative, and various other such questions that go to the matter of how one reads law in general. 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 Feb 21 00:32:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:32:10 +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 AAA16611 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:31:50 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005432; 20 Feb 98 12:37 GMT Message-ID: <6MzFXPCGYQ70Ew26@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 04:26:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Call from Dummy out of Turn In-Reply-To: <199802192338.SAA20063@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Beneschan >> A related question: L57C says that, in the case John describes, there is >> no penalty if East plays before West. So say declarer (South) leads >> and calls for dummy's card before West plays, does this mean that it's >> legal for East to play before West? > >Wow, what a great question! Let me take a stab at it. > >L57C tells us that there is no _specific_ penalty. (In the normal >case, L57A would let declarer restrict what card West could play.) But >as Adam indicates, that doesn't mean the premature play by East is >legal. > >I believe L44B and in particular the words "in turn" still apply. Even >after declarer has violated this Law, defenders are still obliged to >observe it. If East does play before West, I believe we should >consider score adjustment under L72B1 ("could have known"). I'm not at >all sure score adjustment would have been possible under the old Laws, >although L84E might have been invoked. Under the new Laws, I would not >invoke L84E if L72B1 does not apply. > >If David S. disagrees with the above, he is probably right. :-) OK! In which case I don't need to argue it, do I? Oh, all right. :) L57C says a Defender is not subject to penalty for playing out of turn in this particular situation. If he is not subject to penalty then he is not subject to penalty. Actually, I don't even agree with your interpretation of L44B. Once my RHO has played I believe that it *is* my turn! There is one wrinkle to consider: is a nominated card "played"? I had to look that up to be sure, but the wording of L45B says that nominating the card *is* playing it, unlike the various bits in L45C which refer to Compulsory Play of a Card. To go back to John's original question, we always include this situation [well, we actually use leading towards AQ in dummy, and calling for the queen as the king appears] on our second Club TD training day. It is always the high spot of the day, with at least 65% of those present thinking [and usually saying] that the tutors are idiots. We then include the identical situation on the third Club TD training day, when they are assessed, and the number who get it wrong is alarming! The card is played once nominated. It cannot be changed under L45D4B because it was not an inadvertent designation. The case is totally dissimilar to Anne's, which is a Claim, and thus dealt with under the Claim Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 00:48:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:48:29 +1100 Received: from malady.cais.net (aed.aed.org [199.0.216.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA16664 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:48:23 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic159.cais.com [207.226.56.159]) by malady.cais.net (8.8.7/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA29409 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:51:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980220085104.006d1c60@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:51:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim In-Reply-To: <01bd3d63$4ce6e960$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 2/19/98 -0000, Anne wrote: >Declarer says" I'm going to ruff small in dummy, >draw the last trump with the HJ, and the rest of the tricks >are mine." >West says" if you are ruffing small I will ruff with the H10 >and you will lose one trick". >TD ruled L45 "You have nominated a small trump so that card is played. >It is careless not irrational to play a small trump, you have already >done so.You lose one trick" >AC ruled L70 "It would be irrational to under-ruff.You make all six >tricks" The TD and the AC disagree about the underruff, the TD calling it "careless not irrational" and the AC calling it "irrational". This is a point of bridge judgment, so the AC's determination prevails. The action as described is not only proper (and presumably correct), but illustrates the principal reason why we have ACs. 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 Feb 21 01:24:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 01:24:45 +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 BAA16731 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 01:24:37 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb197.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.197]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA16715 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:24:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980220092448.006d3ae4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:24:48 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Re_claim In-Reply-To: <34EE16B3.2ED4@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:50 PM 2/20/98 -0800, Vitold wrote: > >Hi all:) > >It is a great pity for me - but I disagree with a most of participant >of discussion in "Claim" (Anne Jones) and "Dummy Play" (John >Kuchen) cases:(( > No apologies necessary. If we all agreed, who would bother to read? ;_) >And a most of participants (and Michael Dennis too) of the discussion >agreed with AC ruling that underruffing would be irrational - that's why >under several articles of the Laws (discussion was about which articles >should be applied) Declarer had right to replace his prematurely named >card for avoid lost of trick... > > Really, the discussion make deeper my knowledge and >understanding the Laws itself - but it was not helpful (for me) in >understanding of that very cases. Why underruffing was decided as >"irrational"? Should I remind you how the greatest players in grand >slam played small towards Dummy AQ - and played Q after LHO >played K?:) And that Declarer even did not give a start, he lost a trick >with fortitude. Or didn't you hear (or see) how RHO, having KJx and >seeing Dummy's AQ10x in that suit, played K after Declarer's play >small to Dummy - and played A?:)) Both cases happened - and will >happens in real bridge - cause players are live beings, not machines. >And cause mistakes are integral part of the game. > > In both discussed cases Declarers made bridge mistakes >playing carelessly - and after that TD (and even AC!) corrected >their mistakes to their profit (and damaged their opponents) by >using "the narrowly constituted letter of the Law.... and violate the >spirit of the Laws" (M.Dennis). And the best proof for AC about >possibility of how deep might be a mistake - is the mistake just made >at the table. Both Declarers made it - and should pay. > You are correct, of course, that mistakes are integral to the game, and even such silly errors as you have described have been made by most of us at one time or another. And if, during the play of the "Claim" hand, declarer had not claimed but had instead implemented precisely the plan he had stated, even after a ruff by West with the ten, he would have lost that trick. The Laws would in that case allow him the opportunity to correct his error (i.e., calling for a small trump from dummy after W plays the ten), so long has he does so without pause for thought (L45C4b). But L70 instructs us to accept the claim if the objection to it would require an "irrational" play, rather than one which is merely careless. If we accept your implicit argument that any mistake at all (such as underruffing in the posted case) might result from sufficient carelessness, then the distinction drawn in L70 between "careless" and "irrational" disappears altogether. And the effect of that would be to make claims virtually impossible to uphold. Consider this possibility: South claims as originally posted, except that rather than stating "... ruff low in dummy ..." he is more precise and says "...ruff in dummy with a high enough trump to win the trick..." No problem now, right? But West objects. "Wait a minute, Declarer might revoke on one of these tricks, in which case we could be entitled to one or more tricks in compensation." And technically, he is quite possibly correct. People do, after all, revoke. It is virtually always the result of carelessness, rather than insanity. And I would suggest that revoking is considerably more common than the level of mistake that the actual West is relying upon. Do you, as the director, believe that there is a reasonable probability that South would underruff? Yes, it is theoretically possbile, but not really at all likely. West knows this, and is trying to get an extra trick by exploiting an insignificant omission in the statement of the claim. I disagree with Steve that this should be a cause of discipline against West, but neither should he be rewarded for his mis-understanding of the Laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 01:39:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 01:39:51 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA16774 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 01:39:44 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb197.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.197]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA11509 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:39:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980220093957.006d7ca4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:39:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis In-Reply-To: <199802181736.MAA23048@fern.us.pw.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 PM 2/18/98 GMT, Steve wrote: >Of course the USA is a fine country, and one which is rightly proud of its >history. I suspect I am like many in this country, and elsewhere, in freely >acknowledging the debt that we in the free world owe to the USA. The fact that >I can write this is testimony to the debt we owe. > >I say this to emphasise that I am pro-USA, and not at all negative about it. > >Despite this, I would be grateful for a short explanation (say 100 words) as to >why interpretation of the US Constitution is relevant to interpretation of the >Laws of Bridge. The one is local to one country: the other international. The >one is absolutely vital to that country (and, because of the importance of the >USA to the free world, elsewhere): the other is only a game, and not that >important a game. The one was largely written 200+ years ago: the other >re-written last year. Personally I see more differences than similarities. > >If interpretation of the US Constitution is relevant, then why not >interpretation of UK law? ... EU law (I understand from my microscopic >knowledge of UK and EU law that the approach to interpreting the two was >historically very different, but is converging)? What about the law of other >countries who are members of the WBF? > In fairness to Eric, I was the one who first raised the issue of the U.S. Constitution, in this thread anyway. But in fairness to myself, I raised it in a personal message to Eric (i.e., between 2 Yanks). I am sensitive to the general impression that we Americans tend to think the world revolves around us, and don't assume that everyone else in BLML is fascinated with our legal debates. But I do think there might be a place, in a philosophical discussion about legal analysis, for referring to the historical context provided by other legal systems. I used the debates about the U.S. Constitution only out of relative familiarity, and not because I necessarily regard it as the be-all and end-all of legal frameworks. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 02:55:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 02:55:05 +1100 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA17128 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 02:54:56 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22652 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:53:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:54:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802201554.KAA01307@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <34EE16B3.2ED4@elnet.msk.ru> (vitold@elnet.msk.ru) Subject: Re: Re_claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold writes: > One note more. I'd like to demonstrate how deep may become > the conflict it one follows this way (chosen in the discussion) to it's > logical final. Let the Declarer has AQ108x in trump (Hearts) in his hand > and xxx in Dummy's. Let he suspect that trumps are placed 4-1 with > stiff in LHO's hand. The he leads small hearts from Dummy, RHO plays > small - and Declarer hesitates. After hesitations he plays 8 of Diamonds > (absolutely occasionally, it was mixed in hearts - clear case...), LHO plays > his singelton trump. And at the moment Declarer (under letter of the > Laws) can change his card that allows LHO to change his card without > penalty... And what? This is governed by the "could have known" rule. Declarer could have known that his infraction would lead to an Alcatraz Coup; therefore, the score should be adjusted to the least favorable reasonable result without the infraction, forcing declarer to lose this finesse, or play the ace if LHO's singleton is the six (which it is not reasonable to lose a trick to.) -- 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 Sat Feb 21 03:07:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:07:08 +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 DAA17208 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:07:02 +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 LAA15342 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20458; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:07:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:07:25 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802201607.LAA20458@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Call from Dummy out of Turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > L57C says a Defender is not subject to penalty for playing out of > turn in this particular situation. If he is not subject to penalty then > he is not subject to penalty. Is an adjusted score a penalty? Does not being subject to penalty mean not being subject to adjustment? (I invite you to consider L64C.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 03:29:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:29:11 +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 DAA17316 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:28:59 +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 LAA15923 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:28:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20475; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:29:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:29:21 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802201629.LAA20475@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re_claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > Why underruffing was decided as "irrational"? Because "irrational" is not the same as "impossible." Underruffing is certainly possible, but that doesn't make it rational. > Should I remind you how the greatest players in grand > slam played small towards Dummy AQ - and played Q after LHO > played K?:) We have all (or at least most of us) made irrational plays before. Some of us will no doubt do it again. :-( But a bridge mistake is _not_ the same as a claim that fails to take all possibilities into account. One of the _advantages_ of claiming is that one is protected from an irrational play, even though there may be a finite probability one would play irrationally if the hand were played out. If one actually makes an irrational play in the normal course of events, with no claim being involved, of course there is no protection. > In both discussed cases Declarers made bridge mistakes > playing carelessly No, one declarer made a bridge mistake; the other made a semantic mistake in the statement of the claim. > using "the narrowly constituted letter of the Law.... and violate the > spirit of the Laws" I am astonished by this. The spirit of the Laws is to encourage claims and not to punish mistakes in the _form_ of the claim. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 04:09:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 04:09:26 +1100 Received: from inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com (inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com [192.86.155.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA17490 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 04:09:11 +1100 Received: from mailsun2.us.oracle.com (mailsun2.us.oracle.com [144.25.88.74]) by inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA19371; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from dlsun565.us.oracle.com by mailsun2.us.oracle.com with ESMTP (SMI-8.6/37.8) id JAA23891; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:18:21 -0800 Received: (from jboyce@localhost) by dlsun565.us.oracle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA29392; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:08:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:08:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Boyce Message-Id: <199802201708.JAA29392@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> To: hermandw@village.uunet.be CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <34ED7AC9.DA1E11B2@village.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:44:57 +0100) Subject: Re: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores Reply-to: jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Herman's most recent message (including this table) helps a lot > score pairs adj freq score calculation > +1000 14 -- 14.00 185.00 =199.00-14.00 > +520 1 -- 1.00 170.00 =185.00-14.00- 1.00 > +510 2 5% 2.05 166.95 =170.00- 1.00- 2.05 > +500 1 -- 1.00 163.90 =166.95- 2.05- 1.00 > +480 5 25% 5.25 157.65 =163.90- 1.00- 5.25 > +450 20 40% 20.40 132.00 =157.65- 5.25-20.40 > +420 45 25% 45.25 66.35 =132.00-20.40-45.25 > +170 10 -- 10.00 11.10 = 66.35-45.25-10.00 > - 50 1 5% 1.05 0.05 = 11.10-10.00- 1.05 > -- --- ------ control : 0.05-1.05 = -1 > 99 + 100% = 100.00 > > clearer ? This is just going back to the definition of matchpoint scoring. You compare a players datum with each of the other players datum, and award him 2 matchpoints for each other datum he beats and 1 matchpoint for each other datum he ties. If we compare someone in the field who scored +480 with this strange datum, the field member wins 70% of the time and ties 25% of the time for a score of 1.65. The unusual score wins 5% of the time and ties 25% of the time for a score of 0.35. This appears to be accurately computed for the field in the table. Note, however, that the score for the player receiving the assigned score is NOT the sum of the field score weighted by the adjusted weights. (It is not .05 X 166.95 + .25 X 157.65 + ... +.05 X0.05.) Instead, it should be the appropriately weighted sum of of his matchpoints, had he actually gotten that score. That would be (.05 X 166 + .25 X 157 + .4 X 132 + .25 X 67 + .05 X 1) -jim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 04:39:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 04:39:23 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA17722 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 04:39:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1000099; 20 Feb 98 16:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:17:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re_claim_2 In-Reply-To: <34EE1C60.55EC@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >Hi all:) >To make my position clear I'd like to add: >1. All the Declarers, described in my note, >made their plans of playing premature, in >their mind >2. All of them continued their plans without >any interesting of opponent's play - by naming >(as in discussed cases) or playing (as in my >examples) >3. And after opponent's play they tried (as >in discussed cases) or not tried (as the greatest >players did) to correct their plans (and results) >by means of TD or AC Not at all. They asked for a ruling in three totally different circumstances, and should get three different rulings. Why not? >4. It is AC who have rights and obligations to >make Bridge decision - so it is AC who should not >to allow such correction The TD has similar rights according to the Law book. -- 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 Feb 21 06:15:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 06:15:33 +1100 Received: from strato-fe0.ultra.net (strato-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.190]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18341 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 06:15:23 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14767) with SMTP id OAA02215; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:15:06 -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-1998Feb21.020100.1189.179568; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:08:22 -0500 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws'), DMFV47B@prodigy.com ('DMFV47B@prodigy.com'), mamula@oz.net ('mamula@oz.net') Message-ID: <1998Feb21.020100.1189.179568@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:08:22 -0500 Subject: minimum RNG seed number length Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A couple weeks ago, there were some questions posted about whether it was possible to crack the seed number for a set of bridge deals. I posted a response in which I discussed the feasibility of designing a system to perform such a task. This morning, I received the following mail which contains some information about cryptographic security and precisely this type of brute force attack. While this message does not pertain directly to the Laws of Bridge, I am forwarding it on to the mailing list none-the-less since it is tangentially related to this earlier discussion and provides some references regarding what is currently considered practical in the security world. I hope that this message does not stray too far from the mailing list charter. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this report is that cracking keys of approximately the same length as those used by most of the random number generation programs is currently considered a trivial problem. Please note, the DES algorithm was deliberately designed to be cryptographically secure and as resistant as possible to this type of brute force attack. I don't think that the same claim can be made for any of the deal generation programs currently being used in the world of bridge. I think that is will soon be a reasonable precaution to securely re-seed the number generation program between rounds of a tournament, or at the very least to do so over night. Richard Willey ---------- From: Derrell D. Piper[SMTP:ddp@network-alchemy.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 1998 1:17 PM To: adams@cisco.com Cc: 'Theodore Y. Ts'o'; Daniel Harkins; ipsec@tis.com Subject: Re: IPSEC WORKING GROUP LAST CALL There's an interesting update on the $1,000,000 DES machine, first described (in public) in 1993, in the latest issue of "CryptoBytes" (www.rsa.com/rsalabs/pubs/cryptobytes.html). It's written by the author of the original paper, Micheal J. Wiener. Cutting to the chase: Today's version of the $1 million machine could find a DES key in, on average, in 35 minutes (one-sixth of 3.5 hours). This time scales linearly with the amount of money spent as shown in the following table. Key Search Machine Cost Exepected Search Time ----------------------- --------------------- $10,000 2.5 days $100,000 6 hours $1,000,000 35 minutes $10,000,000 3.5 minutes For good reason, the IETF decided not to standardize weakened encryption technology. I personally wouldn't use 56-bit DES for anything I cared about. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 06:39:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 06:39:39 +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 GAA18428 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 06:39:34 +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 OAA21569 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:39:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20639; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:39:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:39:59 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199802201939.OAA20639@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: minimum RNG seed number length X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) > The main conclusion which can be drawn from this report is that cracking > keys of approximately the same length as those used by most of the random > number generation programs is currently considered a trivial problem. Thanks for the interesting note. Do keep in mind that the seed length need not be the key length. There's no reason a much longer key couldn't be used. In fact, it seems quite a good idea. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 12:12:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:12:28 +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 MAA19553 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:12:22 +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 TAA03058 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:11:47 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0QW3602Z Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:08:31 Message-ID: <9802201908.0QW3602@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:08:31 Subject: Rejected Concession To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This situation came up in a club game where I believe I made an incorrect ruling because I did not understand the facts. Your thoughts would be helpful to the declarer for when he directs, and me as well. At T11 the hands are S- H-8 D- C-85 - - T - 87 - - J97 - - - KQT North is declarer in a spade contract and is on lead and leads a club. East folds their hand and concedes. West immediately rejects the concession. Declarer now believes that the CJ is dropping because of East's actions and plays the king. Play continued. The director was called. West stated that they had no idea that a trick could be coming their way when they rejected the concession. My understanding at the time was that east conceded after the play of the king, not before. I ruled that since all rational plays lead to east scoring the club J that east receives the trick in spite of his concession. I think that east's actions deceived declarer and that east could have known that they could deceive declarer. The effect being that declarer might have considered the finesse say a 50% proposition they would consider it now to be a 20% proposition and therefore no longer in a psychological position to risk the finesse for the remaining tricks especially when balanced against the possibility that they may get no more tricks if the finesse loses. Declarer is clearly damaged by the concession and the retraction but what is the damage- was he going to finesse risking down 2 to gain an over trick? A point to be made is that east thought that declarer was going to take the finesse. IMO only a hungry player would take an unproven finesse in that situation, so while it is possible I find it difficult to think it likely. Dealing with the deceptive remarks. East's concession was based on the belief that declarer would take the finesse. Otherwise why concede? A bridge reason, but in my opinion, one that should not be made. Is this considered to be an opponent that has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action [concession] as put forth in 73F2. I do not know. Consider west who has no prospects of winning a trick because there is no entry. Also, their statement that they had no idea that they could win a trick. Is this considered to be an opponent that has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action [reject the concession] as put forth in 73F2. I am inclined to feel that it is so. Together and to a lesser extent, separately, these actions paint a picture for declarer that the finesse will not work, and both players know any finesse will succeed. Both players were in a position that they could have known that they could benefit if declarer took inference from their remarks. I am inclined to rule as follows: First, that no concession was made because of the rejection and play continues subject to L16. Second, Declarer keeps their score [+420 or +450] even though it is now highly unlikely that they will finesse for all the tricks for the reasons [ the risk] discussed above. I do not think that the finesse was attractive enough to be the most favorable result likely. However, east west receive no tricks [-450] because that is what east conceded and because their actions made it practically impossible for declarer to achieve the maximum score if they had been previously inclined. R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 12:33:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:33:14 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA19690 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:33:04 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1014002; 21 Feb 98 1:28 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 23:30:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Call from Dummy out of Turn In-Reply-To: <199802201607.LAA20458@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> L57C says a Defender is not subject to penalty for playing out of >> turn in this particular situation. If he is not subject to penalty then >> he is not subject to penalty. > >Is an adjusted score a penalty? Does not being subject to penalty mean >not being subject to adjustment? (I invite you to consider L64C.) I do not know. Good thing it is irrelevant! We are talking about changing a card. That is not an adjusted score. I can feel the next one coming like a breath of air on the back of my neck when the cat flings the door open. Now you want to adjust a score when the Laws say that you have taken an action that has no penalty. I can imagine the convoluted terms that will be used here! But I do not think anyone can produce a sane argument. Be serious: the Laws say that this action has no penalty. Do you really mean that they think it is illegal? They don't say you cant't do it. I know that in other situations that does not matter by inference. In this one I just cannot believe that it is illegal. I do accept that the Law could have been changed to make it clearer, but that is solely in my view because the lawmakers could not believe that having put that there is no penalty anyone would think it was illegal. -- 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 Feb 21 12:58:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:58:15 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA19768 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:58:09 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1013999; 21 Feb 98 1:28 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:14:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re_claim In-Reply-To: <34EE16B3.2ED4@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > In both discussed cases Declarers made bridge mistakes >playing carelessly - and after that TD (and even AC!) corrected >their mistakes to their profit (and damaged their opponents) by >using "the narrowly constituted letter of the Law.... and violate the >spirit of the Laws" (M.Dennis). No. The Law on claims makes it absolutely clear that there is a distinction between careless and irrational play. You say that irrational plays will happen when playing normally? Of course they do, but that does not affect claims. You are too harsh on people that claim, harsher than the Laws allow. > One note more. I'd like to demonstrate how deep may become >the conflict it one follows this way (chosen in the discussion) to it's >logical final. Let the Declarer has AQ108x in trump (Hearts) in his hand >and xxx in Dummy's. Let he suspect that trumps are placed 4-1 with >stiff in LHO's hand. The he leads small hearts from Dummy, RHO plays >small - and Declarer hesitates. After hesitations he plays 8 of Diamonds >(absolutely occasionally, it was mixed in hearts - clear case...), LHO plays >his singelton trump. And at the moment Declarer (under letter of the >Laws) can change his card that allows LHO to change his card without >penalty... And what? New discussion?:) Bridge Legend says that nobody >will play with that Declarer more. Legend... L72B1 means we now adjust. -- 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 Feb 21 19:56:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA20482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 19:56:19 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA20477 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 19:56:12 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-30.uunet.be [194.7.13.30]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA24473 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:55:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34ED84A7.A67B9DCE@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:27:03 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Re_claim X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <34EE16B3.2ED4@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Should I remind you how the greatest players in grand > slam played small towards Dummy AQ - and played Q after LHO > played K?:) And that Declarer even did not give a start, he lost a trick > with fortitude. Or didn't you hear (or see) how RHO, having KJx and > seeing Dummy's AQ10x in that suit, played K after Declarer's play > small to Dummy - and played A?:)) Both cases happened - and will > happens in real bridge - cause players are live beings, not machines. > And cause mistakes are integral part of the game. > Yes, but the Laws explicitly allow players to claim in order not to make any more silly mistakes. If you play on, you can revoke. But if you claim, no revoke is possible any more. The claim is there to shorten play. After a claim, no more silly mistakes are to be considered. I once had a ruling where initially there was a question about a revoke. Later at the table it was told that declarer had actually claimed but opponents had asked to play on. Declarer had obliged, but subsequently revoked. The claim was ice-cold and the contract was given without any adjustment for the revoke. This ruling was put on the list during its first months and everybody agreed. All play after a claim is cancelled and the claim is dealt with. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 20:49:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:49:24 +1100 Received: from mail.inter.net.il (root@parker.inter.net.il [205.164.141.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA20590 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:49:17 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-107.access.net.il [192.116.198.107]) by mail.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id LAA05509; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:42:47 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34EEA37F.9F67F65D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:50:55 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: 53 cards References: <34dda4a3.10977835@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I read a lot of answers and remarks - to this thread and some other subjects here - and I suggest to introduce Law Zero - "Use the Brain". This Law is a derivation of law 82A which defines one of the two most important duties -IMHO- of a TD - ".... to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is (##not contrary to these Laws##)". (the other duty is to implement the scope of the Laws). It will be the ZERO Law because the TD will be compelled to use the brain before he starts to apply ANY of the Laws and then there will be no contradiction with the ##...## part of law 82A. !!!!! There may occur a lot of irregularities at the table , which are a direct consequence of the real life at a bridge duplicate tournament . I can give a lot of examples form my experience , but the relevant one to this case is when a player pulled out from the boards - one over the other in the middle of the table - 13 cards from the right board and one from the lower pocket ! Analysis: 1- It is clear that the player who didn't count the cards - as should by law 7B2 - violated the rules and the TD is entitled to penalize . 2- The question is about the SCORE : .....By the Law 1 and the EBL commentary - .."no result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform .... - this is not the case here , so can't apply Law 1. ....Did the 14th card influence the bidding ?? I don't know , but it is the TD's task to decide (and then inform the players they can appeal or - BETTER - use the new Law 83 and appeal him/herself ). 3 - Your attention please : ...." THE HEADINGS ARE FOR CONVENIENCE OR REFERENCE -O-N-L-Y- , HEADINGS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE LAWS....." ( read the Preface to the Laws). ......One conclusion of this is that Law 14 doesn't discuss the problem of missing card , -B-U-T- , from the Oxford's dictionary the word "deficient" is asociated with "missing" or "fewer". My conclusion: IMHO - there is no Law in our Faboulous Law Book ( hmmm... LaFontaine and Krilov maybe will help !?!?!?!?!?)dealing with the specific case described by Jesper ( only the penalty for not counting the cards). If the Director will use the "ZERO LAW" to try to find HOW that card card arrived there and IF it Influenced the auction and the play - then he will reduce the case to one of the existing and appliable Laws : 1 or 13 or 14 or ......... The suggested ZERO LAW : "..When in doubt of some peculiar irregularities occuring at the duplicate table , the TD would try to inspect and find the source of that irregularity or violation and establish the environment in a way that will let the game progress as much as possible, according with these Laws"... Dany Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > NS bid to 6H on the N hand. > > E leads, N draws all the outstanding trumps, and claims 12 > tricks. EW acquiesces. > > N now realizes that dummy (S) has 14 cards. It turns out that > there are two H8's in the pack, one of which is the 14th card in > the S hand. S admits to not having counted his cards. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 21:21:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 21:21:26 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA20653 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 21:21:21 +1100 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA05499; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 01:21:05 -0900 Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 01:21:05 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re_claim In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > The Law on claims makes it absolutely clear that there is a > distinction between careless and irrational play. You say that > irrational plays will happen when playing normally? Of course they do, > but that does not affect claims. You are too harsh on people that > claim, harsher than the Laws allow. I think I made this observation once or twice previously on this list, but no harm in saying it again, I guess. Among the club directors I have seen in action (various places in the western USA mostly), it has been my experience that "careless but not irrational" is a very poorly understood idea. I can't count all the times when a director's ruling on a claim was something like "you claimed without drawing the last trump? One trick to the defenders" without bothering to determine whether the loss of the trick was rational. In fact, I got a question wrong on my club director's examination because I gave the same ruling I had received in such a situation. Actually, come to think of it, just tonight, directing my local club game, I got to see this situation in action: South is declaring a diamond contract. West is preparing to lead to trick 12 when south shows J3 of diamonds and claims, though the D8 is still outstanding. West held the D8 and knew he had no chance of scoring it had the hand been played out - but both West and South were surprised when I awarded both tricks to S, for both were in the habit of having a trick taken away every time a claim was questioned. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 21 22:21:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:21:15 +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 WAA20750 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:21:09 +1100 Received: from default (cph49.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.49]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA29199 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:20:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802211120.MAA29199@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:21:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Rejected Concession Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > At T11 the hands are > > S- > H-8 > D- > C-85 > - - > T - > 87 - > - J97 > - > - > - > KQT > > North is declarer in a spade contract and is on lead and leads a club. > East folds their hand and concedes. West immediately rejects the > concession. Declarer now believes that the CJ is dropping because of > East's actions and plays the king. Play continued. The director was > called. West stated that they had no idea that a trick could be coming > their way when they rejected the concession. > > I think that east's actions deceived declarer and that east could have > known that they could deceive declarer. The effect being that declarer > might have considered the finesse say a 50% proposition they would > consider it now to be a 20% proposition and therefore no longer in a > psychological position to risk the finesse for the remaining tricks > especially when balanced against the possibility that they may get no > more tricks if the finesse loses. Declarer is clearly damaged by the > concession and the retraction but what is the damage- was he going to > finesse risking down 2 to gain an over trick? A point to be made is > that east thought that declarer was going to take the finesse. If we are going to adjust here, it looks as if we will be using L73F2. So I have spent some time RingTFLB step by step: Did North draw a false inference from East's attempt to concede? Ruling: Yes! Did East have a demonstrable bridge reason for conceding? Difficult. He thought declarer was going to finesse. That is the reason. Is that a bridge reason? Should he not have known that declarer could also play for a drop? I think so. I am going to rule "no demonstrable bridge reason", but I guess that is because I really want to adjust the score. Could East have known at the time of the action that North would be likely to place him with the J singleton or doubleton? Ruling: Yes, unless these are inexperienced players. It surprised me that the word "damage" isn't in L73F2. > East's concession was based on the belief that declarer would take the > finesse. Otherwise why concede? A bridge reason, but in my opinion, > one that should not be made. Is this considered to be an opponent that > has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action [concession] as put > forth in 73F2. I do not know. I do not know either. But as I said, I am going to rule it like that. > Consider west who has no prospects of winning a trick because there is > no entry. Also, their statement that they had no idea that they could > win a trick. Is this considered to be an opponent that has no > demonstrable bridge reason for the action [reject the concession] as > put forth in 73F2. I am inclined to feel that it is so. West is certainly allowed to reject the concession whenever he thinks *East* might make another trick. But I would agree that rejecting the concession when West does not think that *his side* will make another trick falls under "no demonstrable bridge reason". Still, I would much rather adjust because of East's action, in order to discourage dishonest players from doing on purpose what East did with no apparent malicious intent. > First, that no concession was made because of the rejection and play > continues subject to L16. Second, Declarer keeps their score [+420 or > +450] even though it is now highly unlikely that they will finesse for > all the tricks for the reasons [ the risk] discussed above. I do not > think that the finesse was attractive enough to be the most favorable > result likely. However, east west receive no tricks [-450] because > that is what east conceded and because their actions made it > practically impossible for declarer to achieve the maximum score if > they had been previously inclined. I agree with the unbalanced adjusted score, assuming I will not be persuaded, at match-pointed pairs, by an expert North that he needs the finesse and not the drop to catch up to the field in order to recover from some earlier mishap. However, I would like to be closer to the wording in L12C2 when justifying this adjustment: NS get +420 since it is not likely that North would have finessed anyway. EW would get the same as NS only if we ruled that the finesse was not at all probable without the infraction; that, I think, would not be the right assessment, so -450 to EW. L12C2 does not really allow the TD to use E's thinking they would not get a(nother) club trick as a reason for selecting the adjusted score. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 00:27:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:27:10 +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 AAA23270 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:27:04 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024275; 21 Feb 98 13:16 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 02:51:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: <9802201908.0QW3602@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: > >This situation came up in a club game where I believe I made an >incorrect ruling because I did not understand the facts. Your thoughts >would be helpful to the declarer for when he directs, and me as well. > >At T11 the hands are > > -- > 8 > -- > 85 >-- -- >T -- >87 -- >- J97 > -- > -- > -- > KQT > >North is declarer in a spade contract and is on lead and leads a club. >East folds their hand and concedes. West immediately rejects the >concession. Declarer now believes that the CJ is dropping because of >East's actions and plays the king. Play continued. The director was >called. West stated that they had no idea that a trick could be coming >their way when they rejected the concession. > >My understanding at the time was that east conceded after the play of >the king, not before. I ruled that since all rational plays lead to >east scoring the club J that east receives the trick in spite of his >concession. > >I think that east's actions deceived declarer and that east could have >known that they could deceive declarer. The effect being that declarer >might have considered the finesse say a 50% proposition they would >consider it now to be a 20% proposition and therefore no longer in a >psychological position to risk the finesse for the remaining tricks >especially when balanced against the possibility that they may get no >more tricks if the finesse loses. Declarer is clearly damaged by the >concession and the retraction but what is the damage- was he going to >finesse risking down 2 to gain an over trick? A point to be made is >that east thought that declarer was going to take the finesse. > >IMO only a hungry player would take an unproven finesse in that >situation, so while it is possible I find it difficult to think it >likely. As a matter of fact this seems very dubious. Players count hands, and when the remaining clubs are 0-3 at T11 most declarers will have a strong idea that the length is tending to be on the right. Obviously this declarer did not have a full count or he would have finessed anyway, but if he thinks that it is about 50% that East has 3 clubs, 40% that East has 2 clubs and 10% that East has 1 club, then finessing will get all 3 tricks about 50 + 40*2/3 + 10/3 = 80% of the time. Playing for the drop will get all 3 tricks 50% of the time. 80% to 50% is quite attractive at pairs! OK, the loss is greater, and so on, but I would have thought there was a fair chance of a finesse, much much greater than in the same suit if the decision was made at T4. >Dealing with the deceptive remarks. > >East's concession was based on the belief that declarer would take the >finesse. Otherwise why concede? A bridge reason, but in my opinion, >one that should not be made. Is this considered to be an opponent that >has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action [concession] as put >forth in 73F2. I do not know. How do you know that this was the reason for East's concession? The normal reason for false concessions is that the player has lost track of the hands! >Consider west who has no prospects of winning a trick because there is >no entry. Also, their statement that they had no idea that they could >win a trick. Is this considered to be an opponent that has no >demonstrable bridge reason for the action [reject the concession] as >put forth in 73F2. I am inclined to feel that it is so. > >Together and to a lesser extent, separately, these actions paint a >picture for declarer that the finesse will not work, and both players >know any finesse will succeed. Both players were in a position that >they could have known that they could benefit if declarer took >inference from their remarks. I am inclined to rule as follows: > >First, that no concession was made because of the rejection and play >continues subject to L16. Second, Declarer keeps their score [+420 or >+450] even though it is now highly unlikely that they will finesse for >all the tricks for the reasons [ the risk] discussed above. I do not >think that the finesse was attractive enough to be the most favorable >result likely. However, east west receive no tricks [-450] because >that is what east conceded and because their actions made it >practically impossible for declarer to achieve the maximum score if >they had been previously inclined. There are two questions here. First, did East and West produce a concession and rejection without a valid bridge reason? That is a matter of judgement on the actual hand, and will probably elicit different views. I believe that declarer was more likely to take the finesse without the shenanigans than Roger does. Second is the important and interesting one: should we be adjusting if we think that they may have attempted to mislead under L73F2 or L72B1 or not? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 00:53:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:53:07 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23355 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:53:00 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-10.uunet.be [194.7.13.10]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28887 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:52:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34EEA113.B8BD439C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 10:40:35 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Call from Dummy out of Turn X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <6MzFXPCGYQ70Ew26@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > There is one wrinkle to consider: is a nominated card "played"? I had > to look that up to be sure, but the wording of L45B says that nominating > the card *is* playing it, unlike the various bits in L45C which refer to > Compulsory Play of a Card. > > To go back to John's original question, we always include this > situation [well, we actually use leading towards AQ in dummy, and > calling for the queen as the king appears] on our second Club TD > training day. It is always the high spot of the day, with at least 65% > of those present thinking [and usually saying] that the tutors are > idiots. We then include the identical situation on the third Club TD > training day, when they are assessed, and the number who get it wrong is > alarming! > > The card is played once nominated. It cannot be changed under L45D4B > because it was not an inadvertent designation. The case is totally > dissimilar to Anne's, which is a Claim, and thus dealt with under the > Claim Laws. > I agree with David S. (no that is not a first) Declarer plays towards AQ and says "Queen" before the King appears on the left. The card is played and the trick is lost. Slightly dissimilar case : Declarer plays towards AQ and says "Finesse" before the King appears on the left. I am sure we agree that now the trick goes to declarer. Just to prove the point that the laws (and the tutors) are not as idiotic as they seem. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 00:53:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:53:10 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23358 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:53:02 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-10.uunet.be [194.7.13.10]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28891 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:52:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34EEA638.AD765D3F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:02:32 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: minimum RNG seed number length X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199802201939.OAA20639@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) > > The main conclusion which can be drawn from this report is that cracking > > keys of approximately the same length as those used by most of the random > > number generation programs is currently considered a trivial problem. > > Thanks for the interesting note. > > Do keep in mind that the seed length need not be the key length. > There's no reason a much longer key couldn't be used. In fact, it > seems quite a good idea. I presume that what Steve is saying is that the "seed" can be longer than the size of the random numbers used to generate the cards. The "seed" is the starting position of the dealing program at the start of the run of dealing the numbers. This can include not just a "randomizer", which usually starts at the system clock, but also a "shuffled" deck of cards, as has been suggested. It is absolutely impossible to determine the seed from just one deal. Indeed there are 52!x(possible number of randomizers) (=1.3E69 x R) possible starting positions, and there are just 52!/(13!^4) possible deals. (=5.3E31) However, using two consecutive deals we are almost there and with three consecutive deals the amount of information becomes sufficient to be able to work out the starting position. Now I don't know the size of the problems Richard was talking about, but could he perhaps try and find out ? Anyway, in theory a dealing program needs to "rerandomize" after every three deals. I think that, given there is some "human" interface (such as waiting for some key input), even a computer randomizer can do that job. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 00:53:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:53:15 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA23367 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:53:06 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-10.uunet.be [194.7.13.10]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA28896 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:53:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34EEA780.A9AE338D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:08:00 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199802201708.JAA29392@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jim Boyce wrote: > (suffice to say he agrees with my calculation) I find it important that some of you actually take the time to check my findings and agree with them. All the others, whom I don't blame for not trying to follow my rantings, can take comfort in that. However : > > Note, however, that the score for the player receiving the assigned > score is NOT the sum of the field score weighted by the adjusted > weights. (It is not .05 X 166.95 + .25 X 157.65 + ... +.05 X0.05.) > > Instead, it should be the appropriately weighted sum of of his > matchpoints, had he actually gotten that score. That would be > (.05 X 166 + .25 X 157 + .4 X 132 + .25 X 67 + .05 X 1) > You may be right in this, I should think this over. However, I think there may be problems calculating this if there should ever be two scores of that type on the same board. I should think that one over as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 02:49:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:49:21 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23950 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:49:14 +1100 Received: from default (client86bc.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.188]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA00606; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 15:49:07 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 15:45:54 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3edf$cb3acf20$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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 20 February 1998 14:22 Subject: RE: Lying and Legal Analysis >At 03:29 PM 2/18/98 GMT, Stephen wrote: > >>Despite this, I would be grateful for a short explanation )is> (and Eric responded:-) >For 200 years, legal scholars in the U.S. have debated the meaning of the >"ultimate law of the land", the U.S. Constitution. Our best legal minds >have pondered and debated questions like whether interpretation is to be >guided by the authors' intent or by the literal words they wrote, whether >lists of prohibitions such as those which appear in the Bill of Rights are >exhaustive or merely illustrative, and various other such questions that go >to the matter of how one reads law in general. > #### We have now ascended to a higher plane, Cloud Nine perhaps. It may be as well to recall that when the laws are being framed the legislators actually believe, poor fools, that they are making explicit statements for down to earth application in a minority pastime which is non-the-less of paramount importance within the esoteric social group addicted to it. The legislators believe, perhaps unanimously, -"What, never?" "Well, hardly ever!" - that what they have provided in the Laws is the complete 'rules of the game' and what is not in the laws is what they term 'extraneous'. [If not, from outside of what does the 'extraneous' come, to which the laws refer?]. Some of the legislators, at least, believe/have believed that in the laws they have said this to be so ; the minimum expectation would surely be, therefore, that if the interpretation of the words is genuinely in doubt the intentions of the legislators should be consulted.####Grattan#### From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 03:58:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 03:58:06 +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 DAA24517 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 03:57:58 +1100 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v2.02) with ESMTP id LAA15079 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA20719; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:31:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:31:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802211631.LAA20719@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Call from Dummy out of Turn Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >I agree with David S. (no that is not a first) > >Declarer plays towards AQ and says "Queen" before the King appears on >the left. >The card is played and the trick is lost. > >Slightly dissimilar case : > >Declarer plays towards AQ and says "Finesse" before the King appears on >the left. >I am sure we agree that now the trick goes to declarer. > >Just to prove the point that the laws (and the tutors) are not as >idiotic as they seem. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html Please convince me why saying "finesse" is not the same as saying "play the Queen". If this were a logic problem, it appears I would mistakingly write: finesse=designate the Queen as a played card Are we now to make allowances for how cleverly players use language, rather than how well they play bridge? If this seems a little snarky, it's because nothing irks me more than someone who tries to wriggle his way out of his own mistake using "weasel-words". Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 04:27:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 04:27:51 +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 EAA24613 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 04:27:43 +1100 Received: from cph51.ppp.dknet.dk (cph51.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.51]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA07094 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 18:27:35 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rejected Concession Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 18:27:33 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34f20e62.6831162@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199802211120.MAA29199@isa.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199802211120.MAA29199@isa.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 On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:21:17 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >It surprised me that the word "damage" isn't in L73F2. =20 It is there. Not in L73F2, but in the sentence that L73F2 is part of. = It is hidden about an inch above L73F2 in the one and a half line of text at = the beginning of L73 that constitutes the first part of the sentences = continued in L73F1 and L73F2. This is far from the first time that I've heard of highly qualified TDs = and AC members falling into the trap of reading L73F1 or L73F2 in isolation from= the (very important) beginning of L73. May I suggest to any lawmaker reading= this that the one and a half line introduction be moved into L73F1 and L73F2 = in the next law book version? It will be less elegant, but easier to = understand. I'm not yet convinced that there is any irregularity in this case. I do = not find it obvious that a concession or partner's rejection of it counts as = "a remark, manner, tempo, or like" in the sense of L73F2. Concessions and rejections of them are part of the play itself (though not to such a = degree that L73E allows us to use them deliberately for deceptive purposes). East has conceded, presumably in good faith, either because he was sure declarer would finesse (perhaps be believed or knew that declarer should = have a full count on the hand) or because he believed that declarer had a = trump left. West has cancelled the concession for reasons I do not quite understand. There is no problem with the concession itself - it gives declarer the (perfectly correct) AI that East did not believe his side would get more tricks. Any speculations by declarer as to why East had that belief must= be declarer's own responsibility, as long as the concession was made in good faith. If a concession is stupid, the conceding player most often gets = his "penalty" when it is accepted. That leaves us with West's strange objection to the concession. L68 does= not require West to have a well-founded belief that the concession is wrong, = and such an objection has to be made quickly, with no time for complicated analysis. My opinion is that provided the concession and the rejection of it were = made in good faith and were not protected by a CPU (such as "whenever I = concede as a defender, you must immediately object"), then there were no = irregularity. I can understand the point of view that L73F2 applies to West's = objection, but I definitely do not believe it can apply to the concession itself: unless there is a CPU, East surely could not have known that the action could = work to his benefit - conceding your own possible tricks _very_ rarely work to = your benefit. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 11:24:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 11:24:21 +1100 Received: from parker2.inter.net.il (parker2.inter.net.il [192.116.192.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA25624 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 11:23:59 +1100 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-37.access.net.il [192.116.198.37]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id CAA01288 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:21:28 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <34EF7088.88FA9BB4@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:25:45 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: The red table cloth Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thus is fresh from the oven , 2 hours ago : north AJ6 - J985 AQt975 West East t985 KQ43 AK72 Qt6 A72 KQt 86 K43 South 72 J98543 643 J2 N E S W 1Cl Dbl 1H Pass 1NT Pass 2H (OHOHOHO) 3S 4Cl **Pass Pass 4S &&& P P P OHOHOHO= at this moment North said ..." it is difficult to see the DBL cartoon on the red table cloth..." and than West said ...."oh - I didn't see it ...." and bid 3Sp. **Pass - East thought more than the regular tempo (all agreed) &&&- I was summoned by East (Ex-European Champ) and told me that West bid 4Sp after the out of tempo Pass (facts agreed ). My decision = I decided what I decided to let play continue and used the new law 83 taking the matter to the committee. Please try to explain your decisions , why to refer the matter to the committee and what should the committee decide . Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 13:24:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:24:40 +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 NAA25880 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:24:33 +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 UAA25975 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:24:15 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0SMCB02I Sat, 21 Feb 98 20:22:23 Message-ID: <9802212022.0SMCB02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 21 Feb 98 20:22:23 Subject: REJECTED To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think your reply is directed to the heart of how to deal with this hand and I am not yet convinced that you are correct. Let me elaborate: Player A knows there is no way for declarer to go down and sees a way that declarer will take all the tricks. He does know that the three remaining suits are not yet counted. Declarer leads the 'right suit' and he concedes. What inference might declarer take because of the concession and might it be a false one? Player A could have known this, at least a good player could have known this. Player B, the partner, can see any finesse will work and that they have no entry to their winners. They could have known that declarer might make the inference that B has the remaining clubs if they rejected the concession. These actions, behaviors, comments, whatever you call them have pushed declarer to NEVER make THE play that might gain. Imo, this is damage. I do not yet believe that the premise that a concession in good faith bears on the matter of 'could the player have known that the declarer might be deceived should the concession be cancelled'. But, had Player A asked himself the question, 'if partner rejects the concession, might declarer be deceived?' he would have to answer yes. If he goes ahead and concedes, I would think that this point would bear on any adjudication. So, getting back to your response. Is this what the law refers to as 'could have known' ? or not? And why? Your arguments seem imply /or say that something done in good faith can not be construed as causing illegal/improper deception. I am under the impression that the condition is not whether a player had worked out all the questions and answers or was capable of working them out, but whether it was possible. I was also under the impression that L73 dealt with the condition that a remark made could have led an opponent to draw an incorrect inference and that good faith has nothing to do with it. My analysis so far has lead me to the conclusion in this case that of the places for redress, the only one that might fit comes under 73F2. That if 73F2 does not apply, then the table result stands. So, the question to settle is whether 73F2 applies? So far, our arguments only muddy the waters. As an aside. The comment was made about ' - conceding your own possible tricks _very_ rarely work to your benefit.' Well, is this not the premise behind the Alcatraz Coup? So how about a new thread discussing the Double Alcatraz coup where the victim shows out too when they hold the suit and thereby lures declarer into his own trap? Is the victim a hero or a cheat? O>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:21:17 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" O> O>wrote: O>>It surprised me that the word "damage" isn't in L73F2. =20 O>It is there. Not in L73F2, but in the sentence that L73F2 is part O>of. = O>It is O>hidden about an inch above L73F2 in the one and a half line of text O>at = O>the O>beginning of L73 that constitutes the first part of the sentences = O>continued in O>L73F1 and L73F2. O>This is far from the first time that I've heard of highly qualified O>TDs = O>and AC O>members falling into the trap of reading L73F1 or L73F2 in isolation O>from= O>the O>(very important) beginning of L73. May I suggest to any lawmaker O>reading= O>this O>that the one and a half line introduction be moved into L73F1 and O>L73F2 = O>in the O>next law book version? It will be less elegant, but easier to = O>understand. O>I'm not yet convinced that there is any irregularity in this case. I O>do = O>not O>find it obvious that a concession or partner's rejection of it counts O>as = O>"a O>remark, manner, tempo, or like" in the sense of L73F2. Concessions O>and O>rejections of them are part of the play itself (though not to such a O>= O>degree O>that L73E allows us to use them deliberately for deceptive purposes). O>East has conceded, presumably in good faith, either because he was O>sure O>declarer would finesse (perhaps be believed or knew that declarer O>should = O>have O>a full count on the hand) or because he believed that declarer had a O>= O>trump O>left. West has cancelled the concession for reasons I do not quite O>understand. O>There is no problem with the concession itself - it gives declarer O>the O>(perfectly correct) AI that East did not believe his side would get O>more O>tricks. Any speculations by declarer as to why East had that belief O>must= O>be O>declarer's own responsibility, as long as the concession was made in O>good O>faith. If a concession is stupid, the conceding player most often O>gets = O>his O>"penalty" when it is accepted. O>That leaves us with West's strange objection to the concession. L68 O>does= O>not O>require West to have a well-founded belief that the concession is O>wrong, = O>and O>such an objection has to be made quickly, with no time for O>complicated O>analysis. O>My opinion is that provided the concession and the rejection of it O>were = O>made O>in good faith and were not protected by a CPU (such as "whenever I = O>concede as O>a defender, you must immediately object"), then there were no = O>irregularity. O>I can understand the point of view that L73F2 applies to West's = O>objection, but O>I definitely do not believe it can apply to the concession itself: O>unless O>there is a CPU, East surely could not have known that the action O>could = O>work to O>his benefit - conceding your own possible tricks _very_ rarely work O>to = O>your O>benefit. O>--=20 O>Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . O>http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 22 14:06:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:06:27 +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 OAA26003 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:06:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1020291; 22 Feb 98 2:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:12:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: <34f20e62.6831162@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:21:17 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" >wrote: > >>It surprised me that the word "damage" isn't in L73F2. > >It is there. Not in L73F2, but in the sentence that L73F2 is part of. It is >hidden about an inch above L73F2 in the one and a half line of text at the >beginning of L73 that constitutes the first part of the sentences continued in >L73F1 and L73F2. > >This is far from the first time that I've heard of highly qualified TDs and AC >members falling into the trap of reading L73F1 or L73F2 in isolation from the >(very important) beginning of L73. May I suggest to any lawmaker reading this >that the one and a half line introduction be moved into L73F1 and L73F2 in the >next law book version? It will be less elegant, but easier to understand. I agree. L13 is the classical example of a Law where TDs forget the bit that does not come under A or B. >I'm not yet convinced that there is any irregularity in this case. I do not >find it obvious that a concession or partner's rejection of it counts as "a >remark, manner, tempo, or like" in the sense of L73F2. Concessions and >rejections of them are part of the play itself (though not to such a degree >that L73E allows us to use them deliberately for deceptive purposes). > >East has conceded, presumably in good faith, either because he was sure >declarer would finesse (perhaps be believed or knew that declarer should have >a full count on the hand) or because he believed that declarer had a trump >left. Why do we presume in good faith? I think the point of this ruling is the possibility that it is in bad faith. If we really believe it is not in good faith then this becomes a non-event, surely? > West has cancelled the concession for reasons I do not quite >understand. Bloody-mindedness? Still, the interest is in the two together. One of the tests that I employ in ethical situations is to say to myself "If I were a cheat, what would I do?" If the answer agrees with what actually happened then I think we are in the area where we tread carefully. >There is no problem with the concession itself - it gives declarer the >(perfectly correct) AI that East did not believe his side would get more >tricks. Any speculations by declarer as to why East had that belief must be >declarer's own responsibility, as long as the concession was made in good >faith. If a concession is stupid, the conceding player most often gets his >"penalty" when it is accepted. How do we know it was in good faith? If I had Jxx and concede then it would mean [a] I had lost track of the hand and did not think Jxx was relevant, or [b] I was trying to gain an unfair advantage, or [c] I believed that declarer could not go wrong Of course, when I personally concede it is [a] or [c]. However, [b] looks a possibility. >That leaves us with West's strange objection to the concession. L68 does not >require West to have a well-founded belief that the concession is wrong, and >such an objection has to be made quickly, with no time for complicated >analysis. > >My opinion is that provided the concession and the rejection of it were made >in good faith and were not protected by a CPU (such as "whenever I concede as >a defender, you must immediately object"), then there were no irregularity. Well, fine, Jesper, ole son, but that is one heck of a "provided that ..."! Seriously, if we are convinced that both the concession and the rejection are in good faith, then it is hardly a problem, but I do not think that the rest of us are assuming this to be the case. It is exactly the problem that they may not be in good faith that is complicating this thread. Suppose you are a good but "tricky" player. You know that declarer has a marked finesse if he counts the hand carefully - but declarers often don't. You think - shall I concede? What's the point - declarer will accept. Suppose partner does not accept - no declarer on earth will get it right now! Do you know what this sounds like to me? It sounds as though it has happened before! It is a stupid ploy if partner does not co-operate - but he did and it worked. Could it have happened before? >I can understand the point of view that L73F2 applies to West's objection, but >I definitely do not believe it can apply to the concession itself: unless >there is a CPU, East surely could not have known that the action could work to >his benefit - conceding your own possible tricks _very_ rarely work to your >benefit. I agree - it needs collusion. I think that the ruling is that the result stands, and a report is submitted to the NBO. Either the defence is cheating, or there is nothing in 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 Mon Feb 23 03:05:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 03:05:36 +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 DAA29520 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 03:05:28 +1100 Received: from cph48.ppp.dknet.dk (cph48.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.48]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06796 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:05:21 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: REJECTED Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:05:20 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34f1472f.2211970@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9802212022.0SMCB02@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9802212022.0SMCB02@bbs.hal-pc.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 21 Feb 98 20:22:23 , r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >So, getting back to your response. Is this what the law refers=20 >to as 'could have known' ? or not? And why? Your arguments=20 >seem imply /or say that something done in good faith can not be=20 >construed as causing illegal/improper deception. I am under the=20 >impression that the condition is not whether a player had worked=20 >out all the questions and answers or was capable of working them=20 >out, but whether it was possible. I was also under the=20 >impression that L73 dealt with the condition that a remark made=20 >could have led an opponent to draw an incorrect inference and=20 >that good faith has nothing to do with it. Exactly - good faith has nothing to do with L73F2 rulings, and this is a = very important property of L73F2. My point is that IMO a concession does not fall within the category of "remark, manner, tempo, or the like" as used in L73F2, and that we = therefore cannot adjust using L73F2, but only using the laws about CPUs and hidden transmission of UI. And in relation to _those_ laws, we need to = determine whether EW's actions were made in good faith or were based on a CPU or = some hidden method of UI transmission. Let me try with examples: (a) If I hesitate for 20 seconds before playing low from my 32 doubleton = when declarer leads the suit, then I risk an adjusted score. It will be based= on L73F2, and it makes no difference whether I was in good faith (i.e., I = fell asleep) or not. This hesitation is clearly a "remark, manner, tempo, or = the like" for which I had "no demonstrable bridge reason". (b) If I choose to discard the H7 instead of the D3 which would be the "natural" discard on my hand, I do not risk an adjusted score even if I = did it to deceive declarer. This is explicitly allowed by L73E. Unless, of = course, partner and I have a CPU about the meaning of a H7 discard, in which case= the score can be adjusted under L40C - but in order to make that adjustment, = the TD needs to rule that we did have a CPU, not just that we might have had = a CPU. (c) If I choose to concede the rest of the tricks instead of playing low = from my Jxx of clubs, which category does it fall in? Is this choice = analogous to the hesitation or to the choice between two discards? IMO, it is = somewhere in-between: I do not believe it to be a L73F2 case, but neither do I = believe that I am allowed to do it on purpose (L73E does not mention = concessions). I believe that the TD needs to rule that there was a CPU or UI in order to adjust in this case. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 03:05:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 03:05:47 +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 DAA29531 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 03:05:42 +1100 Received: from cph48.ppp.dknet.dk (cph48.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.48]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06811 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:05:36 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rejected Concession Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:05:34 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34f249e0.2901111@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:12:14 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>My opinion is that provided the concession and the rejection of it were= made >>in good faith and were not protected by a CPU (such as "whenever I = concede as >>a defender, you must immediately object"), then there were no = irregularity. > > Well, fine, Jesper, ole son, but that is one heck of a "provided that >..."! Seriously, if we are convinced that both the concession and the >rejection are in good faith, then it is hardly a problem, but I do not >think that the rest of us are assuming this to be the case. It is >exactly the problem that they may not be in good faith that is >complicating this thread. The problem is that I do not believe that there is a law that allows us = to adjust on the "could have known" principle in this situation - i.e., I = believe that if we want to adjust we will have to rule that we actually believe = they were not in good faith. As I said, I don't believe we can use L73F2; any adjustment will = therefore have to be on the basis that East's and/or West's action is based on = either a CPU (L40C) or UI (L73F1). This means that we need to be so sure that there is foul play that we are willing to rule on that basis, telling EW that we believe them to have a either a CPU or some hidden means of transmitting UI. > I agree - it needs collusion. I think that the ruling is that the >result stands, and a report is submitted to the NBO. Either the defence >is cheating, or there is nothing in it. Exactly. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 05:13:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 05:13:10 +1100 Received: from imo26.mail.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00472 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 05:13:04 +1100 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 2DZFa25301; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:11:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:11:56 EST To: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Claim Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Was not part of the claim that declarer was going to draw the last trump with the jack? Seems that that statement shows knowledge of the existence of one trump out and the intention to draw it when able. If it is played before anticipated, part of the claim was still to win that card. Really, now. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 06:08:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:08:41 +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 GAA00589 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:08:34 +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 NAA05400 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:08:29 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0IEYQ01A Sun, 22 Feb 98 13:06:31 Message-ID: <9802221306.0IEYQ01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 98 13:06:31 Subject: REJECTED To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I thought ignorance caould be a reason for not calling someone's action unethical, but ignorance does not absolve them from responsibility for any damage they may have caused. That there may have been a CPU or collusion would complicate matters in other areas [discipline for instance], but why should it complicate whether damage occurred and how it is remedied. I feel confident that there was no premeditated intention to deceive in this case. I can not see the connection between: it is legal to concede tricks and it is legal for partner to reject it causing play to continue, therefore no adjustment because 'offenders' did nothing illegal. The exception being that the actions were premeditated having in mind the possible results achieved. So far I do not feel that Jesper's position is sound. R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ O>On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 02:12:14 +0000, David Stevenson O> wrote: O>>Jesper Dybdal wrote: O>>>My opinion is that provided the concession and the rejection of it O>were= O>made O>>>in good faith and were not protected by a CPU (such as "whenever I O>= O>concede as O>>>a defender, you must immediately object"), then there were no = O>irregularity. O>> O>> Well, fine, Jesper, ole son, but that is one heck of a "provided O>that O>>..."! Seriously, if we are convinced that both the concession and O>the O>>rejection are in good faith, then it is hardly a problem, but I do O>not O>>think that the rest of us are assuming this to be the case. It is O>>exactly the problem that they may not be in good faith that is O>>complicating this thread. O>The problem is that I do not believe that there is a law that allows O>us = O>to O>adjust on the "could have known" principle in this situation - i.e., O>I = O>believe O>that if we want to adjust we will have to rule that we actually O>believe = O>they O>were not in good faith. O>As I said, I don't believe we can use L73F2; any adjustment will = O>therefore O>have to be on the basis that East's and/or West's action is based on O>= O>either a O>CPU (L40C) or UI (L73F1). O>This means that we need to be so sure that there is foul play that we O>are O>willing to rule on that basis, telling EW that we believe them to O>have a O>either a CPU or some hidden means of transmitting UI. O>> I agree - it needs collusion. I think that the ruling is that the O>>result stands, and a report is submitted to the NBO. Either the O>defence O>>is cheating, or there is nothing in it. O>Exactly. O>--=20 O>Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . O>http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 07:42:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 07:42:14 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA00716 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 07:42:09 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018870; 22 Feb 98 20:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 19:52:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: REJECTED In-Reply-To: <34f1472f.2211970@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >(c) If I choose to concede the rest of the tricks instead of playing low from >my Jxx of clubs, which category does it fall in? Is this choice analogous to >the hesitation or to the choice between two discards? IMO, it is somewhere >in-between: I do not believe it to be a L73F2 case, but neither do I believe >that I am allowed to do it on purpose (L73E does not mention concessions). I >believe that the TD needs to rule that there was a CPU or UI in order to >adjust in this case. So let us change the problem. xx -- x x K x -- -- Kxx -- -- Jxx J -- -- KQT Suppose the defender with Jxx concedes the rest, *knowing* his partner will immediately object. No partnership involved: let's make it an individual: no CPU nor UI! OK, this looks like cheating, but which Law has he breached? -- 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 Feb 23 08:06:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:06:55 +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 IAA00802 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 08:06:48 +1100 Received: from default (cph3.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.3]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA15344 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 22:06:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802222106.WAA15344@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 22:07:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The red table cloth Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > north > AJ6 > - > J985 > AQt975 > West East > t985 KQ43 > AK72 Qt6 > A72 KQt > 86 K43 > South > 72 > J98543 > 643 > J2 > > N E S W > 1Cl Dbl 1H Pass > 1NT Pass 2H (OHOHOHO) 3S > 4Cl **Pass Pass 4S &&& > P P P > > OHOHOHO= at this moment North said ..." it is difficult to see > the DBL cartoon on the red table cloth..." and than West said > ...."oh - I didn't see it ...." and bid 3Sp. > **Pass - East thought more than the regular tempo (all agreed) > &&&- I was summoned by East (Ex-European Champ) and told me that > West bid 4Sp after the out of tempo Pass (facts agreed ). > > My decision = I decided what I decided to let play continue and > used the new law 83 taking the matter to the committee. I think that the TD is obliged to rule in any case. L83 talks about a review of the TD's decision -- so there has to be one. L84 tells the director that he "shall rule as follows". "I am not going to rule on this one!" is simply not an acceptable decision from the TD. This is a L16 case, and "play on" is, of course automatic. The analysis after the play is the fun part. North's (OHOHOHO) is AI to West, but West's "oh - I didn't see it" is UI to East, and East's break in tempo is UI to West. Did East choose an illegal alternative? No. The UI suggests that he should bid on, and he did not. Did West choose an illegal alternative? I think so. With 7 HCP in a suit that seems to be breaking horribly on the bidding, his hand is no longer a full-value 7-loser hand, and passing 4C must be a logical alternative. East, however, was apparently thinking about some action over 4C. So West's 4S is an infraction, and the score should be adjusted if NS were damaged - as I am sure they must have been, or you would not have considered summoning the committee. Finally, I don't see why the TD should take the initiative on sending this to the committee. The laws have been applied in a manner that is basically routine stuff. The TD has exercised bridge judgement, to be sure, and the players may not agree, but then surely Ex-European Champs and their peers can protect themselves and appeal when they find it appropriate. I would advise TDs never to step in and appeal their own decision in order to protect players who are not otherwise appealing, except in scenarios of the novices vs. experts flavor. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 09:59:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:59:40 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA01128 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:59:07 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2633.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.51]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA07612 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 22:58:54 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "bridge laws" Subject: Re Claim Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:03:56 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd3fe6$2744f320$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 Adam Beneschan addressed the interpretation of L68. Admittedly if the law read " it must refer also to tricks other than", or if it read " it must refer only to tricks other than", there would be no problem., but it refers to "tricks other than the one currently in progress." This appears to exclude from the claim, the trick currently in progress. If the trick currently in progress was taken as a seperate entity, would you consider that the small trump had been named, and therefore played? I don't think that that footnote 19 helps the understanding. This very clearly refers to "only the action of winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress" From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 12:30:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:30:09 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01641 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:29:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008902; 23 Feb 98 1:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:58:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re Claim In-Reply-To: <01bd3fe6$2744f320$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Adam Beneschan addressed the interpretation of L68. > >Admittedly if the law read " it must refer also to tricks other than", >or if it read " it must refer only to tricks other than", there would be >no problem., but it refers to "tricks other than the one currently in >progress." This appears to exclude from the claim, the trick currently >in progress. Not at all. That is ridiculous. If I say the rest are mine you cannot say this does not refer to the current trick! What L68 makes clear is that it must refer to tricks other than the one in progress - but the word only does not appear. So if you say "I shall win this trick whatever you do" then you have not claimed, because it does not refer to tricks other than the current one. If you say "The rest are mine" then you have claimed, *including the current trick*. >If the trick currently in progress was taken as a seperate entity, would >you consider that the small trump had been named, and therefore played? That's irrelevant. >I don't think that that footnote 19 helps the understanding. This very >clearly refers to "only the action of winning or losing of an >uncompleted trick currently in progress" Footnote 19 does include the word "only" and so has no relevance to the case in point. For those of you without a hard copy of the English edition of the 1997 Laws, the footnotes are numbered, so footnote 19 is the one that refers to the first sentence of L68. -- 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 Feb 23 13:05:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:05:28 +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 NAA01777 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:05:12 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008901; 23 Feb 98 1:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:49:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The red table cloth In-Reply-To: <199802222106.WAA15344@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >I would advise TDs never to step in and appeal their own decision in >order to protect players who are not otherwise appealing, except in >scenarios of the novices vs. experts flavor. Perhaps we should compile a list of when we expect to apply the new bit of L83. Novices v experts is one case. The case that occurs to me is when there is a ruling AB v CD. You rule in favour of CD. AB don't appeal: why not? Well, they have a 36% session and they just want to go home. AB have had a 63.25% session, and another pair has 63.22%! But the new Law is no excuse for the TD not doing his job. He must rule as in L84 and L85, and L83 does not allow him to back off from this. [Pwd] -- 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 Feb 23 13:23:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:23:18 +1100 Received: from chong.ihug.co.nz (root@chong.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA01840 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:23:14 +1100 Received: from jatkinsn.ihug.co.nz (p10-max19.auck.ihug.co.nz [202.49.240.202]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA01294 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:23:04 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980223151657.006afc00@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: jatkinsn@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:16:57 +1300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "J.Atkinson" Subject: Re: The red table cloth In-Reply-To: <34EF7088.88FA9BB4@internet-zahav.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:25 AM 2/22/98 +0200, you wrote: >Thus is fresh from the oven , 2 hours ago : > > north > AJ6 > - > J985 > AQt975 > West East >t985 KQ43 >AK72 Qt6 >A72 KQt >86 K43 > South > 72 > J98543 > 643 > J2 > > N E S W >1Cl Dbl 1H Pass >1NT Pass 2H (OHOHOHO) 3S >4Cl **Pass Pass 4S &&& >P P P > >OHOHOHO= at this moment North said ..." it is difficult to see >the DBL cartoon on the red table cloth..." and than West said >...."oh - I didn't see it ...." and bid 3Sp. >**Pass - East thought more than the regular tempo (all agreed) >&&&- I was summoned by East (Ex-European Champ) and told me that >West bid 4Sp after the out of tempo Pass (facts agreed ). > West can certainly use the information so kindly provided by North. But since they thought their hand only worth 3S in the first instance I would rule that amongst logical alternatives they chose the one suggested by the hesitation and change to 4C 3 light. I wouldnt consider this a case that i would refer to committee, but would leave that option to the players. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 13:31:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:31:02 +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 NAA01899 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:30:45 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015239; 23 Feb 98 2:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 01:45:07 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Re_Aletr..._and_Psyche_3_try In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Vitold Brushtunov wrote: > >>1. Sorry in advance for my poor English > > David S (I think - I find myself strangely red/black colour blind !) said: > [s] > > The EBU Directive says that if the bid is normally understood as >forcing then it requires an alert if it is played as non-forcing. >However, whether it is normally understood as forcing is a difficult >question. Labeo: David would know for sure, but it is true that I had believed it was right in England to alert if I was playing a bid as non-forcing but I thought opponents might perhaps expect it to be forcing? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 13:40:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:40:56 +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 NAA01924 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:40:50 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015241; 23 Feb 98 2:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 01:53:18 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: law 72b1 and law 23 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >louis arnon wrote: >>If we read law 23 we see that the director can give an adjusted score >>if the offender at the time of his irregularity could have known that there >>would be damage to the non offending side. > Labeo: read that: ".....could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage..." -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 13:43:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:43:54 +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 NAA01938 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:43:45 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028789; 23 Feb 98 2:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 01:47:16 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Lying and Legal Analysis In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980220081632.006d5eb0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980220081632.006d5eb0@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes > > >For 200 years, legal scholars in the U.S. have debated the meaning of the >"ultimate law of the land", the U.S. Constitution. Labeo: That is fair enough and to date a very defensible result obtained; I cannot help thinking there may also have been Chinese, Hindus, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and a few others at parallel tasks for even longer and their results may be equally valid. A problem could be if they disagree and, failing a universal and definitive view of the basis of law on which to determine an interpretation, one would turn to the appointed authorities of the game for an arbitration. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 14:02:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:02:32 +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 OAA01976 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:02:16 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028791; 23 Feb 98 2:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 02:20:37 +0000 To: John Probst Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Bizarre ethical question In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "John (MadDog) Probst" writes >In message , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >. ...............................cut......................... >No I'd return him his money. I know I'm being picky here but why this >use of the word restore when return would be the natural word? We'll >wait for the ticket returns, we'll return the deposit but we don't >return the cards to the board, we *restore* them > >> Restore means put back: the form needs separate comment. >> >Given that most good players do attempt to disguise the order played >shouldn't we encourage them? and do we really need to amend L7C? Labeo: Dictionary> 'Restore': 1. Give back; return; make restitution of. 2. compensate for; make good; set right. 3. re-erect; reconstruct, bring back to the original state 4. model or draw to represent the original form 5. reinstate or replace 6. set up or bring into existence again; return to the original position. 7. ................bring back to mental calm..... I would just make the point that 'restore' can have any of these meanings and there needs to be some clue or inference to choose any one of them. I do not believe that if we ever restore the Elgin Marbles to Greece it will involve putting them back as we found them. I am against any regulation that would add to the number of trivialities a player having a poor day can complain of. All we need is to encourage good practice - more carrot, less stick. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 14:32:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA02103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:32:05 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA02098 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:31:57 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2018382; 23 Feb 98 3:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 03:25:08 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:21:17 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" >>wrote: >> >>>It surprised me that the word "damage" isn't in L73F2. >> >>It is there. ...................................cut................................. >>I'm not yet convinced that there is any irregularity in this case. I do not >>find it obvious that a concession or partner's rejection of it counts as "a >>remark, manner, tempo, or like" in the sense of L73F2. Concessions and >>rejections of them are part of the play itself (though not to such a degree >>that L73E allows us to use them deliberately for deceptive purposes). >> Labeo: Irregularity? Well, strictly there is a breach of Law 74C3 perhaps. -- Labeo "The dwarf sees farther than the giant, when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on." From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 16:28:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:28:11 +1100 Received: from oznet07.ozemail.com.au (oznet07.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA02289 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:28:05 +1100 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port6.liz.hare.net.au [203.55.88.56]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA00207 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:28:00 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:28:00 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199802230528.QAA00207@oznet07.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: 53 cards (or 39) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:15:42 >To: bridge_laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >From: Tony Musgrove >Subject: Re: 53 cards (or 39) > >>Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:14:06 >>To: Dany Haimovici >>From: Tony Musgrove >>Subject: Re: 53 cards (or 39) >> >>Dany wrote (inter alia): >> >>>I can give a lot of examples form my experience , but the relevant one >>>to this case is when a player pulled out from the boards - one over >>>the other in the middle of the table - 13 cards from the right board and >>>one from the lower pocket ! >>> I may have been guilty of a Law 74B1 breach here, since I haven't paid much attention to the 53 card thread, despite its fascination. I frequently get to rule on a case similar to that reported by Dany, where a player bids on the wrong hand, having taken all 13 cards from the wrong board. This is usually discovered when dummy goes down. I have always ruled that although it is strictly illegal to bid without examining the face of your cards, provided *any* hand has been taken from the pocket corresponding to your compass direction, the bidding stands. Perhaps it is time to find out what the correct ruling should be? Tony >> From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 20:03:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 20:03:34 +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 UAA02667 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 20:03:29 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id AAA11331; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:57:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma011303; Mon, 23 Feb 98 00:57:07 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA10020; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 04:02:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199802230902.EAA10020@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 08:47:45 GMT Subject: Re: 53 cards (or 39) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ardelm @ ozemail.com.au wrote: >I frequently get >to rule on a case similar to that reported by Dany, where a player bids on >the wrong hand, having taken all 13 cards from the wrong board. This is >usually discovered when dummy goes down. > >I have always ruled that although it is strictly illegal to bid without >examining the face of your cards, provided *any* hand has been taken from >the pocket corresponding to your compass direction, the bidding stands. >Perhaps it is time to find out what the correct ruling should be? There is certainly some robust commonsense behind that ruling. However, under the 1987 code it would have been incorrect, since L17D in summary required the TD to cancel the board if the non-offenders objected, and permitted the TD to do so otherwise. Under the 1997 code L17D has been changed from a short law which covers a broadish area, to a much longer law which apprears on my first reading to cover only the rather narrower area when the error is discovered quite early in the auction. At a guess it is intended to be implicit that if the offender's partner calls after the offender has called then the board is cancelled, but I'd be interested in other views. If that is the case, then perhaps the law would benefit from this point being made explicit. I haven't had a chance to check on the commentaries on the changes between the 1987 and 1997 codes: again I'd be grateful for any relevant extracts. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 23 21:30:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:30:20 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02897 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:30:11 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client27bb.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.187]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA06761 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:30:06 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: Subject: Re: Re Claim Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:34:24 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4046$9bba2d00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 2:36 AM Subject: Re: Re Claim >Anne Jones wrote: >>Adam Beneschan addressed the interpretation of L68. >> >>Admittedly if the law read " it must refer also to tricks other than", >>or if it read " it must refer only to tricks other than", there would be >>no problem., but it refers to "tricks other than the one currently in >>progress." This appears to exclude from the claim, the trick currently >>in progress. > > Not at all. That is ridiculous. If I say the rest are mine you >cannot say this does not refer to the current trick! I can and I do. Law 74C3 tells us that it is a violation of procedure to include the current trick in your claim. It would appear that it is wrong to claim when there is a trick in progress. In the particular, which happened at the GBA last week, declarer did in fact violate Law74 by stating how he was going to win the current trick.His statement of claim was quite seperate. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 00:07:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:07:21 +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 AAA03274 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:07:13 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024263; 23 Feb 98 12:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:38:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>>I'm not yet convinced that there is any irregularity in this case. I do not >>>find it obvious that a concession or partner's rejection of it counts as "a >>>remark, manner, tempo, or like" in the sense of L73F2. Concessions and >>>rejections of them are part of the play itself (though not to such a degree >>>that L73E allows us to use them deliberately for deceptive purposes). >Labeo: Irregularity? Well, strictly there is a breach of > Law 74C3 perhaps. Now you are outlawing all claims and concessions! I believe we are in the position of having a feeling that something ought to be illegal but unable to find a justification in the Laws. Mind you, there is nothing in the Laws saying that a deceptive concession is legal, so an SO could make it illegal by regulation, but I hardly think that is the way to go. I imagine that most of you think that the chances of a deceptive concession turning up are less than Saddam inviting all his American friends to a party, so let me put the related case. Declarer can see eight tricks, no more, in 3NT. Rather than play it out he puts the hand down and says "nine tricks". That's immoral and illegal, everyone shouts. Under which Law? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 00:54:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:54:53 +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 AAA05666 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 00:54:47 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2024644; 23 Feb 98 13:37 GMT Message-ID: <9q28uTAn9W80EwME@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:45:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 53 cards (or 39) In-Reply-To: <199802230902.EAA10020@fern.us.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SB wrote: >ardelm @ ozemail.com.au wrote: >>I frequently get >>to rule on a case similar to that reported by Dany, where a player bids on >>the wrong hand, having taken all 13 cards from the wrong board. This is >>usually discovered when dummy goes down. >> >>I have always ruled that although it is strictly illegal to bid without >>examining the face of your cards, provided *any* hand has been taken from >>the pocket corresponding to your compass direction, the bidding stands. >>Perhaps it is time to find out what the correct ruling should be? >There is certainly some robust commonsense behind that ruling. However, under >the 1987 code it would have been incorrect, since L17D in summary required the >TD to cancel the board if the non-offenders objected, and permitted the TD to >do so otherwise. > >Under the 1997 code L17D has been changed from a short law which covers a >broadish area, to a much longer law which apprears on my first reading to cover >only the rather narrower area when the error is discovered quite early in the >auction. > >At a guess it is intended to be implicit that if the offender's partner calls >after the offender has called then the board is cancelled, but I'd be >interested in other views. If that is the case, then perhaps the law would >benefit from this point being made explicit. Originally I thought the same, but I am not so sure. Suppose the bidding goes 1S P 2S X 3C 3D 3S P P P and then someone says to dealer "Why are your cards still in the board?" OK, lets look at L17D. "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." He has called three times, 1S, 3C, P, so these are cancelled. Has offender's LHO called over a cancelled call? Yes. So then the offender takes his new hand and calls with it. The Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores when offender's substituted call differs in any significant way from his cancelled call? So, if he makes the same three calls 1S, 3C, P, the board can be played out normally: if he does not then the board is cancelled and A+A- awarded. If the offender has not played the board from which he drew his cards then the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores when offender's call differs in any way from his original cancelled call. Note the word may: it is very difficult to see how a real result can be obtained in this case so I would expect A+A- on this one. What is the difference? It affects the other player's bidding, unlike the first case where the auction has to be completely unchanged to get a bridge result. I appreciate that L17D makes no reference to more than one call but I see no reason why it should not apply separately to every call made by the offender. -- 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 Feb 24 01:03:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 01:03:52 +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 BAA05694 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 01:03:31 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024645; 23 Feb 98 13:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:07:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re Claim In-Reply-To: <01bd4046$9bba2d00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> Not at all. That is ridiculous. If I say the rest are mine you >>cannot say this does not refer to the current trick! >I can and I do. Law 74C3 tells us that it is a violation of procedure to >include the current trick in your claim. L74C3 says nothing of the sort. C. Violations of Procedure The following are considered violations of procedure: 3. indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed. No mention of a claim whatever. > It would appear that it is >wrong to claim when there is a trick in progress. If you are going to quote Proprieties then L74B4 presumably makes it illegal *not* to claim during a trick if you know all the tricks are yours! B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. >In the particular, which happened at the GBA last week, declarer did in >fact violate Law74 by stating how he was going to win the current >trick.His statement of claim was quite seperate. In what way was it separate? It is perfectly normal to claim immediately the realisation that you are in a position to claim strikes you. L74B4 makes that clear. Let us look at the wording of L68: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress." If you say "The rest are mine" halfway through trick 10 then you have made a statement that includes both trick 10 and tricks 11-13. Thus it is defined as a claim because it refers to tricks other than the one in progress. True, it does not *only* refer to tricks other than the one in progress, but that is not what the Law says, so that does not matter. It goes on to define a claim as "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." Nothing about "subsequent" tricks. So the claim above is perfectly valid and refers to trick 10 as well as tricks 11-13 and L68A says so. What about the footnote? "If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds ...". Now here the word "only" does appear, so this footnote does *not* apply. It would only have applied if the statement referred to T10 only. If you read through the whole Law on claims there is no suggestion as to when you may claim. As a result it has always been accepted that you may claim whenever you feel like it. L74B4 suggests that should be sooner rather than later. L74C3 refers to "indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick ..." and we know what that means! -- 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 Feb 24 01:26:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 01:26:32 +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 BAA05773 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 01:26:26 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008354; 23 Feb 98 14:15 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:11:09 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:11:07 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ########## I agree with Herman's suggestion subject to Jim's amendment. ########### > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 1998 10:08 AM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: Mixing Assigned and Artificial Scores > > Jim Boyce wrote: > > > > (suffice to say he agrees with my calculation) > > I find it important that some of you actually take the time to check > my > findings and agree with them. > All the others, whom I don't blame for not trying to follow my > rantings, > can take comfort in that. > > However : > > > > > Note, however, that the score for the player receiving the assigned > > score is NOT the sum of the field score weighted by the adjusted > > weights. (It is not .05 X 166.95 + .25 X 157.65 + ... +.05 X0.05.) > > > > Instead, it should be the appropriately weighted sum of of his > > matchpoints, had he actually gotten that score. That would be > > (.05 X 166 + .25 X 157 + .4 X 132 + .25 X 67 + .05 X 1) > > > > You may be right in this, I should think this over. > > However, I think there may be problems calculating this if there > should > ever be two scores of that type on the same board. > I should think that one over as well. > > ######### If there are two or more such weighted scores then can't one > simply score each in turn by generating a frequency table specifically > for each one that includes all of the weightings for the other > weighted scores? ####### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 02:42:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:42:31 +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 CAA06186 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:42:26 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27833; 23 Feb 98 7:41 PST To: bridge laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Re Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:03:56 PST." <01bd3fe6$2744f320$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 07:41:49 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802230741.aa27833@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I don't think that that footnote 19 helps the understanding. This very > clearly refers to "only the action of winning or losing of an > uncompleted trick currently in progress" Right. However, footnote 19 was clearly intended as a clarification of the wording in Law 68, which says: For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress[19]. If we're in agreement that the situation described in footnote 19 is different from the current one and does not apply, then we also have to agree that the above sentence in Law 68 doesn't apply to the originally posted situation, either. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 02:59:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:59:19 +1100 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06234 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:59:13 +1100 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil ([131.158.13.27]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA18883 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:59:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980223105857.007ec2e0@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:58:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:38 AM 2/23/98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: [anip] > I imagine that most of you think that the chances of a deceptive >concession turning up are less than Saddam inviting all his American >friends to a party, so let me put the related case. > > Declarer can see eight tricks, no more, in 3NT. Rather than play it >out he puts the hand down and says "nine tricks". That's immoral and >illegal, everyone shouts. Under which Law? > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= >Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ > > This situation looks like a violation of L72A2 to me: 2. Scoring of Tricks Won A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win, or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose. However, before this law can be applied, one must be able to prove an intentional, rather than an inadvertent, bad claim. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 03:02:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 03:02:16 +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 DAA06256 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 03:02:10 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by coconut.tc.pw.com; id HAA16575; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 07:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown(10.9.16.60) by coconut.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma016544; Mon, 23 Feb 98 07:55:35 -0800 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13047; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:00:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199802231600.LAA13047@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 15:07:00 GMT Subject: Re: 53 cards (or 39) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >SB wrote: >>ardelm @ ozemail.com.au wrote: >>>I frequently get >>>to rule on a case similar to that reported by Dany, where a player bids on >>>the wrong hand, having taken all 13 cards from the wrong board. This is >>>usually discovered when dummy goes down. >>> >>>I have always ruled that although it is strictly illegal to bid without >>>examining the face of your cards, provided *any* hand has been taken from >>>the pocket corresponding to your compass direction, the bidding stands. >>>Perhaps it is time to find out what the correct ruling should be? >>There is certainly some robust commonsense behind that ruling. However, under >>the 1987 code it would have been incorrect, since L17D in summary required the >>TD to cancel the board if the non-offenders objected, and permitted the TD to >>do so otherwise. >> >>Under the 1997 code L17D has been changed from a short law which covers a >>broadish area, to a much longer law which apprears on my first reading to cover >>only the rather narrower area when the error is discovered quite early in the >>auction. >> >>At a guess it is intended to be implicit that if the offender's partner calls >>after the offender has called then the board is cancelled, but I'd be >>interested in other views. If that is the case, then perhaps the law would >>benefit from this point being made explicit. > > Originally I thought the same, but I am not so sure. > > Suppose the bidding goes > > 1S P 2S X > 3C 3D 3S P > P P > >and then someone says to dealer "Why are your cards still in the board?" > > OK, lets look at L17D. > >"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." > > He has called three times, 1S, 3C, P, so these are cancelled. Has >offender's LHO called over a cancelled call? Yes. So then the offender >takes his new hand and calls with it. The Director shall assign >artificial adjusted scores when offender's substituted call differs in >any significant way from his cancelled call? So, if he makes the same >three calls 1S, 3C, P, the board can be played out normally: if he does >not then the board is cancelled and A+A- awarded. > > If the offender has not played the board from which he drew his cards >then the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the >Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores when offender's call >differs in any way from his original cancelled call. Note the word may: >it is very difficult to see how a real result can be obtained in this >case so I would expect A+A- on this one. What is the difference? It >affects the other player's bidding, unlike the first case where the >auction has to be completely unchanged to get a bridge result. BTW, wouldn't L17D be clearer if it were split into L17D1 (dealing with the "current" hand) and L17D2 (dealing with the hand from which the offender took the cards). > I appreciate that L17D makes no reference to more than one call but I >see no reason why it should not apply separately to every call made by >the offender. I quite like this reasoning with two provisos: (i) if that's what I wanted L17D to say I'd have worded it differently; (ii) I had assumed that L25 (changes of call) would prevent any possibility of a call being changed after the offender's partner has called. I suppose there's nothing to stop L17D implicitly overriding L25: a case of the specific overriding the general. Notwithstanding my reservations, I slightly prefer DWS's view and will follow it unless and until someone convinces me otherwise. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 05:20:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 05:20:47 +1100 Received: from x400link.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (outmail.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA06976 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 05:20:18 +1100 Received: from compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.1]) by x400link.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA01255 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:20:07 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22285 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:20:04 +0100 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:20:04 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199802231820.TAA22285@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Sufficient Seed Bit Length? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote: > It is absolutely impossible to determine the seed from just one deal. > Indeed there are 52!x(possible number of randomizers) (=1.3E69 x R) > possible starting positions, and there are just 52!/(13!^4) possible > deals. (=5.3E31) I agree with that statement. But it also means that we must also be able to generate at least 52! different random sequences, something I can't see at all how it should be achived with 48 bit or even 32 bit seeds/PRNGs. > However, using two consecutive deals we are almost there and with three > consecutive deals the amount of information becomes sufficient to be > able to work out the starting position. Or we go up to even larger bit lengths ... > Anyway, in theory a dealing program needs to "rerandomize" after every > three deals. ... with this being a variant of larger bit lengths. But again, we must be sure to know what we really want! For a game at a local club a hardware RNG will be perfect. But for large events we might want to prepare boards in advance or replay selected hands later. So we need all of this only if we have a real interest in the repeatable reconstruction of bridge hands. And even then 36 independent seeds will easily generate 36 independent hands. But imagine working at a small regional tournament, typing in 36 large numbers could be quite a pain and would be error-prone. Altogether it looks as if most indicators are are showing towards using larger bit lengths for various reasons. To cite the GNU initstate() function man page: Current "optimal" values for the size of the state array n are 8, 32, 64, 128, and 256 bytes; other amounts will be rounded down to the nearest known amount. Will 128 - 96 = 32 bit be sufficient to generate a sequence of 36 hands while also hiding the initial seed? Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 05:44:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 05:44:59 +1100 Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07074 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 05:44:47 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb28.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.28]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA10085 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:44:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980223134449.006df654@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:44:49 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: REJECTED In-Reply-To: <34f1472f.2211970@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9802212022.0SMCB02@bbs.hal-pc.org> <9802212022.0SMCB02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:05 PM 2/22/98 +0100, Jesper wrote: >Exactly - good faith has nothing to do with L73F2 rulings, and this is a very >important property of L73F2. > >My point is that IMO a concession does not fall within the category of >"remark, manner, tempo, or the like" as used in L73F2, and that we therefore >cannot adjust using L73F2, but only using the laws about CPUs and hidden >transmission of UI. And in relation to _those_ laws, we need to determine >whether EW's actions were made in good faith or were based on a CPU or some >hidden method of UI transmission. > >Let me try with examples: > >(a) If I hesitate for 20 seconds before playing low from my 32 doubleton when >declarer leads the suit, then I risk an adjusted score. It will be based on >L73F2, and it makes no difference whether I was in good faith (i.e., I fell >asleep) or not. This hesitation is clearly a "remark, manner, tempo, or the >like" for which I had "no demonstrable bridge reason". > >(b) If I choose to discard the H7 instead of the D3 which would be the >"natural" discard on my hand, I do not risk an adjusted score even if I did it >to deceive declarer. This is explicitly allowed by L73E. Unless, of course, >partner and I have a CPU about the meaning of a H7 discard, in which case the >score can be adjusted under L40C - but in order to make that adjustment, the >TD needs to rule that we did have a CPU, not just that we might have had a >CPU. > >(c) If I choose to concede the rest of the tricks instead of playing low from >my Jxx of clubs, which category does it fall in? Is this choice analogous to >the hesitation or to the choice between two discards? IMO, it is somewhere >in-between: I do not believe it to be a L73F2 case, but neither do I believe >that I am allowed to do it on purpose (L73E does not mention concessions). I >believe that the TD needs to rule that there was a CPU or UI in order to >adjust in this case. >-- I very much appreciate your effort to focus on what should be the first question, namely whether L72F2 (or perhaps some other) really should apply. Too often we tend take such things for granted and rush on to the fun stuff, like the bridge analysis. My initial reaction was sympathetic with your position, but the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that this is a potentially legitimate L72F2 case. To me, the canonical case under that law applies to a declarer, holding AJx opposite xxx in a suit in which the K is led, asking about the defenders' lead agreements ("What do you lead from AK?") My understanding has always been that this can be the basis of a score adjustment under L72F2. Note that that there is nothing improper about such a question on the face of it, i.e., it is not an extraneous remark or variation in tempo which is explicitly referenced in that Law. Declarer is entitled to ask the opponents about their lead agreements.Upon reflection, I think the concession is pretty comparable to this question. The bridge analysis is virtually impossible, however, based on the information provided. I should very much like to know about the auction, the play to the first 10 tricks, the form of scoring, and the level of players involved before leaping to any conclusions about the correct ruling. If East is a weak to intermediate player, then I will conclude East fails the "could have known" test. If the bidding and/or play mark East with the remaining clubs (perhaps West has shown out, or maybe E has shown out of the other three suits, or maybe the bidding has marked East with the outstanding clubs or even the single missing HCP), then East probably "could not have known" that the concession would work to his advantage. In fact, the most plausible scenario to me is something like this: East, a decent player, knows that the bidding and or play have marked him with the club J, and assumes North understands this and will finesse, so he concedes. West, having seen this North player in action before, doesn't necessarily know exactly what the issues are, but knows it can never be right to concede to this particular declarer, and so rejects the claim. Indeed, his analysis is correct: North _didn't_ have the count and in the confusion calls for dummy's K (although given all this, that's almost certainly what he was going to do in the first place.) But that's just a wild guess, and not really relevant in any case. There are many points at which the possibility for East to have known the effect of his action could be challenged, and eliminating all of these would require a good deal more information than has been made available. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 08:49:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:49:18 +1100 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07964 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:49:10 +1100 Received: from cph31.ppp.dknet.dk (cph31.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.31]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA00643 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 22:48:50 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: REJECTED Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 22:48:49 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34f3ee90.1706033@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've just realized that I've made the usual mistake and sent this to = David only instead of the list. Apologies to David (now I suddenly understand = why you answered in direct e-mail!). Markus: I'd like to change my vote to = a clear "yes, please set Reply-To to the list". On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 19:52:59 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > So let us change the problem. I'm not sure that I understand your actual change, but I do understand = your point, and it is a very good one. > Suppose the defender with Jxx concedes the rest, *knowing* his partner >will immediately object. No partnership involved: let's make it an >individual: no CPU nor UI! OK, this looks like cheating, but which Law >has he breached? I said earlier that I believe that it is not a matter for L73F2, but that= on the other hand I do not believe you are allowed to deliberately concede = for the sake of deceiving declarer. You've now very nicely demonstrated the flaw in that position: I'm afraid there is no law that supports my idea that you are not allowed to deceive= in this way, unless we accept that this is a L73F2 situation (and if we do = that, we should adjust in the original case, even if we somehow were sure that = EW were in good faith). Unfortunately L68 does not prohibit concessions or claims that the conceder/claimer knows to be invalid. So it seems that we are left with a choice between two positions, each of which is consistent, but neither of which I like: (a) Deceptive conceding/claiming is legal. (b) Conceding/claiming is to be considered a "remark, manner, tempo, or = the like" in the sense of L73F2. I won't go into details about why I don't like (a) - it is probably = obvious. But I will go into detail about why I don't like (b) either: It seems to me that a claim or concession differs from the tempo = variations, ill-placed remarks, and grimaces that we usually use L73F2 on: claims and concessions are a proper part of playing the game. We can tell people who innocently hesitate and receive L73F2 penalties to learn to not hesitate in the situations where it matters, and we can tell people who make remarks or grimaces to learn not to do so, but we cannot = tell people to stop conceding - that would be in direct conflict with L74B4. We could of course tell them to learn not to concede _incorrectly_, but = there is still a difference from the hesitation: when you hesitate, at least = you know that you're hesitating, but when you concede, you don't know that = the concession is incorrect. I find it unreasonable that people who accidentally make an incorrect concession (possibly even because they know L74B4 and feel an obligation = to concede) should risk an adjusted score if the concession turns out to be incorrect in a deceptive way. However, until I succeed in finding a law to support the interpretation I would prefer, I'll change my mind and accept that (b) is less bad than = (a). Now, assume that we've chosen to accept L73F2 for such rulings, and that = East (in a case like David's where West has no influence) somehow succeeds in really convincing the TD that he was in good faith and had no idea what partner had. Can we call this ignorance of the hand a "demonstrable = bridge reason" and thus avoid adjusting against him? - I would like to, but I = think that is stretching the word "demonstrable" too far. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 12:02:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:02:49 +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 MAA08519 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:02:41 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1025433; 23 Feb 98 23:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 23:25:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re Claim In-Reply-To: <9802230741.aa27833@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> I don't think that that footnote 19 helps the understanding. This very >> clearly refers to "only the action of winning or losing of an >> uncompleted trick currently in progress" > >Right. However, footnote 19 was clearly intended as a clarification >of the wording in Law 68, which says: > > For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of > tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one > currently in progress[19]. > >If we're in agreement that the situation described in footnote 19 is >different from the current one and does not apply, then we also have >to agree that the above sentence in Law 68 doesn't apply to the >originally posted situation, either. Errr - so what? That just means that the original posted situation was a claim, and we knew that. The Law you are quoting merely refers to whether something is a claim, not what you do about it. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 15:12:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:12:45 +1100 Received: from mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA09037 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:12:40 +1100 Received: from apfelbaum ([12.69.2.154]) by mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA20847 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 04:11:58 +0000 Message-ID: <004701bd40da$5560d720$9a02450c@apfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 23:11:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01BD40B0.669E15E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BD40B0.669E15E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subscribe ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BD40B0.669E15E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subscribe <Bridge Laws Mailing List>
------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BD40B0.669E15E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 24 22:57:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 22:57:52 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA09927 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 22:57:41 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h9.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id OAA00623; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:57:31 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34F35F03.4773@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:00:03 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Basis_ and_Re_Re_Claim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="BASIS2.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BASIS2.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I was pleased a lot to see numerical responds to my note "Re_claim" although only little part of them was agreed with my position. Mostly they touched only one (or several) examples from my note. But I'd like to underline that in the discussed problems (of the Laws itself) there are two levels of discussion - strategical one and technical. None is better - or worse, none is higher - or lower. They are different, and we need both of them. Second remark - I remind that TDs are only service people in bridge community (but no words - very important service). Problems that TDs resolve are mostly technical and that's why TDs are mostly interested in technical aspects of bridge incidents - and they need discuss the matter between themselves. They even made their own slang, almost not-understandable by average players that have difficulties with the Laws itself . Nevertheless while executing their service function TDs are to tell their ruling that average players by means of an ordinary language. Moreover, nowadays players feel comfortable only when TDs say not only "what should be made" but also "why should it be made". They (players) want to understand "why" - and it provides to necessarity that TDs should not only know what they should rule, but understand why - and know how to explain their ruling to players. Otherwise it will become art for art:)) All examples in my notes were used for demonstration aims only, for making clear my general position - but most of remarks were rather technical. For purpose being better understood I'll try to answer to these remarks - and once more introduce my strategic position. 1 Example. Anne Jones wrote: East on lead and LEADS a Club. Declarer says" I'm going to ruff small in dummy, draw the last trump with the HJ, and the rest of the tricks are mine." West says" if you are ruffing small I will ruff with the H10 and you will lose one trick". 2 Example. John Kuchen wrote: South is playing in a spade contract. Dummy has a stiff heart, with Declarer having Axxxx in hand. On a heart lead, South play to the ace, then RETURNS a heart. Not anticipating the 6-1 heart break, South calls for a low trump before West has the opportunity to play. West produces a trump that is higher than the lowest trump in dummy. In both cases it was reported that current trick STARTED. That means that Law about claim has no power to that very trick (L68) - and moreover, during the discussion Anne pointed on that fact in her remarks. Nevertheless a most of disputants continue to treat the cases as governed by claim's Law. I am sorry once more for my poor English - but due to that poorness I manage to exclude from my arguments in the discussion such a terms as "ridiculous" or "irrelevant" instead logical explanations that would be more fitted to respected and authoritative members of TD's society. Moreover, the same poorness make me understand that Legislator in clear way excludes CURRENT TRICK FROM SPHERE OF CLAIMS OR CONCESSION: L68, first statement "OTHER THAN ONE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS". And absence of the word "only" - or inserting of that word - does not change this clear position of the Legislator. There is no room to interpretation. Really, I do not understand what word in this statement can be understood variously?:)) In reality there happens to players to make claim while trick is not over. And usually potential conflict lies in following tricks. That's why usually TDs and ACs does not notice that current trick is out of the claim's Law. But whenever there appears doubts - current trick SHOULD BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS - OTHER THAN LAW OF CLAIM. I am absolutely agreed with Anne Jones (and with the Legislator!) - cause it is the only position that does not contradict with common sense and is in full agreement with the spirit of the Laws ("the Legend") Anne Jones wrote: >If the trick currently in progress was taken as a separate entity, would >you consider that the small trump had been named, and therefore played? Sure, Anne. And the case is to be ruled by correspondent Laws. >I can and I do. Law 74C3 tells us that it is a violation of procedure to >include the current trick in your claim. It would appear that it is >wrong to claim when there is a trick in progress. >In the particular, which happened at the GBA last week, Declarer did in >fact violate Law74 by stating how he was going to win the current >trick. His statement of claim was quite separate. It is interesting and rather unexpected point. But there might happen that Declarer (by means of claim) makes pressure to opponents - and due to that pressure they may not to notice the problem of the board. It occurred many times. I lost in such situation a lot of tricks - especially in pairs, when round was over and there were no time to rethink. And moreover: by such claim profits of claim's Law (for example - about irrational play) may be transferred to the current trick. For me - it is rather too sophisticate, but quite possible. Adam Beneschan wrote: >However, footnote 19 was clearly intended as a clarification >of the wording in Law 68, which says: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress[19]. " >If we're in agreement that the situation described in footnote 19 is >different from the current one and does not apply, then we also have >to agree that the above sentence in Law 68 doesn't apply to the >originally posted situation, either. Agree about footnote - but it does not provide to agreement about Law 68 - unless you are on the way to agree that current trick is not ruled by claim's Law - in accordance with the Law 68. David Stevenson wrote: >What L68 makes clear is that it must refer to tricks other than the >one in progress - but the word only does not appear. So if you say "I >shall win this trick whatever you do" then you have not claimed, because >it does not refer to tricks other than the current one. If you say "The >rest are mine" then you have claimed, *including the current trick*. Yes - but this current trick is not to be ruled by claim's Law >The Law on claims makes it absolutely clear that there is a >distinction between careless and irrational play. You say that >irrational plays will happen when playing normally? Of course they do, >but that does not affect claims. You are too harsh on people that >claim, harsher than the Laws allow. Right - but all these statements corresponds to claim's Law - not to discussed cases. When it happens to discussed claims and when I say anything about claim's case - then you will be able to estimate if I am too harsh - but these very cases are not claims :)) > L72B1 means we now adjust. Right - but is David sure that the word "could" that used in the L72B1 is more understandable (because of it's eroded modality) without some additional discussion and explanation then that his laconic answer?:)) >Not at all. They asked for a ruling in three totally different >circumstances, and should get three different rulings. Why not? In my note there were 4 examples - 2 discussed cases and 2 from the Bridge Legemd. Not 3 - guess, David did not read it attentively. Moreover - as I know the cases from the Legend WERE NOT ASKED for ruling. But even if in reality one of them was ruled - the Legend teaches us how one should conduct at the table. And it (the Legend) said - THERE WERE NO ASKING FOR RULING. For me - it'll do.:)) >The TD has similar rights according to the Law book. In question of TD-AC I am with Eric Landau (below) - not with David > To go back to John's original question, we always include this >situation [well, we actually use leading towards AQ in dummy, and >calling for the queen as the king appears] on our second Club TD >training day. It is always the high spot of the day, with at least 65% >of those present thinking [and usually saying] that the tutors are >idiots. We then include the identical situation on the third Club TD >training day, when they are assessed, and the number who get it wrong is >alarming! > >The card is played once nominated. It cannot be changed under L45D4B >because it was not an inadvertent designation. The case is totally >dissimilar to Anne's, which is a Claim, and thus dealt with under the >Claim Laws. Absolutely agree with David's position - except last sentence. That's why we make contradicting conclusions in the discussed cases >L74C3 says: > >C. Violations of Procedure > The following are considered violations of procedure: > 3. indicating the expectation or intention of winning or > losing a trick that has not been completed. > > No mention of a claim whatever. Thank you, David, for quotation - cause I have not the last Laws. And now question - what is "claim" if not direct indication of expectation of winning (losing) tricks? :)) Indeed, reason for such Law were something differ from ones, mentioned by Anne (see above), but Anne's reason seems to be also possible >If you are going to quote Proprieties then L74B4 presumably makes it >illegal *not* to claim during a trick if you know all the tricks are >yours! > >B. Etiquette > As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: > 4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he > knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of > disconcerting an opponent. > > It is perfectly normal to claim immediately the realisation that you >are in a position to claim strikes you. L74B4 makes that clear. Not right. 1. In that Law it is said that one should not prolong play for the purpose of disconcerning. 2. There is no indications for "immediately" claim - of course, current trick should be completed before claim - in accordance with L68 (and not contradicting with L74C3 :)) Otherwise that current trick will not be ruled by claim's Law >Let us look at the wording of L68: > >"For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks >under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in >progress." > > If you say "The rest are mine" halfway through trick 10 then you have >made a statement that includes both trick 10 and tricks 11-13. Thus it >is defined as a claim because it refers to tricks other than the one in >progress. True, it does not *only* refer to tricks other than the one >in progress, but that is not what the Law says, so that does not matter. That's why infractions in this 10th trick will be ruled by not-claim's Law > It goes on to define a claim as >"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific >number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." Thank you, David, once more. It is direct indication the expectation of winning tricks, isn't it? > Nothing about "subsequent" tricks. So the claim above is perfectly >valid and refers to trick 10 as well as tricks 11-13 and L68A says so. It is not full truth. Moreover - it might be a camouflage of the truth if I would have a bit doubts - but I have not. The claim was determined in L68A - after remarks L68 where current trick was excluded in advance from any power of subsequent clam's Law. And quite logically the Legislator did not mention here "subsequent tricks". > What about the footnote? >"If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an >uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds ...". > > Now here the word "only" does appear, so this footnote does *not* >apply. It would only have applied if the statement referred to T10 >only. Agree, here David is right > If you read through the whole Law on claims there is no suggestion as >to when you may claim. As a result it has always been accepted that you >may claim whenever you feel like it. L74B4 suggests that should be >sooner rather than later. L74C3 refers to "indicating the expectation >or intention of winning or losing a trick ..." and we know what that >means! It is not full truth for same reasons as above. One may claim whenever he wants - but current trick will be ruled by non-claim's Law. And in case of Law 74 David does understand that L74B4 (as mentioned before 74C3) has more power:)) But there are no mention about immediateness and - L68 is mentioned before L74B4:)) Eric Landau wrote: >The TD and the AC disagree about the underruff, the TD calling it "careless >not irrational" and the AC calling it "irrational". This is a point of >bridge judgement, so the AC's determination prevails. The action as >described is not only proper (and presumably correct), but illustrates the >principal reason why we have ACs. Yes - it is AC who is last authority for ruling in bridge judgement questions. And if this AC had made their decision on basis of correspondent Laws (not claim's Law) - the decision might be discussed - but they would be inside their (AC's) authority. My personal opinion - both Declarers said what they had in their mind - and it was what should be played (in current trick). Such kind of mistake should be paid. But it is only my private opinion - AC might decide differ. ON BASIS OF CORRESPONDENT LAWS - not claim's Law. Herman De Wael wrote: >the Laws explicitly allow players to claim in order not to make >any more silly mistakes. >If you play on, you can revoke. >But if you claim, no revoke is possible any more. >All play after a claim is cancelled and the claim is dealt with. One more "yes". But it is not our two cases. Michael S. Dennis wrote: >You are correct, of course, that mistakes are integral to the game, and >even such silly errors as you have described have been made by most of us >at one time or another. And if, during the play of the "Claim" hand, >Declarer had not claimed but had instead implemented precisely the plan he >had stated, even after a ruff by West with the ten, he would have lost that >trick. The Laws would in that case allow him the opportunity to correct his >error (i.e., calling for a small trump from dummy after W plays the ten), >so long has he does so without pause for thought (L45C4b). That means, he will be allowed to change wrongly named (semantic mistake only) card - but NOT TO CHANGE MIND. And it is AC for making such a rule... My personal opinion - see above. >But L70 instructs us to accept the claim if the objection to it would >require an "irrational" play, rather than one which is merely careless. If >we accept your implicit argument that any mistake at all (such as >underruffing in the posted case) might result from sufficient carelessness, >then the distinction drawn in L70 between "careless" and "irrational" >disappears altogether. > >And the effect of that would be to make claims virtually impossible to >uphold. Consider this possibility: South claims as originally posted, >except that rather than stating "... ruff low in dummy ..." he is more >precise and says "...ruff in dummy with a high enough trump to win the >trick." No problem now, right? But West objects. "Wait a minute, Declarer >might revoke on one of these tricks, in which case we could be entitled to >one or more tricks in compensation." And technically, he is quite possibly >correct. People do, after all, revoke. It is virtually always the result of >carelessness, rather than insanity. And I would suggest that revoking is >considerably more common than the level of mistake that the actual West is >relying upon. > >Do you, as the director, believe that there is a reasonable probability >that South would underruff? Yes, it is theoretically possible, but not >really at all likely. West knows this, and is trying to get an extra trick >by exploiting an insignificant omission in the statement of the claim. I >disagree with Steve that this should be a cause of discipline against West, >but neither should he be rewarded for his mis-understanding of the Laws. Well said - but all it does not matter to current trick (in progress). That's why South made rather significant omission - and West has his rights to get an extra trick - as after revoke. Or after revoke it is fair - and after wrong named card to play it is unfair? There should be one standard: it was not semantic mistakes - it was rather change of mind after they saw unexpected card (or after heard about unexpected card). And it seems (to me) that West is absolutely out of any discipline threat - his conduct was fair and he attempted to execute his rights. Guess that AC's decision damaged him... David Grabiner wrote: >This is governed by the "could have known" rule. Declarer could have >known that his infraction would lead to an Alcatraz Coup; therefore, the >score should be adjusted to the least favourable reasonable result >without the infraction, forcing Declarer to lose this finesse, or play >the ace if LHO's singleton is the six (which it is not reasonable to >lose a trick to.) I'm pleased very much that Alcatraz was recognised. Let me allow pointed once more that all my examples were for demonstrate aims only. But what will happen if 8 of Diamonds is changed for K of Diamonds? Will it be recognisable? And I am not sure that verb "could" (from the Laws) will defend rights of non-offending party in every cases when they. need such defence. Steve Willner wrote: >One Declarer made a bridge mistake; the other made a semantic >mistake in the statement of the claim. > >The spirit of the Laws is to encourage claims and not to punish mistakes >in the _form_ of the claim. Agreed - and our cases are not claims. Then both mistakes should ruled by AC - according with correspondent Laws - not claim's one >Is an adjusted score a penalty? Does not being subject to penalty mean >not being subject to adjustment? (I invite to consider L64C.) Guess - there is adjusted score as attempt to compensate the damage and there is penalty for made infraction. And there may be cases where there are presented both of them simultaneously. A. L. Edwards wrote: >Are we now to make allowances for how cleverly players use >language, rather than how well they play bridge? If this >seems a little snarky, it's because nothing irks me more >than someone who tries to wriggle his way out of his own >mistake using "weasel-words". Good question. That's why I ask all the TD's to use rather common-sense (than sophisticated constructions) for understanding their real intention that were kept in player's mind when there happened conflict situation RCraigH wrote: >Seems that that statement shows knowledge of the existence of one trump >out and the intention to draw it when able. If it is played before anticipated, >part of the claim was still to win that card. Right - but claim concerns to tricks AFTER CURRENT ONE, and that Declarer wanted to overruff in the current trick - in spite of his previous statement. AC may allow him to do that - after corresponding investigation only. My private opinion is written above And now it's high time to return to my main position. I ask you all TDs to answer (not to me - just to yourself before mirror) - do you really think that the Laws are the only source(basis) of your ruling? The same question (even more important) - to members of AC. One may name it as "the spirit of the Laws", another as "interpretation of the Laws", for me it is "the Bridge Legemd". But all these things are based on: - the most common principles of Game (any Game, not only Bridge) - still existing some of the Rules of Bridge's parents:Wist and Wint - human being's standards of behaviour and psychology - historical incidents and examples (especially in Bridge Legemd) - common sense when bridge conflicts are investigated and ruled I'd like to make some quotations that seems to concern the matter. Eric Landau wrote: >For 200 years, legal scholars in the U.S. have debated the meaning of the >"ultimate law of the land", the U.S. Constitution. Our best legal minds >have pondered and debated questions like whether interpretation is to be >guided by the authors' intent or by the literal words they wrote, whether >lists of prohibitions such as those which appear in the Bill of Rights are >exhaustive or merely illustrative, and various other such questions that go >to the matter of how one reads law in general. Yeah - we need to learn how to interpret. And BLML discussion may help us - and the Legislator - to realise better WHAT GAME WE ARE PLAYING NOW and WHAT GAME WE WILL PLAY IN YEARS.:) Michael S. Dennis wrote: >In fairness to Eric, I was the one who first raised the issue of the U.S. >Constitution, in this thread anyway. But in fairness to myself, I raised it >in a personal message to Eric (i.e., between 2 Yanks). > >I am sensitive to the general impression that we Americans tend to think >the world revolves around us, and don't assume that everyone else in BLML >is fascinated with our legal debates. But I do think there might be a >place, in a philosophical discussion about legal analysis, for referring >to the historical context provided by other legal systems. I used the >debates about the U.S. Constitution only out of relative familiarity, and >not because I necessarily regard it as the be-all and end-all of legal >frameworks. Absolutely agree - see above Grattan Endicott wrote: >We have now ascended to a higher plane, Cloud Nine perhaps. >It may be as well to recall that when the laws are being framed the >legislators actually believe, poor fools, that they are making explicit >statements for down to earth application in a minority pastime which >is non-the-less of paramount importance within the esoteric social >group addicted to it. > The legislators believe, perhaps unanimously, -"What, never?" >"Well, hardly ever!" - that what they have provided in the Laws is >the complete 'rules of the game' and what is not in the laws is what >they term 'extraneous'. [If not, from outside of what does the >'extraneous' come, to which the laws refer?]. Some of the legislators, >at least, believe/have believed that in the laws they have said this to >be so ; the minimum expectation would surely be, therefore, that if the >interpretation of the words is genuinely in doubt the intentions of the >legislators should be consulted. It is a pity - but I cannot agree. Nobody in the history could say last truth. I have already reminded that even beside the Holy Bible there exists the Holy Legend. And if the Legislator have some intentions that nobody understands why not). But such issue (under any name - for he did not include in the Laws - he should publish all of them (otherwise example "Commentary") will start the codification of the spirit of the Laws :)) - and I am supporting it in full. Labeo wrote: >That is fair enough and to date a very defensible result > obtained; I cannot help thinking there may also have been > Chinese, Hindus, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and a few > others at parallel tasks for even longer and their results > may be equally valid. A problem could be if they disagree > and, failing a universal and definitive view of the basis > of law on which to determine an interpretation, one would > turn to the appointed authorities of the game for an > arbitration. > >I am against any regulation that would add to the > number of trivialities a player having a poor day > can complain of. All we need is to encourage good > practice - more carrot, less stick. Hmmm - or contrary - more stick, less carrot? It depends on what the game we want to reach in 10 years. And - on what are these "appointed authorities". I may only hope that the discussion may be useful for better understanding the problem you mentioned. Thank you for reading. Sorry for too long text. Hope not to be killfiled:)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 01:23:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 01:23:21 +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 BAA12589 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 01:23:10 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa15304; 24 Feb 98 6:22 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Claim Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 06:22:30 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9802240622.aa15304@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The discussions we've been having about what the wording of Law 68 and other laws means, kind of reminds me of some discussions I've been in over the Book of James, in which the grammar of one verse can be looked at in different ways to reach very different conclusions. The big difference is that James has been dead almost two thousand years, while (despite the fact that many of the people at an average American tournament *look* almost that old) this isn't the case with the bridge Laws. Isn't there someone we can ask who will say, "This is what we meant when we wrote the Law---end of story"? I'm not going to go any more into a grammatical analysis of the wording, although I strongly believe such analysis would support my point of view. However, I do want to say that claiming while a trick is in progress is something that happens very, very frequently---I probably do it about 3-4 times every *session* on the average---and I'd be surprised if the Lawmakers' intent was to outlaw or curtail this very common practice. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 04:52:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:52:42 +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 EAA13562 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:52:34 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013999; 24 Feb 98 17:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:00:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Basis_ and_Re_Re_Claim In-Reply-To: <34F35F03.4773@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >In both cases it was reported that current trick STARTED. That means that >Law about claim has no power to that very trick (L68) - and moreover, >during the discussion Anne pointed on that fact in her remarks. Nevertheless >a most of disputants continue to treat the cases as governed by claim's Law. > >I am sorry once more for my poor English - but due to that poorness I >manage to exclude from my arguments in the discussion such a terms as >"ridiculous" or "irrelevant" instead logical explanations that would be >more fitted to respected and authoritative members of TD's society. >Moreover, the same poorness make me understand that Legislator in >clear way excludes CURRENT TRICK FROM SPHERE OF CLAIMS OR >CONCESSION: L68, first statement "OTHER THAN ONE CURRENTLY >IN PROGRESS". And absence of the word "only" - or inserting of that >word - does not change this clear position of the Legislator. There is no >room to interpretation. Really, I do not understand what word in this >statement can be understood variously?:)) It is time you read these Laws again. L68 [first part] tells you what a claim is, and it is defined by whether it refers to later tricks. But L68A tells you how to deal with a claim, and it does not exclude the current trick: I really think you should read it again. >>Not at all. They asked for a ruling in three totally different >>circumstances, and should get three different rulings. Why not? > >In my note there were 4 examples - 2 discussed cases and 2 from >the Bridge Legemd. Not 3 - guess, David did not read it attentively. Would you like me to tell you how many lines your article was? If you are going to criticise my reading then you should shorten your articles. I have done my best to read and answer them. >>The TD has similar rights according to the Law book. > > In question of TD-AC I am with Eric Landau (below) - not >with David Eric did not say I was wrong: he knows that I am right. >Thank you, David, for quotation - cause I have not the last Laws. They are available on the WWW. See links from the Laws section of my Bridgepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm >It is not full truth. Moreover - it might be a camouflage of the truth if I >would have a bit doubts - but I have not. The claim was determined in >L68A - after remarks L68 where current trick was excluded in advance >from any power of subsequent clam's Law. And quite logically the >Legislator did not mention here "subsequent tricks". Re-read the start of L68: it does not exclude the current trick. >Steve Willner wrote: >>One Declarer made a bridge mistake; the other made a semantic >>mistake in the statement of the claim. >> >>The spirit of the Laws is to encourage claims and not to punish mistakes >>in the _form_ of the claim. > >Agreed - and our cases are not claims. Then both mistakes should ruled >by AC - according with correspondent Laws - not claim's one I do not believe that if a player says "The rest are mine" that you can believe that is not a claim of the rest of the tricks. Even your URBAN LEGEND approach makes this a claim of the rest of the tricks. >And now it's high time to return to my main position. I ask you all TDs to >answer (not to me - just to yourself before mirror) - do you really think that >the Laws are the only source(basis) of your ruling? The same question (even >more important) - to members of AC. > >One may name it as "the spirit of the Laws", another as "interpretation of >the Laws", for me it is "the Bridge Legemd". All of these make it clear that a claim of all the tricks is a claim of all the tricks. You lose both ways, Vitold, either you follow the exact wording of the Law, which explicitly states it is a claim, or you use your commonsense approach, which means it is clearly a claim. >Thank you for reading. Sorry for too long text. Hope not to be killfiled:)) I would advise you to stick to a subject and a hand for one article. If not, please do not criticise your readers for the way they have read your article. -- 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 Feb 25 05:01:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 05:01:42 +1100 Received: from willow.us.pw.com (pw20.pw9.com [208.141.52.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA13600 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 05:01:34 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id NAA23233; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:03:32 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma023164; Tue, 24 Feb 98 13:03:15 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09515; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:59:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199802241759.MAA09515@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 15:57:34 GMT Subject: Re: Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk eajewm @ globalnet.co.uk wrote: >S is declarer in a heart contract. >Dummy's last 6 cards are >S-AK H- J765 >E is on lead and leads a Club. >Declarer says" I'm going to ruff small in dummy, >draw the last trump with the HJ, and the rest of the tricks >are mine." >West says" if you are ruffing small I will ruff with the H10 >and you will lose one trick". >TD ruled L45 "You have nominated a small trump so that card is played. >It is careless not irrational to play a small trump, you have already >done so.You lose one trick" >AC ruled L70 "It would be irrational to under-ruff.You make all six >tricks" >Your comments please. > >I pressed the button too soon. I intended to say that while I was not >the director in this case, I had some sympathy. Law 68 says that the >claim does not apply to the trick in progress which continues regularly. >This case could now be seen to be similar to that posted by John A >Kuchenbrod_Call from Dummy out of Turn? >Would this observation make any difference to your thinking? and, rather later, adam @ flash.irvine.com wrote: >The discussions we've been having about what the wording of Law 68 and >other laws means, kind of reminds me of some discussions I've been in >over the Book of James, in which the grammar of one verse can be >looked at in different ways to reach very different conclusions. > >The big difference is that James has been dead almost two thousand >years, while (despite the fact that many of the people at an average >American tournament *look* almost that old) this isn't the case with >the bridge Laws. Isn't there someone we can ask who will say, "This >is what we meant when we wrote the Law---end of story"? > >I'm not going to go any more into a grammatical analysis of the >wording, although I strongly believe such analysis would support my >point of view. However, I do want to say that claiming while a trick >is in progress is something that happens very, very frequently---I >probably do it about 3-4 times every *session* on the average---and >I'd be surprised if the Lawmakers' intent was to outlaw or curtail >this very common practice. I'm not old enough to say "This is what we meant when we wrote the Law", and indeed I was not and never have been involved in writing them. All I can say is that: 1) I started TDing nearly 20 years ago, and I until this thread cannot recall hearing it argued that L68 to L71 (in particular footnote 20 (to L69B)) do not apply to the "current trick" element of a claim. 2) IMO on the plain words of the Laws David Stevenson is right (i.e. that L68 to L71 do apply to the "current trick" element of a claim). 3) I can say with some confidence that this is the view of the EBU's Laws & Ethics Committee (this point is only relevant to English TDs). Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 05:22:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 05:22:47 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA13685 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 05:22:41 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2017874; 24 Feb 98 18:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:00:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Basis_ and_Re_Re_Claim In-Reply-To: <34F35F03.4773@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >In both cases it was reported that current trick STARTED. That means that >Law about claim has no power to that very trick (L68) - and moreover, >during the discussion Anne pointed on that fact in her remarks. Nevertheless >a most of disputants continue to treat the cases as governed by claim's Law. > >I am sorry once more for my poor English - but due to that poorness I >manage to exclude from my arguments in the discussion such a terms as >"ridiculous" or "irrelevant" instead logical explanations that would be >more fitted to respected and authoritative members of TD's society. >Moreover, the same poorness make me understand that Legislator in >clear way excludes CURRENT TRICK FROM SPHERE OF CLAIMS OR >CONCESSION: L68, first statement "OTHER THAN ONE CURRENTLY >IN PROGRESS". And absence of the word "only" - or inserting of that >word - does not change this clear position of the Legislator. There is no >room to interpretation. Really, I do not understand what word in this >statement can be understood variously?:)) It is time you read these Laws again. L68 [first part] tells you what a claim is, and it is defined by whether it refers to later tricks. But L68A tells you how to deal with a claim, and it does not exclude the current trick: I really think you should read it again. >>Not at all. They asked for a ruling in three totally different >>circumstances, and should get three different rulings. Why not? > >In my note there were 4 examples - 2 discussed cases and 2 from >the Bridge Legemd. Not 3 - guess, David did not read it attentively. Would you like me to tell you how many lines your article was? If you are going to criticise my reading then you should shorten your articles. I have done my best to read and answer them. >>The TD has similar rights according to the Law book. > > In question of TD-AC I am with Eric Landau (below) - not >with David Eric did not say I was wrong: he knows that I am right. >Thank you, David, for quotation - cause I have not the last Laws. They are available on the WWW. See links from the Laws section of my Bridgepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm >It is not full truth. Moreover - it might be a camouflage of the truth if I >would have a bit doubts - but I have not. The claim was determined in >L68A - after remarks L68 where current trick was excluded in advance >from any power of subsequent clam's Law. And quite logically the >Legislator did not mention here "subsequent tricks". Re-read the start of L68: it does not exclude the current trick. >Steve Willner wrote: >>One Declarer made a bridge mistake; the other made a semantic >>mistake in the statement of the claim. >> >>The spirit of the Laws is to encourage claims and not to punish mistakes >>in the _form_ of the claim. > >Agreed - and our cases are not claims. Then both mistakes should ruled >by AC - according with correspondent Laws - not claim's one I do not believe that if a player says "The rest are mine" that you can believe that is not a claim of the rest of the tricks. Even your URBAN LEGEND approach makes this a claim of the rest of the tricks. >And now it's high time to return to my main position. I ask you all TDs to >answer (not to me - just to yourself before mirror) - do you really think that >the Laws are the only source(basis) of your ruling? The same question (even >more important) - to members of AC. > >One may name it as "the spirit of the Laws", another as "interpretation of >the Laws", for me it is "the Bridge Legemd". All of these make it clear that a claim of all the tricks is a claim of all the tricks. You lose both ways, Vitold, either you follow the exact wording of the Law, which explicitly states it is a claim, or you use your commonsense approach, which means it is clearly a claim. >Thank you for reading. Sorry for too long text. Hope not to be killfiled:)) I would advise you to stick to a subject and a hand for one article. If not, please do not criticise your readers for the way they have read your article. -- 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 Feb 25 05:32:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 05:32:43 +1100 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA13734 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 05:32:35 +1100 Received: from idt.net (ppp-3.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.208.147]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA17813; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:45:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34F303C5.FE894918@idt.net> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:30:45 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim References: <9802240622.aa15304@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a matter of fact, I frequently play a card simply to clarify my intentions, and then claim. For instance, I'll play the card that pulls the last trump and claim before the trick is complete, of lead a card to dummies long suit, so the opp's can see that I have such a card. I'll bet I mostly claim in the middle of a trick, and it never occurred to me that THAT trick might not be involved in the claim. This all seems very "lawyerly" to me. Surely there is a better way to proceed than to go around splitting hairs this way. Irv Adam Beneschan wrote: > > The discussions we've been having about what the wording of Law 68 and > other laws means, kind of reminds me of some discussions I've been in > over the Book of James, in which the grammar of one verse can be > looked at in different ways to reach very different conclusions. > > The big difference is that James has been dead almost two thousand > years, while (despite the fact that many of the people at an average > American tournament *look* almost that old) this isn't the case with > the bridge Laws. Isn't there someone we can ask who will say, "This > is what we meant when we wrote the Law---end of story"? > > I'm not going to go any more into a grammatical analysis of the > wording, although I strongly believe such analysis would support my > point of view. However, I do want to say that claiming while a trick > is in progress is something that happens very, very frequently---I > probably do it about 3-4 times every *session* on the average---and > I'd be surprised if the Lawmakers' intent was to outlaw or curtail > this very common practice. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 07:56:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 07:56:23 +1100 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14336 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 07:56:17 +1100 Received: from mike ([38.30.134.220]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA19403 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:56:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980224155623.006922ac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:56:23 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Couldnt POSSIBLY have known (was REJECTED) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have thought more about the issues raised in the "REJECTED" thread (concession by E, rejected by W, possibly deceiving declarer about remaining cards). Although I am still concerned, along with Jesper, about whether L73F2 covers such problems, I am now inclined to rule for EW for a different reason: it is simply not plausible that East "could have known" that the concession would work to his advantage. My interest here is in deconstructing the meaning and intended application of that particular phrase. As David has pointed out, it is certainly possible that EW have some nefarious agreement about making and then rejecting spurious claims. Indeed, this seems like the only way that East could possibly have anticipated that the concession could earn him a trick. Is this kind of possibility meant to be included in the "could have known" construction? I think not. Otherwise, the "could have known" analysis is worthless. Whatever the bridge facts of a particular L73F2 case, it is _always_ possible that the presumptive offender could have known his action would work deceptively to his advantage. He "could have known", because he saw the board played at another table, or overheard it discussed in the men's room, or has a confederate at the previous table passing him key information by the sort-order of the cards in the board ;-)> . If this phrase is assumed to have any meaning at all, it seems to me it must be read as "could have known, based on the information legally available at the time of the action." And it is quite impossible for me to see how that standard can form the basis of an indictment of East's concession. As for West's action, it is beyond reproach unless EW did have a CPU about fake concessions. In rejecting a concession, a player is, in effect, arguing that his partner may have conceded prematurely; that the defense might yet take one or more tricks that partner has conceded. In fact, this particular West was simply correct: the defense _did_ have a trick coming, depending on declarer's action, which as it happened, was not the winning one. The actual West hand is not germane to the issue. If West had held the J singleton or doubleton, and declarer had finessed, the situation would have been the same. Score stands, but I would not be above filing a Recorder form on the incident, just for future reference. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 10:18:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:18:31 +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 KAA14638 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:18:18 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008080; 24 Feb 98 22:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:43:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Couldnt POSSIBLY have known (was REJECTED) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980224155623.006922ac@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >I have thought more about the issues raised in the "REJECTED" thread >(concession by E, rejected by W, possibly deceiving declarer about >remaining cards). Although I am still concerned, along with Jesper, about >whether L73F2 covers such problems, I am now inclined to rule for EW for a >different reason: it is simply not plausible that East "could have known" >that the concession would work to his advantage. My interest here is in >deconstructing the meaning and intended application of that particular phrase. > >As David has pointed out, it is certainly possible that EW have some >nefarious agreement about making and then rejecting spurious claims. >Indeed, this seems like the only way that East could possibly have >anticipated that the concession could earn him a trick. Is this kind of >possibility meant to be included in the "could have known" construction? It is not impossible to come up with a construction where East expects a concession to work to his advantage without any agreement. If he knows that his partner has a winner that will make he can rely on even an unknown partner to object to his concession. More obviously, what about a false claim? >I think not. Otherwise, the "could have known" analysis is worthless. >Whatever the bridge facts of a particular L73F2 case, it is _always_ >possible that the presumptive offender could have known his action would >work deceptively to his advantage. He "could have known", because he saw >the board played at another table, or overheard it discussed in the men's >room, or has a confederate at the previous table passing him key >information by the sort-order of the cards in the board ;-)> . > >If this phrase is assumed to have any meaning at all, it seems to me it >must be read as "could have known, based on the information legally >available at the time of the action." And it is quite impossible for me to >see how that standard can form the basis of an indictment of East's >concession. If East knows that his partner will not accept a false concession [think of East conceding the rest knowing his partner has the trump ace] then it is clear there are cases that a false concession would work to his benefit and he "could have known it, based on the information legally available at the time of the action." Again, more obviously, think of a false claim. Declarer could certainly know that it is to his advantage. So the argument is not whether he could have known, because we can certainly find cases where he could know that a false claim or concession might work in his favour. The question is whether it is illegal. Is it an irregularity to make a false claim or concession? I think it probably is. Jesper does not seem to. >As for West's action, it is beyond reproach unless EW did have a CPU about >fake concessions. In rejecting a concession, a player is, in effect, >arguing that his partner may have conceded prematurely; that the defense >might yet take one or more tricks that partner has conceded. In fact, this >particular West was simply correct: the defense _did_ have a trick coming, >depending on declarer's action, which as it happened, was not the winning >one. The actual West hand is not germane to the issue. If West had held the >J singleton or doubleton, and declarer had finessed, the situation would >have been the same. True. For West to be involved I believe does need a CPU. However, as explained, I think we must look at the possibilities of false claims/concessions without agreement. >Score stands, but I would not be above filing a Recorder form on the >incident, just for future reference. Now hold it! Has something illegal happened? If you can find a Law against it then perhaps we should adjust. If you cannot find that it is illegal, what is the Recorder form for? -- 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 Feb 25 10:35:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:35:31 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14705 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:35:22 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1009657; 24 Feb 98 23:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:00:32 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote: >>>Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >>>>I'm not yet convinced that there is any irregularity in this case. I do not >>>>find it obvious that a concession or partner's rejection of it counts as "a >>>>remark, manner, tempo, or like" in the sense of L73F2. Concessions and >>>>rejections of them are part of the play itself (though not to such a degree >>>>that L73E allows us to use them deliberately for deceptive purposes). > >>Labeo: Irregularity? Well, strictly there is a breach of >> Law 74C3 perhaps. > > Now you are outlawing all claims and concessions! Labeo: No! I am saying it is incorrect to make a claim which includes a trick commenced but for which the outcome is uncertain. I understood that is exactly what the claimer did in this case, and in my opinion he is in breach of Law 74C3; it seems an appropriate application of the law, and fits its wording exactly. -- Labeo "The dwarf sees further than the giant, when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on." From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 12:03:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:03:52 +1100 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA15137 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:03:47 +1100 Received: from cph9.ppp.dknet.dk (cph9.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.9]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA20826 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 02:03:04 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 02:03:04 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34f36422.606592@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199802241759.MAA09515@fern.us.pw.com> In-Reply-To: <199802241759.MAA09515@fern.us.pw.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 24 Feb 98 15:57:34 GMT, Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com = wrote: >1) I started TDing nearly 20 years ago, and I until this thread cannot = recall=20 >hearing it argued that L68 to L71 (in particular footnote 20 (to L69B)) = do not=20 >apply to the "current trick" element of a claim. I've only been TDing for about 11 years. I've never heard it argued = either. I've never heard of a ruling based on that interpretation of L68. >2) IMO on the plain words of the Laws David Stevenson is right (i.e. = that L68=20 >to L71 do apply to the "current trick" element of a claim). I agree. I see nothing at all in L68 to suggest that the current trick = is not included in a claim (and it would make no sense to not include it). --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 12:03:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:03:38 +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 MAA15129 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:03:21 +1100 Received: from cph9.ppp.dknet.dk (cph9.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.9]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA20822 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 02:03:02 +0100 (MET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: REJECTED Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 02:03:01 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <34f467e7.1571189@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9802212022.0SMCB02@bbs.hal-pc.org> <9802212022.0SMCB02@bbs.hal-pc.org> <3.0.1.32.19980223134449.006df654@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980223134449.006df654@pop.mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:44:49 -0500, "Michael S. Dennis" = wrote: >My initial reaction was sympathetic with your position, but the more I >thought about it, the more I became convinced that this is a potentially >legitimate L72F2 case. To me, the canonical case under that law applies = to >a declarer, holding AJx opposite xxx in a suit in which the K is led, >asking about the defenders' lead agreements ("What do you lead from = AK?") >My understanding has always been that this can be the basis of a score >adjustment under L72F2.=20 Correct (it's L73F2). >Note that that there is nothing improper about such >a question on the face of it, i.e., it is not an extraneous remark or >variation in tempo which is explicitly referenced in that Law. Declarer= is >entitled to ask the opponents about their lead agreements.Upon = reflection, >I think the concession is pretty comparable to this question. I think so too. There is some difference, though: Declarers will almost never ask such deceptive questions by innocent mistake. Declarer can see 26 cards, and usually knows whether or not a question might mislead an opponent; if he accidentally does ask a misleading question, nothing stops him from immediately apologizing and telling the opponents what he has in the = suit. But you are right - the difference is small. And just like the = concession case, it is hard to find any law other than L73F2 to make this kind of deliberate deception illegal at all. The real solution to the L68 situation would of course be a law change to= stop play after any claim or concession. Playing on with UI probably almost = always gives the same result as the one the TD would get adjudicating a claim/concession. And almost nobody would mind losing a trick because = they or their partner made in bad concession - but they certainly mind being = accused of "Illegal Deception", which is still the term used by the headline of = L73F2. And while I'm dreaming of laws changes, it would also be nice if L73E = said that the legal deceptions mentioned there are the _only_ legal ways to = deceive opponents. This would also very clearly mean that you are not allowed to= lie to your opponents (a discussion we had recently). >The bridge analysis is virtually impossible, however, based on the >information provided. Yes. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 13:32:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:32:08 +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 NAA15381 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:31:59 +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 UAA15146 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:31:25 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0SSI9030 Tue, 24 Feb 98 20:29:42 Message-ID: <9802242029.0SSI903@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 20:29:42 Subject: COULDNT POSSI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After reading the postings of this thread it has become apparent that the interpretation is that the rejecting side can not damage declarer because they could not have known that if the concession is rejected that declarer might make incorrect inferences resulting in changing their line of play unless they had information from unauthorized sources or used a CPU. In addition, there is immense concern that making participants who make bad concessions culpable will greatly reduce the making of claims and a subsequent decrease in the enjoyment of the game. Taking things in reverse order. It seems to me that indemnifying makers of bad concessions will increase the propensity of players to make bad concessions more often. To my thinking, it is best for the game for players to make good concessions when able. if we increase the number of concessions, but the increase is predominately in the number of bad concessions then the net result is that this behavior will be perpetuated while at the same time causing the victims of such perpetrations to feel unfairly disadvantaged. For the hand which started this discussion, the only effect I can make of the conceding pair's actions is that declarer will never be able to take the maximum number of tricks when play is resumed. This is directly a result of the actions of the concession and the rejection. I find nothing in L73F2 which says that those players had to know what the effect of their actions might be. I find that if either player had asked themselves the question, 'may declarer infer something about the unseen hands that is not true if I concede/ reject' the answer is a definite yes. Here are the bridge reasons. The unseen outstanding clubs are the J987. East is looking at the J97 and the location of the 8 is unknown. With declarer's lead of a club, east can tell that all of the remaining tricks will be CLUB tricks. If declarer plays low he will win all the tricks. Before east plays east concedes. What are the possible inferences from declarer's point of view? [a] that east has the Jx or [b] xx and can tell that the partner can have at most Jx.. it can not make any sense to concede holding jxx, the actual holding. And what about west's rejection. West is out of clubs and can tell that any finesse will succeed and that declarer must have the missing club because partner can not have 4 clubs with only three cards in his hand. With declarer's lead of a club, west can tell that all of the remaining tricks will be CLUB tricks and they have no clubs in their hand. If west rejects the concession what inferences will declarer make? That west has the J and that declarer must play for the drop to take the rest of the tricks. It has been argued that EW could not possibly have known that their actions could have the effect of giving declarer incorrect inferences based on information solely from the play of the hand. The above analysis shows just the opposite. But it is not natural for east to ask himself prior to the concession the question that will result in not conceding if he has it in his mind to concede. And the same is to be said for west. This is fine. Do the laws require or expect that a thorough analysis be made before making a concession, and if the analysis is wrong, we throw'em in jail? No. EW have not done anything wrong; but that does not mean that their actions did not damage the other side. It is the director and AC who must analyze the situation and determine if damage has resulted and if so, how to remedy it. The point has been made that the only way to repair damage to declarer is to first prove that EW were dishonest and cheats; in other words, it is ok for east to make the mistake east did, no matter what impact it has on declarer. If there is no proof of dishonesty, then there must therefore be no problem and therefore no damage. I find it difficult, no, impossible, to find such a principle workable while my arguments are valid. When players make a bridge blunder, there is no offense. But when the blunder is made in such a way that it causes damage, then it does not make the perpetrators wrong, but is does create a situation to be adjudicated for the purpose of restoring equity. The purpose of restoring equity is not to label such players dishonest or unethical, it is to restore equity. When unscrupulous behavior arises, dealing with it should be done in a different venue. But unscrupulous behavior should not be a precondition for adjustment, though it can be a condition. Also, the argument does not hold water that because concessions and rejections are part of the game they can not be cause for adjustment [except in cases of unscrupulous behavior]. Correcting revokes, misbids and a host of other activities are part of the game, but that does not mean that unscrupulous behavior must be present for an adjustment to be made. For that matter, the fact that adjustments to restore equity are made in such cases has not prevented such activities from occurring on a frequent basis. Some have said that it would be useful to know the original hand. Here it is, the bidding and play are unknown. EW have counted diamonds. #3 D-S V-EW 4S by North S AKJ83 H AK8 D 97 C 852 Q965 7 972 QJT5 K8652 JT3 4 AJ976 T42 643 AQ4 KQT3 Roger Pewick by Mike..... without quotes I have thought more about the issues raised in the "REJECTED" thread (concession by E, rejected by W, possibly deceiving declarer about remaining cards). Although I am still concerned, along with Jesper, about whether L73F2 covers such problems, I am now inclined to rule for EW for a different reason: it is simply not plausible that East "could have known" that the concession would work to his advantage. My interest here is in deconstructing the meaning and intended application of that particular phrase. As David has pointed out, it is certainly possible that EW have some nefarious agreement about making and then rejecting spurious claims. Indeed, this seems like the only way that East could possibly have anticipated that the concession could earn him a trick. Is this kind of possibility meant to be included in the "could have known" construction? I think not. Otherwise, the "could have known" analysis is worthless. Whatever the bridge facts of a particular L73F2 case, it is _always_ possible that the presumptive offender could have known his action would work deceptively to his advantage. He "could have known", because he saw the board played at another table, or overheard it discussed in the men's room, or has a confederate at the previous table passing him key information by the sort-order of the cards in the board ;-)> . If this phrase is assumed to have any meaning at all, it seems to me it must be read as "could have known, based on the information legally available at the time of the action." And it is quite impossible for me to see how that standard can form the basis of an indictment of East's concession. As for West's action, it is beyond reproach unless EW did have a CPU about fake concessions. In rejecting a concession, a player is, in effect, arguing that his partner may have conceded prematurely; that the defense might yet take one or more tricks that partner has conceded. In fact, this particular West was simply correct: the defense _did_ have a trick coming, depending on declarer's action, which as it happened, was not the winning one. The actual West hand is not germane to the issue. If West had held the J singleton or doubleton, and declarer had finessed, the situation would have been the same. Score stands, but I would not be above filing a Recorder form on the incident, just for future reference. Mike Dennis R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org __ ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 13:52:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:52:15 +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 NAA15459 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:52:06 +1100 Received: from mike ([38.30.134.200]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA21757 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:51:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980224214920.006c9e00@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:49:20 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Couldnt POSSIBLY have known (was REJECTED) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980224155623.006922ac@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:43 PM 2/24/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>I have thought more about the issues raised in the "REJECTED" thread >>(concession by E, rejected by W, possibly deceiving declarer about >>remaining cards). Although I am still concerned, along with Jesper, about >>whether L73F2 covers such problems, I am now inclined to rule for EW for a >>different reason: it is simply not plausible that East "could have known" >>that the concession would work to his advantage. My interest here is in >>deconstructing the meaning and intended application of that particular phrase. >> >>As David has pointed out, it is certainly possible that EW have some >>nefarious agreement about making and then rejecting spurious claims. >>Indeed, this seems like the only way that East could possibly have >>anticipated that the concession could earn him a trick. Is this kind of >>possibility meant to be included in the "could have known" construction? > > It is not impossible to come up with a construction where East expects >a concession to work to his advantage without any agreement. If he >knows that his partner has a winner that will make he can rely on even >an unknown partner to object to his concession. > Although I agree it might be possible, in theory, to construct such a scenario, it doesn't apply in the present case. The only possible trick was in East's own hand. > More obviously, what about a false claim? > I didn't respond to your earlier question along these lines, because Hirsch had pretty much expressed my views. Yes, an intentional false claim is illegal, because it violates the prohibition against accepting a trick your side could not possibly have won. It is likewise illegal to knowingly falsify the score on the scoreslip to your advantage. But neither case is apt to present itself for adjudication any time soon. Enforcement of these provisions is essentially impossible, absent any confession from the perpetrator. The fact is, people make bad claims all the time, and not infrequently err in recording the score. Virtually all of these mistakes are innocent, even if, as it seems, a preponderence seem to be in favor of the claimer (or score recorder, as the case may be). >>I think not. Otherwise, the "could have known" analysis is worthless. >>Whatever the bridge facts of a particular L73F2 case, it is _always_ >>possible that the presumptive offender could have known his action would >>work deceptively to his advantage. He "could have known", because he saw >>the board played at another table, or overheard it discussed in the men's >>room, or has a confederate at the previous table passing him key >>information by the sort-order of the cards in the board ;-)> . >> >>If this phrase is assumed to have any meaning at all, it seems to me it >>must be read as "could have known, based on the information legally >>available at the time of the action." And it is quite impossible for me to >>see how that standard can form the basis of an indictment of East's >>concession. > > If East knows that his partner will not accept a false concession >[think of East conceding the rest knowing his partner has the trump ace] >then it is clear there are cases that a false concession would work to >his benefit and he "could have known it, based on the information >legally available at the time of the action." > > Again, more obviously, think of a false claim. Declarer could >certainly know that it is to his advantage. > > So the argument is not whether he could have known, because we can >certainly find cases where he could know that a false claim or >concession might work in his favour. The question is whether it is >illegal. Is it an irregularity to make a false claim or concession? I >think it probably is. Jesper does not seem to. > I think the false claim and the false concession are different in a number of respects. Although the intentional false claim, as I argued above, is certainly illegal, it will in practice simply be handled as a bad claim. In any case, play ceases, so there will be no opportunity for the false claim to effect a deception in the opponent's later actions. Thus the false claim will generally not be a L73F2 case. If your argument is that the opponents could be deceived into accepting the false claim, then either a) we will never hear about it or b) the opponents will subsequently realize their error, and if reported within the proper time frame, can request a correction. The point is that the laws for redress of potential damages arising from bad claims are sufficient to protect the NOS without resorting to a L73F2 analysis. Second, a false concession (in giving tricks to the opponents) is, on its face, much less likely to be an action that could work to your advantage, compared to a claim for some number of the remaining tricks. Also, although I accept in principle your notion that a false concession, together with parther's (perhaps unplanned) rejection _could_ be adjudicated under L73F2, I doubt in practice that this comes up. Bad claims, intentional or otherwise, occur with some frequency. > >>Score stands, but I would not be above filing a Recorder form on the >>incident, just for future reference. > > Now hold it! Has something illegal happened? If you can find a Law >against it then perhaps we should adjust. If you cannot find that it is >illegal, what is the Recorder form for? > As I understand it, the Recorder form is not simply for making a record of established infractions, but to build a record of actions which are potentially problematic, even if not directly subject to score adjustment or other corrective action. For example, my understanding is that a recorder form is an appropriate vehicle for noting that a given pair has psyched in a particular situation. Though certainly not illegal, if a record develops that this pair psyches regularly in similar situations, then there is a basis for asserting that a CPU is in place. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 14:03:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:03:13 +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 OAA15524 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:02:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020912; 25 Feb 98 2:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:12:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Jens' little teaser In-Reply-To: <199801312120.WAA18152@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >A little teaser for BLML regulars who don't care about all this >technical stuff: > >A player goes off to the toilet in mid-session. On the way, he >deliberately finds board 29, takes out the hands, memorizes them >with the intent to use his advantage in later play, and puts >everything back. As TD, you find out about this. How do you rule. >What law do you refer to. Can't be L16B, can it? No, because that refers to a player "accidentally" receiving information. I think that I will read out the first two sentences of L16. "Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." I then say that despite none of L16A, L16B nor L16C being relevant, I am ruling that in this case a player is basing his calls and plays on extraneous information, and I consider it is an infraction of Law. I then rule under L91 and throw him through the nearest window. -- 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 Feb 25 14:06:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:06:39 +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 OAA15544 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:06:29 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2020917; 25 Feb 98 2:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 02:50:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Nanki Poo Reply-To: Quango Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bbbrooooooooooowwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Evelyn Adam Beneschan Mango David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Mary Buckland Neko, Four foot two Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey Michael Farebrother Nikita, Sigma, Shadow Wally Farley Andrew, Panda, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Joseph, Hershey Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Depo, Bridget Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Bill, Albert, Cleo, Sabrina Eric Landau Glory, Wesley, Shadow, Query Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Grant Sterling Panther David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo plus, of course Selassie Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 15:15:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA15656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:15:08 +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 PAA15651 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:14:44 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000291; 25 Feb 98 4:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:46:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Couldnt POSSIBLY have known (was REJECTED) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980224214920.006c9e00@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> More obviously, what about a false claim? >I didn't respond to your earlier question along these lines, because Hirsch >had pretty much expressed my views. Yes, an intentional false claim is >illegal, because it violates the prohibition against accepting a trick your >side could not possibly have won. It is likewise illegal to knowingly >falsify the score on the scoreslip to your advantage. I think you are referring to L72A2: Consider: xxx -- -- QJ3 -- T92 -- -- -- -- -- AK8 -- -- -- -- "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win, or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Now to claim the rest of the tricks does not breach L72A2 because he can win three tricks if the oppos unblock the Q, J, T and 9 of spades. So what is illegal in claiming three tricks? >But neither case is apt to present itself for adjudication any time soon. >Enforcement of these provisions is essentially impossible, absent any >confession from the perpetrator. The fact is, people make bad claims all >the time, and not infrequently err in recording the score. Virtually all of >these mistakes are innocent, even if, as it seems, a preponderence seem to >be in favor of the claimer (or score recorder, as the case may be). This is at variance with the basic approach of the TD. We do not prove that irregularities occur: we judge that they do. So we enforce based on our judgement of what occurred. However, we do need to be sure that such things are illegal before we can take action. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 15:35:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA15729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:35:03 +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 PAA15723 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:34:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000289; 25 Feb 98 4:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 03:28:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >Labeo: No! I am saying it is incorrect to make a claim which > includes a trick commenced but for which the outcome is > uncertain. I understood that is exactly what the claimer > did in this case, and in my opinion he is in breach of > Law 74C3; it seems an appropriate application of the law, > and fits its wording exactly. According to your argument, if LHO leads a spade, and the position is x x Ax Kx you cannot claim because the outcome is uncertain. This is not bridge: this is the stuff that nightmares are made of. >-- Labeo "The dwarf sees further than the giant, > when he has the giant's shoulder to > mount on." Perhaps a space and carriage return after the dash-dash? -- 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 Feb 25 20:40:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 20:40:17 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA16328 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 20:40:11 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-99.uunet.be [194.7.9.99]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA03674 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:40:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34F2AA65.E255EE3C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:09:25 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Sufficient Seed Bit Length? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199802231820.TAA22285@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Kretschmar wrote: > > Herman DE WAEL wrote: > > > It is absolutely impossible to determine the seed from just one deal. > > Indeed there are 52!x(possible number of randomizers) (=1.3E69 x R) > > possible starting positions, and there are just 52!/(13!^4) possible > > deals. (=5.3E31) > > I agree with that statement. But it also means that we must also be able to > generate at least 52! different random sequences, something I can't see at > all how it should be achived with 48 bit or even 32 bit seeds/PRNGs. > No we don't ! If we have more than enough possible starting positions, we can have any pseudo-RNG churning out random numbers and produce a completely random hand. For example, even a RNG that would always return 0, and thus take the first card of the pack, would generate a perfectly random hand probided the initial sequence of the pack is randomized (of course the next hand will be the same as the first, but that is not what I mean to say). With a stupid RNG like that, you can easily determine the next card, but still you cannot determine the starting position (=52 cards sequence) from the result (=4 sorted hands). Now take for the second hand a slightly less simple RNG, one which always takes the second card of the pack. Now even knowing the first hand, you cannot easily determine the second one, because you still do not know the initial card sequence. And even the first two deals do not provide enough data to completely determine the starting position. But with a third deal, you now have enough data to recompose the initial state and given the algorithm, you can now determine the fourth hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 25 21:45:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:45:19 +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 VAA16460 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:44:53 +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 KAA21628 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:44:19 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA04772; Wed, 25 Feb 98 10:44:18 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980225115013.007b4a00@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:50:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:00 24/02/98 +0000, you wrote: >> >I'm not yet convinced that there is any irregularity in this case. I do not >find it obvious that a concession or partner's rejection of it counts as "a >remark, manner, tempo, or like" in the sense of L73F2. Concessions and >rejections of them are part of the play itself (though not to such a degree >that L73E allows us to use them deliberately for deceptive purposes). > > > Now you are outlawing all claims and concessions! > > ... A simple opinion about all the discussions around claims and concessions: One conclusion seems to be the laws are very unclear and, in some way, contradictory on this subject; the trick in process seems to be possibly included within a claim but the wording is so bad that everybody is not convinced and, if it could be proven it was not, it would be very detrimental to the spirit of the game because of everybody's habits about claims. The contradiction I see is this: somewhere it is said that play ceases after a claim or a concession, and elsewhere that a defender can object to a concession made by his partner, in which case the concession is rejected and ... play continues. I think we need an harmonization between these conflicting situations and I suggest it would be a better world if, after a claim or a concession, play would always cease. Claiming would be equivalent to showing one's cards to everybody. Partner can object and try to get tricks back with the appreciation of TD (according to the mandatory, reasonable, tricky ... nature of the play involved), and declarer can play double-dummy. Isn't this the intent of this ill-worded law? 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 Thu Feb 26 01:17:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 01:17:28 +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 BAA19267 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 01:17:20 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb37.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.37]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA03316 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 09:17:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980225091728.006cdc38@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 09:17:28 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Couldnt POSSIBLY have known (was REJECTED) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980224214920.006c9e00@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:46 AM 2/25/98 +0000, David S wrote: > Consider: > > xxx > -- > -- > QJ3 -- T92 > -- -- > -- -- > -- AK8 -- > -- > -- > -- > >"A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that >his side did not win, or the concession of a trick that his opponents >could not lose." > > Now to claim the rest of the tricks does not breach L72A2 because he >can win three tricks if the oppos unblock the Q, J, T and 9 of spades. > > So what is illegal in claiming three tricks? > It is not illegal, per se, for declarer to claim the balance here. I believe that it is _in principle_ illegal for declarer to do so _intentionally_, but the point is moot. This is clearly a bad claim, and EW will almost certainly object and will then receive relief in the form of the last trick. My point is that we never have to get to the issue of whether declarer intended to fraudulently claim three tricks, because if the issue arises at all, the procedures for evaluating challenged claims provide EW with all the protection they need. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 04:54:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:54:13 +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 EAA20323 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:54:05 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015262; 25 Feb 98 16:41 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:36:26 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Claim Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 16:36:25 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper writes: > On Tue, 24 Feb 98 15:57:34 GMT, Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > wrote: > >1) I started TDing nearly 20 years ago, and I until this thread > cannot recall > >hearing it argued that L68 to L71 (in particular footnote 20 (to > L69B)) do not > >apply to the "current trick" element of a claim. > > I've only been TDing for about 11 years. I've never heard it argued > either. > I've never heard of a ruling based on that interpretation of L68. > > >2) IMO on the plain words of the Laws David Stevenson is right (i.e. > that L68 > >to L71 do apply to the "current trick" element of a claim). > > I agree. I see nothing at all in L68 to suggest that the current > trick is not > included in a claim (and it would make no sense to not include it). > > This is also my view. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 05:00:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:00:24 +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 FAA20353 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:00:15 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb48.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.48]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA23686 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:00:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980225130014.006cbd24@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:00:14 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: COULDNT POSSI In-Reply-To: <9802242029.0SSI903@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:29 PM 2/24/98, Roger Pewick wrote: > >After reading the postings of this thread it has become apparent >that the interpretation is that the rejecting side can not >damage declarer because they could not have known that if the >concession is rejected that declarer might make incorrect >inferences resulting in changing their line of play unless they >had information from unauthorized sources or used a CPU. > >In addition, there is immense concern that making participants >who make bad concessions culpable will greatly reduce the making >of claims and a subsequent decrease in the enjoyment of the game. > Some concern, perhaps, but hardly immense. >Taking things in reverse order. It seems to me that >indemnifying makers of bad concessions will increase the >propensity of players to make bad concessions more often. To my >thinking, it is best for the game for players to make good >concessions when able. if we increase the number of >concessions, but the increase is predominately in the number of >bad concessions then the net result is that this behavior will >be perpetuated while at the same time causing the victims of >such perpetrations to feel unfairly disadvantaged. > Nobody seeks to indemnify perpetrators of bad concessions. There is a technical question about whether the language of L73F2 can be read as applying to a potentially deceptive concession, and if not, what law could apply. But the opinions of David and myself, at least, support the position that the law might be applicable in this type of situation. I sense that even Jesper, who was the most doubtful on this point, is at least flexible on the question. But really, is there any likelihood, regardless of how we decide this question, that such a postion would encourage this practice? When you concede tricks that aren't really to be lost, you are placing yourself at a serious disadvantage in the first place. Yes, partner might reject the claim, but then again he might not, and even if he does, it requires a fair degree of imagination to construct a scenario whereby the conceder could be confident that the bad concession would work to his advantage. The current situation does not, in any case, meet that test. >For the hand which started this discussion, the only effect I >can make of the conceding pair's actions is that declarer will >never be able to take the maximum number of tricks when play is >resumed. This is directly a result of the actions of the >concession and the rejection. I find nothing in L73F2 which >says that those players had to know what the effect of their >actions might be. I find that if either player had asked >themselves the question, 'may declarer infer something about the >unseen hands that is not true if I concede/ reject' the >answer is a definite yes. > >Here are the bridge reasons. > >The unseen outstanding clubs are the J987. East is looking at >the J97 and the location of the 8 is unknown. With declarer's lead >of a club, east can tell that all of the remaining tricks will be >CLUB tricks. If declarer plays low > he will win all the tricks. Before east plays east concedes. >What are the possible inferences from declarer's point of view? >[a] that east has the Jx or [b] xx and can tell that the >partner can have at most Jx.. it can not make any sense to >concede holding jxx, the actual holding. > If it would be irrational for East to concede holding JXX, it would be equally so from a holding of X or XX or XXX. After all, the matter is still in doubt, since declarer might choose to finesse rather than play for the drop. In fact, the only East holding for which a concession makes sense is specifically JX. In that case, it doesn't matter what declarer plays. The only logical inference which declarer can make from East's action is that Eaast believes declarer's choice to be immaterial. And that conclusion makes it neither more nor less attractive to finesse than it would be without the inference. Consider an alternative scenario, in which Easts' J is exchanged for one of West's red cards. As in the original problem, East concedes and West rejects the concession. If declarer now concludes, since East would never concede holding one or two small, that it must be right to finesse, does he have a legitimate complaint? The answer, of course, is "no". The concession and rejection make it neither more nor less likely that the finesse will work, and so we can not assert that East could have known that his action would be successful. >And what about west's rejection. West is out of clubs and can >tell that any finesse will succeed and that declarer must have >the missing club because partner can not have 4 clubs with only >three cards in his hand. With declarer's lead of a club, west >can tell that all of the remaining tricks will be CLUB tricks >and they have no clubs in their hand. If west rejects the >concession what inferences will declarer make? That west has >the J and that declarer must play for the drop to take the rest >of the tricks. > The only logical inference which declarer can draw from West's reaction is that East is likely to be wrong, i.e., his play does matter. This could be because West holds J or Jx, or it could be because East holds Jxx (as in fact the case). Declarer cannot know which applies. It is true that neither layout is consistent with East's concession, but that inconsistency does not suggest either action in preference to the other. >It has been argued that EW could not possibly have known that >their actions could have the effect of giving declarer incorrect >inferences based on information solely from the play of the >hand. The above analysis shows just the opposite. But it is >not natural for east to ask himself prior to the concession the >question that will result in not conceding if he has it in his >mind to concede. And the same is to be said for west. This is >fine. Do the laws require or expect that a thorough analysis be >made before making a concession, and if the analysis is wrong, >we throw'em in jail? No. EW have not done anything wrong; but >that does not mean that their actions did not damage the other >side. It is the director and AC who must analyze the situation >and determine if damage has resulted and if so, how to remedy it. > >The point has been made that the only way to repair damage to >declarer is to first prove that EW were dishonest and cheats; in >other words, it is ok for east to make the mistake east did, no >matter what impact it has on declarer. If there is no proof of >dishonesty, then there must therefore be no problem and >therefore no damage. > I'm prepared to protect declarer under L73F2 if we find an actual situation in which the conceder "could have known" that his action would work to his advantage. But it's a pretty big "if", IMO. When you concede tricks that might otherwise come your way, you're taking a chance. Partner might not reject the claim, or declarer might not see the situation the way you would expect. Wouldn't this East have felt foolish, for example, if all this folderol caused declarer to take the hook when he had planned all along to play for the drop? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 05:30:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:30:27 +1100 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA20554 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:30:21 +1100 Received: from mush.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27638 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:28:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:30:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802251830.NAA17332@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: REJECTED Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal writes: >> Note that that there is nothing improper about such >> a question on the face of it, i.e., it is not an extraneous remark or >> variation in tempo which is explicitly referenced in that Law. Declarer is >> entitled to ask the opponents about their lead agreements.Upon reflection, >> I think the concession is pretty comparable to this question. > I think so too. > There is some difference, though: Declarers will almost never ask such > deceptive questions by innocent mistake. Declarer can see 26 cards, and > usually knows whether or not a question might mislead an opponent; if he > accidentally does ask a misleading question, nothing stops him from > immediately apologizing and telling the opponents what he has in the suit. However, declarer can have both potentially misleading and legitimate reasons. Suppose that West leads the CA, and declarer has 85 in dummy and KJ3 in hand. Declarer may want to ask, "what do you lead from AK?" even though he knows the lead is not from AK, either to know whether East would signal with the queen, or to know whether there is any point in saving this suit for later play so that East will lead to West's supposed king later on. -- 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 Feb 26 08:02:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:02:02 +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 IAA21180 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 08:01:45 +1100 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA28691 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:59:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Grant C. Sterling" Message-Id: <199802252059.OAA28691@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: COULDNT POSSI... To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:59:29 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980225130014.006cbd24@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at Feb 25, 98 01:00:14 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >the J97 and the location of the 8 is unknown. With declarer's lead > >of a club, east can tell that all of the remaining tricks will be > >CLUB tricks. If declarer plays low > > he will win all the tricks. Before east plays east concedes. > >What are the possible inferences from declarer's point of view? > >[a] that east has the Jx or [b] xx and can tell that the > >partner can have at most Jx.. it can not make any sense to > >concede holding jxx, the actual holding. > > > If it would be irrational for East to concede holding JXX, it would be > equally so from a holding of X or XX or XXX. After all, the matter is still > in doubt, since declarer might choose to finesse rather than play for the > drop. In fact, the only East holding for which a concession makes sense is > specifically JX. In that case, it doesn't matter what declarer plays. The > only logical inference which declarer can make from East's action is that > Eaast believes declarer's choice to be immaterial. And that conclusion > makes it neither more nor less attractive to finesse than it would be > without the inference. Agreed. > Consider an alternative scenario, in which Easts' J is exchanged for one of > West's red cards. As in the original problem, East concedes and West > rejects the concession. If declarer now concludes, since East would never > concede holding one or two small, that it must be right to finesse, does he > have a legitimate complaint? The answer, of course, is "no". The concession > and rejection make it neither more nor less likely that the finesse will > work, and so we can not assert that East could have known that his action > would be successful. I agree with most of what has been said above [about the unlikelihood of this leading to numerous deliberate bad concessions, etc.], and have snipped it for that reason. But I do think there's a flaw in the argument here. There is indeed a case where a concession by East and a rejection by West makes perfect sense, and places the J with West--namely, the case where _East doesn't accurately remember the cards remaining_. Suppose East thinks South has KQ clubs and a high trump remaining, while he himself does not hold the Jack. He ses no way of taking a trick for his side, and conceeds. West, holding the Jack and aware of that South has three clubs, rejects the conc. because he can see a possible trick. In this case, both East's concession and West's refusal make sense to South, and now taking the hook _might_ lose a trick that playing for the drop would not--West has just marked himself with the Jack. {Indeed, presumably in the _actual_ case East has forgotten the remaining cards, or else he would not conceed!} In other words, I suggest that it is _West's refusal_ of the concession which can reasonably lead South to a mistaken play, and not East's concession itself. Now of course whether that entitles NS to redress for "damage" is a different matter--but I think it is too quick to suggest that South had no reason extra reason to play for the drop based on the concession and refusal. [I, personally, will not refuse my partner's concessions unless I can either see a possible trick in my own hand or I am certain partner has a trick that cannot be lost. I do not think this is required of me by law--but if my partner wants to conceed, I'll accept.] > >And what about west's rejection. West is out of clubs and can > >tell that any finesse will succeed and that declarer must have > >the missing club because partner can not have 4 clubs with only > >three cards in his hand. With declarer's lead of a club, west > >can tell that all of the remaining tricks will be CLUB tricks > >and they have no clubs in their hand. If west rejects the > >concession what inferences will declarer make? That west has > >the J and that declarer must play for the drop to take the rest > >of the tricks. > > > The only logical inference which declarer can draw from West's reaction is > that East is likely to be wrong, i.e., his play does matter. This could be > because West holds J or Jx, or it could be because East holds Jxx (as in > fact the case). Declarer cannot know which applies. It is true that neither > layout is consistent with East's concession, but that inconsistency does > not suggest either action in preference to the other. No, but it is far more likely that I will be able to look at a possible winner in my own hand and refuse a concession than it is that I can see a possible but uncertain winner in my partner's hand that he himself doesn't see. When a player refuses his partner's concession I am _far_ more likely to think that _he_ has a potential winner than to think that he knows how to play his partner's hand better than his partner does. Again, I am not sure that I am legally entitled to anything if I base an action on this inference--but I would certainly be sympathetic to a declarer who lost a trick this way, and I would understand it if he felt deceived. And that is why I have the personal ["ethical"?] position described above. > I'm prepared to protect declarer under L73F2 if we find an actual situation > in which the conceder "could have known" that his action would work to his > advantage. But it's a pretty big "if", IMO. When you concede tricks that > might otherwise come your way, you're taking a chance. Partner might not > reject the claim, or declarer might not see the situation the way you would > expect. Wouldn't this East have felt foolish, for example, if all this > folderol caused declarer to take the hook when he had planned all along to > play for the drop? > > Mike Dennis > Agreed. I don't see any reason to think _East_ would have known that his concession would work to his advantage, and while I think _West_ can see a reason to think refusing the concession would mislead declarer to his advantage, I don't see that that constitutes an infraction. So legally I think NS lose the case. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 10:35:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:35:56 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21643 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:35:50 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1007311; 25 Feb 98 23:29 GMT Message-ID: <1ivmNBAejK90EwFl@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:27:26 +0000 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: <9802201908.0QW3602@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9802201908.0QW3602@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > >This situation came up in a club game where I believe I made an >incorrect ruling because I did not understand the facts. Your thoughts >would be helpful to the declarer for when he directs, and me as well. > >At T11 the hands are > > S- > H-8 > D- > C-85 >- - >T - >87 - >- J97 > - > - > - > KQT > >North is declarer in a spade contract and is on lead and leads a club. >East folds their hand and concedes. West immediately rejects the >concession. Declarer now believes that the CJ is dropping because of >East's actions and plays the king. Play continued. The director was >called. West stated that they had no idea that a trick could be coming >their way when they rejected the concession. > Labeo: The Director is totally in left field if he does anything else than inform East that he indicated the expectation of losing a trick that had not yet been completed [Law 74C3] and that accordingly an adjusted score will be awarded. To get involved in a lot of debate about Law 72 is inferior. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 10:43:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:43:54 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA21666 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:43:45 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h56.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id CAA01607; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 02:42:10 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34F555B2.110E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 03:44:51 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re_claim_last Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="BASIS3.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BASIS3.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) The discussion seems to finish as our arguments became to repeat. That's why I'd like to make my last several remarks on the matter - not for make change anybody's mind but for clearing my position (for me too) :)) 1. During card-play the measure is a trick 2. It seems (to me) that it would not be logical if during that minimal measure conditions (for players) might be changed - it would put them on to unequal position (pls, compare: first 3 tricks were played in 4 Diamonds contract, others tricks - in 4 Hearts contract; it happened too, such a decision was made once upon a time by AC) 3. And let we suppose that the Declarer is very fast thinking player. He played from the hand, named wrong card from Dummy, noticed that - and at once claimed. That might provide to avoid the mistake because that trick might be become (after he claimed) under claim's Law power... 4. It might be one of the reasons to exclude current trick from governing of claim's Laws. And little joke for the end: after 3 tricks played the Declarer leads from the hand, then opens it and claims 2-3 tricks - for high trumps (fulfilling the demand for subsequent tricks). And no words about others tricks. (In L68 the word "all" before "subsequent" is absent...) Other cards are opened and Declarer demonstrably does not intend to make claim or concession about others tricks - he wants to continue playing even with opened cards. There might be several reasons: - to see reactions of opponents - to make them to decide that contract is cold (when there were several ways to play and Declarer could not chose between them - it happened too) - he opened the hand by mistake, with no intend to claim, that's why he could formulate his plan for 2-3 tricks only - etc. And what will TD (and then - AC) do with such incident?:))) Thanks to all the disputants, especially - opponents. Enjoyed. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 10:46:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:46:35 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21690 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:46:26 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015143; 25 Feb 98 23:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 21:46:33 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Rejected Concession In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote: > >>Labeo: No! I am saying it is incorrect to make a claim which >> includes a trick commenced but for which the outcome is >> uncertain. I understood that is exactly what the claimer >> did in this case, and in my opinion he is in breach of >> Law 74C3; it seems an appropriate application of the law, >> and fits its wording exactly. > > According to your argument, if LHO leads a spade, and the position is > > x >x Ax > Kx > >you cannot claim because the outcome is uncertain. > Labeo: Oh, mulish, perverse boy that you are! We both know that you are a good enough Director to use the laws available to you when you need to give a ruling. And this one fits to your need - the wording is precisely right. For my part I have carefully avoided any definitions because possibly there is bridge judgement to be used; you may judge the outcome uncertain where there is a choice of finesse or drop, you may adjudge it to be certain in some other case. It is quite clear that a claim should not be made when a trick is in progress and the claimer cannot show up - and Law 74C3 says as much. -- Labeo "The dwarf sees further than the giant, when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 11:29:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:29:37 +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 LAA21826 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:29:30 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022727; 26 Feb 98 0:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 00:18:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Ruling MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From tonight: Deal South AQxxx Love All - Q9xxx Kxx xxx KJTx J98xx AKQT T Axx Qxxx xx x S W N E xxxx P P 1S 1NT KJxx x 2D x 2H AJTx x End 670 2D not alerted Statements: N "Iwouldn't have doubled 2D if I'd known it was H" W "Alert - completing the transfer" after East's 2H E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would always bid 2H here with or without the double" BTW I believe it! UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander her. Questions: Is West's alert correct (the statement isn't of course)? On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5 because of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B adjustment. Do you agree? On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? -- 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 Thu Feb 26 13:23:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:23:25 +1100 Received: from hal-pc.org (hal-pc.org [204.52.135.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA22186 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:23:19 +1100 Received: from ramrod.hal-pc.org (max7-214.hal-pc.org [209.113.51.214]) by hal-pc.org (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA27723; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 20:23:11 -0559 (CST) Message-ID: <34F4D382.53B9@hal-pc.org> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 20:29:22 -0600 From: Leslie West X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Quango CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rec.games.bridge.cats.bridge-laws References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nanki Poo wrote: > > Bbbrooooooooooowwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!! > > Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley > Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Evelyn > Adam Beneschan Mango > David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens > Mike Bolster Jess > Vitold Brushtunov Chia > Everett Boyer Amber > Mary Buckland Neko, Four foot two > Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey > Michael Farebrother Nikita, Sigma, Shadow > Wally Farley Andrew, Panda, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy > Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Joseph, Hershey > Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Depo, Bridget > Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba > John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo > Irv Kostal Bill, Albert, Cleo, Sabrina > Eric Landau Glory, Wesley, Shadow, Query > Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat > John Probst Gnipper, Figaro > Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, > Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey > Grant Sterling Panther > David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo > plus, of course Selassie > > Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! > > -- > Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ > quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ > Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= > nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ Please add Les West T.C., Trudy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 14:09:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:09:42 +1100 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA22347 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:09:33 +1100 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26da.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.218]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id DAA01522 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 03:09:18 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 03:14:44 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4264$af53a7e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 1:29 AM Subject: Ruling >>From tonight: >Deal South AQxxx >Love All - > Q9xxx > Kxx >xxx KJTx >J98xx AKQT >T Axx >Qxxx xx > x >S W N E xxxx >P P 1S 1NT KJxx >x 2D x 2H AJTx >x End 670 2D not alerted >Statements: >N "Iwouldn't have doubled 2D if I'd known it was H" >W "Alert - completing the transfer" after East's 2H >E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would always > bid 2H here with or without the double" BTW I believe it! >UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander her. >Questions: >Is West's alert correct (the statement isn't of course)? >On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5 because >of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B adjustment. >Do you agree? In principle Yes >On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? No. Did N say what action would have been taken. It would appear to me that given the info that the 2D bid was conventional, N/S are in a very good position to bid 5D, which would be doubled, and making 6 on a club lead. Anne. > >-- >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 Thu Feb 26 14:47:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:47:54 +1100 Received: from d2.ikos.com (d2.ikos.com [149.172.200.202]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA22457 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:47:48 +1100 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA04050; Wed, 25 Feb 1998 19:47:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 19:47:09 -0800 (PST) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199802260347.TAA04050@d2.ikos.com> To: john@probst.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Ruling Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From [JP, via] owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Feb 25 17:14 PST 1998 > > Deal South AQxxx > Love All - > Q9xxx > Kxx > xxx KJTx > J98xx AKQT > T Axx > Qxxx xx > x > S W N E xxxx > P P 1S 1NT KJxx > x 2D x 2H AJTx > x End 670 2D not alerted > Statements: > N "Iwouldn't have doubled 2D if I'd known it was H" > W "Alert - completing the transfer" after East's 2H > E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would always > bid 2H here with or without the double" BTW I believe it! > UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander her. > Questions: > Is West's alert correct (the statement isn't of course)? > On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5 because > of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B adjustment. > Do you agree? Almost: 2D-6*, because East's failure to alert is IIUC AI that there's a misunderstanding, which, coupled with hypothetical N-S knowledge that 2D shows hearts would be the only reason N-S might let E-W play undoubled. Other results would also be likely if South were to choose to double 2D, except that North subsequently show no likelihood of obtaining them (see below). (* You didn't find 2D-6? Then you wouldn't have found 5D+5 either. Exciting but IMHO not-unlikely play, could begin with any lead but diamond: SA-CA-Hruff-CK-Sruff-Hruff2-Sruff2-Hruff3-SruffDK-HruffD9-SpromotesDJ = 11.) > On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? In general, a resounding no, (unless you mean 2HX+2) because the X generally promises the balance of power, so it's likely that N-S would either compete or double. Continued pushing of H & D seems likely enough that I think 4HX-2 ties 2D-6 as the most favorable result likely, and 5DX+5 may be within the realm of "at all possible". East would surely be tempted to double 5D. However (!) North's failure to pull 2HX shows execrable judgement, demonstrating zero likelihood of pushing the opponents to 4HX, and conceivably relying on a double shot to erase the predictable make, so I would vote that North's pass of 2HX breaks the causality chain--670 stands! IIUC North is obliged to continue to "play bridge," and failed to. Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 18:20:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:20:36 +1100 Received: from mtigwc05.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA23004 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:20:25 +1100 Received: from apfelbaum ([12.68.9.182]) by mtigwc05.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA23496 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 07:19:47 +0000 Message-ID: <001101bd4286$e53a5c60$b609440c@apfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing Group" Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 02:19:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BD425C.FA32CE60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BD425C.FA32CE60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 1:29 AM Subject: Ruling >>From tonight: >Deal South AQxxx >Love All - > Q9xxx > Kxx >xxx KJTx >J98xx AKQT >T Axx >Qxxx xx > x >S W N E xxxx >P P 1S 1NT KJxx >x 2D x 2H AJTx >x End 670 2D not alerted >Statements: >N "Iwouldn't have doubled 2D if I'd known it was H" >W "Alert - completing the transfer" after East's 2H >E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would always > bid 2H here with or without the double" BTW I believe it! >UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander her. >Questions: >Is West's alert correct (the statement isn't of course)? >On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5 because >of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B adjustment. >Do you agree? In principle Yes >On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? Thought I might say hello to everyone. New kid on the block. Jay = Apfelbaum. I live in Pittsburgh, PA. I have some thoughts on the above, but first a question. As a "newby", = please take it easy, OK? What is IIUC?=20 Now to the hand. S W N E P P 1S 1NT x1 2D2 x3 2H4 x5 P P6 P 1 - Not explained, but I assume for purposes of problem this shows cards = and promises balance of power. Sets up forcing passes. Also means that = balance-chair doubles do not promise trumps. Only doubt about bidding = on. Not clear whether direct-chair doubles promise trumps. Could easily = be played as denying fit in partner's suit and merely suggesting a = misfit. Does anyone know the answer? Is a direct-chair double a trump = stack? Suggesting a misfit? 2 - Failure of East to alert the 2D bid usually means it is natural. = This seems to me to be a violation (sorry, no formal cite). 3 - North's double of a supposedly natural 2D is perfectly reasonable. = Later statement that he (she?) would not have doubled if alerted strikes = me as either 1) irrelevant (is North expecting E-W to play 2D?) or 2) = systemically wrong. For case #1, the double shows diamonds (standard = defense to Jacoby Transfer). If true, the statement leads me to wonder = if North was expecting East to pass a transfer. Or at least North = thought the 2D bid MIGHT be a transfer. For case #2, the double would = tend to promise something in hearts. I question whether, if this is = true, South owed any alert to E-W. Yes, I know that there was no alert = to the 2D bid. Still. . ., at least there could be a legitimate claim = for damage. However, if this would be a correct explanation of the = double then I would expect to find something on the N-S convention card = to support that position. Perhaps a statement to the TD. The problem = provides no such information, so I would conclude that North's statement = is an effort to claim damage where there is, in fact, no damage. (At = least to this point) 4 - West alerted and explained the 2H bid. Leaving aside the explanation = for the moment, it could be entirely correct for West to alert. Did the = East bid promise extra heart length? If so, it seems to me that an alert = would be entirely appropriate. The problem does not contain any = information on this point. I will assume that the 2H bid was fairly = standard, showing either positive heart support or too few diamonds to = allow 2D to become the final contract. Now, the alert and explanation = become part of a second violation. Here, the problem is that East is not = allowed to "know" (from this source, anyway) that West holds hearts. = This gives West, also, the possible inference that East has even better = hearts than might be usual for this bid. 5 - The inference that East could hold stronger hearts that usual, and = the knowledge that West holds hearts (not diamonds, except by = coincidence) IS authorized information for South. Based upon the = near-cerntainty that E-W hold at least 8 trumps (and good ones, too), I = would find South's double rather ill-advised. Not quite bad enough to = constitute a "failure to play", but close. However, South has full = information. So he (she?) cannot claim any damage. 6 - I cannot see any justification for North's pass. The inference that = East has better hearts than might be usual is available (and authorized) = to North. It is not enought to simply say that South's double is a = "crush-em" double. There are too many inferences that South has at most = 4 trumps (even if good). North has poor defensive prospects against a = 9-card trump fit. The Ace of Spades is a trick, but even giving South 3 = trump tricks plus another Ace (plenty for the auction) a minus 470 looks = too probable. All of this information is authorized and available to = North. I think the N-S pair did not "play bridge". Even if N-S did "play = bridge" well enough to deserve protection, I do not believe that there = any causal relationship between the bad result and the two failures to = follow the alert procedure. The decision was wrong. It should have allowed the table result to = stand. The East-West pair does have unauthorized information, and had N-S not = elected to defend then I would consider protecting them from any use E-W = might have made of the misinformation. As an aside, whether or not East alerts the 2D bid has no relevance on = his or her decision to bid 2H. Sorry for the verbosity. If this is too long, please let me know and I = will try to be more brief in the future. Regards to the group (whoever all of you are) Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net (412) 731-5550 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BD425C.FA32CE60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

-----Original Message-----
From: John (MadDog) Probst <john@probst.demon.co.uk>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Thursday, February 26, 1998 1:29 AM
Subject: Ruling
 

>>From tonight:
>Deal=20 South       AQxxx
>Love=20 All        =20 -
>          &nbs= p;     =20 Q9xxx
>          =       =20 Kxx
>xxx          = ;            =   =20 KJTx
>J98xx         &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;=20 AKQT
>T          =             &= nbsp;   =20 Axx
>Qxxx         &nbs= p;            = ; =20 xx
>          &nb= sp;     =20 x
>S   W   N   E   =20 xxxx
>P   P   1S  1NT =20 KJxx
>x   2D  x   2H   = AJTx
>x=20 End  =20 670           &nbs= p; 2D=20 not alerted
>Statements:
>N "Iwouldn't have = doubled 2D=20 if I'd known it was H"
>W "Alert - completing the = transfer"=20 after East's 2H
>E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would = always
>   bid 2H here with or without the double" = BTW I=20 believe it!
>UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander=20 her.
>Questions:
>Is West's alert correct (the statement = isn't of=20 course)?
>On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5=20 because
>of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B = adjustment.
>Do=20 you agree?
In principle Yes
>On appeal the AC went back to = 2H+2. Do you=20 agree?
 
Thought I might say hello to = everyone. New kid=20 on the block. Jay Apfelbaum. I live in Pittsburgh, PA.
 
I have some thoughts on the above, but first a = question. As a=20 "newby", please take it easy, OK?
 
What is IIUC?
 
Now to the hand.
 
S   = W  =20 N   E
P   P   1S  1NT
x1  = 2D2=20 x3  2H4
x5  = P  =20 P6  P
 
1 - Not = explained, but I=20 assume for purposes of problem this shows cards and promises balance of = power.=20 Sets up forcing passes. Also means that balance-chair doubles do not = promise=20 trumps. Only doubt about bidding on. Not clear whether direct-chair = doubles=20 promise trumps. Could easily be played as denying fit in partner's suit = and=20 merely suggesting a misfit.
 
        Does anyone know the = answer?=20 Is a direct-chair double a trump stack? Suggesting a=20 misfit?
 
2 - = Failure of East to=20 alert the 2D bid usually means it is natural. This seems to me to be a = violation=20 (sorry, no formal cite).
 
3 - = North's double of a=20 supposedly natural 2D is perfectly reasonable. Later statement that he = (she?)=20 would not have doubled if alerted strikes me as either 1) irrelevant (is = North=20 expecting E-W to play 2D?) or 2) systemically wrong. For case #1, the = double=20 shows diamonds (standard defense to Jacoby Transfer). If true, the = statement=20 leads me to wonder if North was expecting East to pass a transfer. Or at = least=20 North thought the 2D bid MIGHT be a transfer. For case #2, the double = would tend=20 to promise something in hearts. I question whether, if this is true, = South owed=20 any alert to E-W. Yes, I know that there was no alert to the 2D bid. = Still. . .,=20 at least there could be a legitimate claim for damage. However, if this = would be=20 a correct explanation of the double then I would expect to find = something on the=20 N-S convention card to support that position. Perhaps a statement to the = TD. The=20 problem provides no such information, so I would conclude that North's = statement=20 is an effort to claim damage where there is, in fact, no damage. (At = least to=20 this point)
 
4 - West = alerted and=20 explained the 2H bid. Leaving aside the explanation for the moment, it = could be=20 entirely correct for West to alert. Did the East bid promise extra heart = length?=20 If so, it seems to me that an alert would be entirely appropriate. The = problem=20 does not contain any information on this point. I will assume that the = 2H bid=20 was fairly standard, showing either positive heart support or too few = diamonds=20 to allow 2D to become the final contract. Now, the alert and explanation = become=20 part of a second violation. Here, the problem is that East is not = allowed to=20 "know" (from this source, anyway) that West holds hearts. This = gives=20 West, also, the possible inference that East has even better hearts than = might=20 be usual for this bid.
 
5 - The = inference that=20 East could hold stronger hearts that usual, and the knowledge that West = holds=20 hearts (not diamonds, except by coincidence) IS authorized information = for=20 South. Based upon the near-cerntainty that E-W hold at least 8 trumps = (and good=20 ones, too), I would find South's double rather ill-advised. Not quite = bad enough=20 to constitute a "failure to play", but close. However, South = has full=20 information. So he (she?) cannot claim any = damage.
 
6 - I = cannot see any=20 justification for North's pass. The inference that East has better = hearts than=20 might be usual is available (and authorized) to North. It is not enought = to=20 simply say that South's double is a "crush-em" double. There = are too=20 many inferences that South has at most 4 trumps (even if good). North = has poor=20 defensive prospects against a 9-card trump fit. The Ace of Spades is a = trick,=20 but even giving South 3 trump tricks plus another Ace (plenty for the = auction) a=20 minus 470 looks too probable. All of this information is authorized and=20 available to North.
 
I think = the N-S pair did=20 not "play bridge". Even if N-S did "play bridge" = well enough=20 to deserve protection, I do not believe that there any causal = relationship=20 between the bad result and the two failures to follow the alert=20 procedure.
 
The = decision was wrong.=20 It should have allowed the table result to = stand.
 
The = East-West pair does=20 have unauthorized information, and had N-S not elected to defend then I = would=20 consider protecting them from any use E-W might have made of the=20 misinformation.
 
As an = aside, whether or=20 not East alerts the 2D bid has no relevance on his or her decision to = bid=20 2H.
 
Sorry for the verbosity. If this is too = long,=20 please let me know and I will try to be more brief in the = future.
 
Regards to the group (whoever all of you = are)
Jay Apfelbaum
Pittsburgh, PA
JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net
(412) = 731-5550
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BD425C.FA32CE60-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 20:50:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:50:02 +1100 Received: from rhenium (cerium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA23175 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 20:49:57 +1100 Received: from david-burn [195.99.46.13] by rhenium with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0y7zwr-0004Ld-00; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:49:49 +0000 Message-ID: <001801bd429b$cd980ca0$0d2e63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:49:15 -0000 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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From tonight: >Deal South AQxxx >Love All - > Q9xxx > Kxx >xxx KJTx >J98xx AKQT >T Axx >Qxxx xx > x >S W N E xxxx >P P 1S 1NT KJxx >x 2D x 2H AJTx >x End 670 2D not alerted >Statements: >N "Iwouldn't have doubled 2D if I'd known it was H" >W "Alert - completing the transfer" after East's 2H >E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would always > bid 2H here with or without the double" BTW I believe it! >UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander her. >Questions: >Is West's alert correct (the statement isn't of course)? West is correct to alert 2H under current English alerting procedures. >On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5 because >of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B adjustment. >Do you agree? No. I do not believe North's statement above; I'm pretty sure he would have doubled if he and South had both known that 2D showed hearts (and that East and West knew it also). Why should North pass up so convenient an opportunity to show diamonds? What might have happened then is open to conjecture, but the result would obviously not have been any number of diamonds undoubled by West. Even if South had known what was happening while East did not, South would obviously have doubled 2D because he was prepared to double 2H also - his actions at the table are the clearest possible indication of this! South, who was in possession of most relevant information when West explained East's 2H bid, made a serious error when he doubled it - but I would probably be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and permit 3D instead. No one would bid over that, and East-West would appeal my initial assessment of 11 tricks on the grounds that anyone who bids like South would never make more than ten. >On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? Of course not. There is absolutely no basis for this at all, and if this happened where I assume it happened, that Appeals Committee should not be asked to officiate again. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 22:11:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:11:02 +1100 Received: from x400link.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (outmail.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA23308 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:10:50 +1100 Received: from compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.1]) by x400link.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA01977; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:10:41 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26712; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:10:38 +0100 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:10:38 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199802261110.MAA26712@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: Sufficient Seed Bit Length? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Martin Kretschmar wrote: > > > > I agree with that statement. But it also means that we must also be able to > > generate at least 52! different random sequences, something I can't see at > > all how it should be achived with 48 bit or even 32 bit seeds/PRNGs. Well I must confess, that I have trouble in adapting towards your perspective of the problem. Herman DE WAEL wrote: > No we don't ! > > If we have more than enough possible starting positions, we can have any > pseudo-RNG churning out random numbers and produce a completely random > hand. > > For example, even a RNG that would always return 0, and thus take the > first card of the pack, would generate a perfectly random hand provided > the initial sequence of the pack is randomized (of course the next hand > will be the same as the first, but that is not what I mean to say). Well, the goal of a shuffling algorithm IS to randomize, not to apply a fixed permutation to a "randomized by magic" sequence of cards as result of an RNG that would always return 0. So unless you already provide a perfectly random hand as input, I don't see at all how you could ever obtain a perfectly random hand as output from an always-0 RNG. With a more normal RNG and a small C program we see: #include int main(int iargc, char *argv[], char **envp) { int i; unsigned int seed=0; if(iargc>=2) seed=atoi(argv[1]); srandom(seed); for(i=0; i<5; i++) printf(" %ld", random()); printf("\n"); } sample 1 269167349 1169529124 889801541 1254073978 374297457 269167349 1169529124 889801541 1254073978 374297457 sample 2 1858980908 1463972797 867357405 46344911 2127386354 1858980908 1463972797 867357405 46344911 2127386354 For the same initial seed value we will always get the same random() sequences. With a 32 bit initial seed value we can obtain upto 2^32 (=4.3E9) different random() sequences. But we have 52!/(13!^4) (=5.3E31) perfectly random sorted card sequences and 52! (=1.3E69) perfectly random unsorted card sequences. We can attempt to hide the selected unsorted card sequence by e.g. sorting or pre-shuffling the hands of N, E, S, and W before they are played. All of this put me back to my former statement, that we must also be able to generate at least 52! different random sequences, something I can't see at all how it should be achived with 48 bit or even 32 bit seeds/PRNGs. For the generation of perfectly random sorted card sequences we need the rough equivalent of 96 bits, for the generation of perfectly random unsorted card sequences we need the rough equivalent of 226 bits as initial seed value. Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 22:16:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:16:47 +1100 Received: from willow.us.pw.com (pw20.pw9.com [208.141.52.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA23334 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:16:41 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id GAA06179; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 06:18:40 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma006155; Thu, 26 Feb 98 06:18:32 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA17572; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 06:15:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199802261115.GAA17572@fern.us.pw.com> To: Dburn@btinternet.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 26 Feb 98 11:00:55 GMT Subject: Re: Ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >John Probst wrote: >>From tonight: >>Deal South AQxxx >>Love All - >> Q9xxx >> Kxx >>xxx KJTx >>J98xx AKQT >>T Axx >>Qxxx xx >> x >>S W N E xxxx >>P P 1S 1NT KJxx >>x 2D x 2H AJTx >>x End 670 2D not alerted >>Statements: >>N "Iwouldn't have doubled 2D if I'd known it was H" >>W "Alert - completing the transfer" after East's 2H >>E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would always >> bid 2H here with or without the double" BTW I believe it! >>UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander her. >>Questions: >>Is West's alert correct (the statement isn't of course)? > >West is correct to alert 2H under current English alerting procedures. I agree. >>On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5 because >>of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B adjustment. >>Do you agree? > >No. I do not believe North's statement above; I'm pretty sure he would >have doubled if he and South had both known that 2D showed hearts (and >that East and West knew it also). Why should North pass up so >convenient an opportunity to show diamonds? I also tend to doubt N's "reasoning", but the TD and (presumably) the AC heard the person, and were able to judge N's credibility and standard of play better than me. >What might have happened >then is open to conjecture, but the result would obviously not have >been any number of diamonds undoubled by West. Even if South had known >what was happening while East did not, South would obviously have >doubled 2D because he was prepared to double 2H also - his actions at >the table are the clearest possible indication of this! South, who was >in possession of most relevant information when West explained East's >2H bid, As I read the facts, S was in possession of *all* the relevant information. Thus I would not adjust the score on the basis of S being given misinformation (unless, and this does seem unlikely, a double by N of 2D (transfer) would have had some meaning other than showing D). There is a point of law here which does not seem to have been commented on. As I read the facts, it was clear *before* S's second X that 2D had been intended as a transfer. Under EBU rules that would mean it should have been alerted. Therefore the TD should have been called, who would have allowed N to change the X of 2D (L21B1). I'm not sure this would affect my decision as TD or AC, mind you. >made a serious error when he doubled it - but I would probably >be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and permit 3D >instead. No one would bid over that, and East-West would appeal my >initial assessment of 11 tricks on the grounds that anyone who bids >like South would never make more than ten. >>On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? >Of course not. There is absolutely no basis for this at all, I tend to agree. I am very reluctant to disagree with the decisions of ACs on matters of bridge judgement when they have had the chance to hear the players and I have not. The reason I agree with David Burn, and disagree with the AC, is that, even if N had passed over 2D, it is IMO clear that S would have doubled 2H anyway. At N's third turn N was aware of the misinformation, and chose to pass regardless. >and if this happened where I assume it happened, that Appeals Committee >should not be asked to officiate again. This is a bit harsh. We can all make mistakes when asked to sit on an AC, late at night after a hard day's work and a hard evening's bridge. If thought helpful, it might be beneficial for the SO to write to the AC reporting some of the comments on this decision, and explaining why it was thought potentially wrong. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 26 22:40:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:40:54 +1100 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA23388 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:40:49 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (la-ppp-037.lightspeed.net [204.216.75.42]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA02016 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 03:40:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <34F41587.6C@lightspeed.net> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:58:47 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >From tonight: > Deal South AQxxx > Love All - > Q9xxx > Kxx > xxx KJTx > J98xx AKQT > T Axx > Qxxx xx > x > S W N E xxxx > P P 1S 1NT KJxx > x 2D x 2H AJTx > x End 670 2D not alerted > Statements: > N "Iwouldn't have doubled 2D if I'd known it was H" > W "Alert - completing the transfer" after East's 2H > E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would always > bid 2H here with or without the double" BTW I believe it! I'm assuming that the North and East statements were made after the auction. If made during, no redress for N-S, long discussion with all about chatter. > UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander her. > Questions: > Is West's alert correct (the statement isn't of course)? This is a problem from England, I think; in the US it isn't - just the initial transfer is announceable (yes, even on this sequence, I think.) > On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5 because > of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B adjustment. > Do you agree? I'm going to end up whining that I need more info, but this is interesting. I don't think so. The first question is whether N would have bid differently. I expect so; I would want to know the N-S agreements on the double of 2D, or their agreements on parallel auctions. I suspect N-S could bid 2H to show t/o of hearts here, and that seems pretty clear, with the double reserved for something else. I dislike North's pass of the final double, but I suspect I'm not going to punish players at this level for bad judgment. So, if I'm convinced of that, I'll let N-S play 3D. There's a further problem of the possibility of a misunderstanding of what a double of 2D shows here. I'm inclined to give N-S the benefit of the doubt if this is what happened; they should not have been here in the first place. But even if we get past the MI, we get into the UI, and I can't accept that 3D is not a reasonable alternative for East after 2Hx around. West now has to decide what the heck is going on -- why did partner accept the transfer after the double and then pull naturally to diamonds? One very reasonable option is that partner always accepts the transfer, even after the double, even if that is very stupid. And, if East is prone to overcalling 1NT on weird offshape hands, then for West to sit 3D doubled becomes reasonable. Here's a question that I think we've touched on before: Suppose I conclude here that the MI *was* present and therefore want to rule 3D+5 by N-S. I also conclude that UI was present and that East likes to overcall 1N on Kxx K AKJ987 Qxx (A crime I might commit swinging a little at MPs) and is not trustworthy on passing when not obligated to bid, and therefore rule that East's 3D could be natural, and can be passed by W, for -1100 (or so). Does one of these take precedence over the other? What now? > On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? > Hungh. +2? They made 4, right? Is this British parlance for 2H+4? I'm not to thrilled with this; I think you could reasonably rule any of the following though: 1. N-S +1100 or +1400 in diamonds by E-W 2. N-S +150 in diamonds 3. N-S -670 for stupidly leaving the double of 2H in. (I would disagree vigorously with this, but in the American standard, it's potentially reasonable). I find it tough to justify 2H undoubled. That presupposes that only the final double would be removed if the MI had not occurred. That's a very fine line; I'd even find it easier to justify -630 (3Hx) before I tried to sell 2H undoubled. --JRM > -- > 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 Feb 27 01:30:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:30:10 +1100 Received: from mserv1a.u-net.net (mserv1a.u-net.net [195.102.240.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA26065 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:29:56 +1100 Received: from foxhole.u-net.com [195.102.195.66] by mserv1a.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0y83xK-00028C-00; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:06:34 +0000 From: "Linda Greenland" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing Group" Subject: Re: Ruling Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:10:17 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd42c0$43ecfa40$0100007f@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01F0_01BD42C0.43ECFA40" 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_01F0_01BD42C0.43ECFA40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Jay Apfelbaum To: Bridge Laws Mailing Group Date: 26 February 1998 08:35 Subject: Re: Ruling =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 1:29 AM Subject: Ruling =20 =20 >>From tonight: >Deal South AQxxx >Love All - > Q9xxx > Kxx >xxx KJTx >J98xx AKQT >T Axx >Qxxx xx > x >S W N E xxxx >P P 1S 1NT KJxx >x 2D x 2H AJTx >x End 670 2D not alerted >Statements: >N "Iwouldn't have doubled 2D if I'd known it was H" >W "Alert - completing the transfer" after East's 2H >E "I'd forgotten we play transfers but would always > bid 2H here with or without the double" BTW I believe it! >UK TDs will know the East but I won't zlander her. >Questions: >Is West's alert correct (the statement isn't of course)? >On the basis of North's statement I ruled 2D -5 because >of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B adjustment. >Do you agree? In principle Yes >On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? =20 Jay Apfelbaum wrote:- =20 Thought I might say hello to everyone. New kid on the block. Jay = Apfelbaum. I live in Pittsburgh, PA. =20 I have some thoughts on the above, but first a question. As a = "newby", please take it easy, OK? =20 What is IIUC?=20 =20 Now to the hand. =20 S W N E P P 1S 1NT x1 2D2 x3 2H4 x5 P P6 P =20 =20 =20 =20 Thanks Jay, love the formatting, this is also my first response to = the group, and I'm also waiting for the answer to your question =20 North doubled (a presumed natural) 2D to show Diamonds, therefore he = shouldn't be able to double 2D transfer to show the same and would have to bid 3D. South = doubled 2H. Why? To defend presumably. It hardly seems likely that his double was for = take-out, Clubs was the only=20 unbid suit, his partner having shown Spades and Diamonds, and the = opponents Hearts.=20 =20 South having asked West about Easts 2H bid and being informed that = it was 'completing the transfer' should reason that West intended his 2D bid to be a = transfer, but his partner took it=20 as natural and pulled 2DX to 2H, surely showing Hearts. The = opponents are therefore known to have a 5-4 Heart fit. So a penalty double by South was not a good = idea. Yet this is what he did. Could his double have been intended for take-out? Or agreeing = Diamonds? Why not simply bid the obvious 3D! =20 The damage North/South suffered was self-inflicted. IMHO the result = should stand. =20 Ken (no cats-sorry, how about a teddy-bear?) =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_01F0_01BD42C0.43ECFA40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Jay Apfelbaum <JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net>
To:=20 Bridge Laws Mailing Group <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 26 February 1998 08:35
Subject: Re:=20 Ruling


-----Original Message-----
From: John (MadDog) Probst = <john@probst.demon.co.uk>To:=20 bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Thursday, February 26, 1998 1:29 AM
Subject: Ruling
 

>>From = tonight:
>Deal=20 South       AQxxx
>Love=20 All        =20 = -
>          &nbs= p;     =20 = Q9xxx
>          =       =20 = Kxx
>xxx          = ;            =   =20 = KJTx
>J98xx         &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;=20 = AKQT
>T          =             &= nbsp;   =20 = Axx
>Qxxx         &nbs= p;            = ; =20 = xx
>          &nb= sp;     =20 x
>S   W   N   = E   =20 xxxx
>P   P   1S  1NT =20 KJxx
>x   2D  x   2H  =20 AJTx
>x End  =20 = 670           &nbs= p;=20 2D not alerted
>Statements:
>N "Iwouldn't = have=20 doubled 2D if I'd known it was H"
>W "Alert - = completing the=20 transfer" after East's 2H
>E "I'd forgotten we play=20 transfers but would always
>   bid 2H here with or = without=20 the double" BTW I believe it!
>UK TDs will know the East = but I=20 won't zlander her.
>Questions:
>Is West's alert correct = (the=20 statement isn't of course)?
>On the basis of North's statement = I ruled=20 2D -5 because
>of the L72B1 failure to alert (MI) and L12B=20 adjustment.
>Do you agree?
In principle Yes
>On = appeal the AC=20 went back to 2H+2. Do you agree?
 
Jay = Apfelbaum=20 wrote:-
 
Thought I might say hello to = everyone. New=20 kid on the block. Jay Apfelbaum. I live in Pittsburgh, = PA.
 
I have some thoughts on the above, but first a = question.=20 As a "newby", please take it easy, OK?
 
What is IIUC?
 
Now to the hand.
 
S   = W  =20 N   E
P   P   1S  = 1NT
x1  2D2=20 x3  2H4
x5 =20 P   P6  P
  
 
 
 
Thanks = Jay, love the=20 formatting, this is also my first response to the group, and I'm = also=20 waiting
for the answer to your = question =20 <What is IIUC? >
 
North doubled (a presumed = natural) 2D to=20 show Diamonds, therefore he shouldn't be able to
double 2D = transfer to=20 show the same and would have to bid 3D. South doubled 2H. Why?=20 To
defend presumably. It hardly seems likely that = his double=20 was for take-out, Clubs was the only 
unbid suit, his partner having shown Spades and = Diamonds,=20 and the opponents Hearts. 
 
South having asked West about Easts 2H bid and = being=20 informed that it was 'completing the
transfer' should reason that West intended his = 2D bid to=20 be a transfer, but his partner took it 
as natural and pulled 2DX to 2H, surely showing = Hearts.=20 The opponents are therefore known to
have a 5-4 Heart fit. So a penalty double by = South was not=20 a good idea. Yet this is what he did.
Could his double have been = intended for=20 take-out? Or agreeing Diamonds? Why not simply bid
the = obvious=20 3D!
 
The damage North/South suffered was = self-inflicted. IMHO=20 the result should stand.
 
Ken (no cats-sorry, how about a = teddy-bear?)
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_01F0_01BD42C0.43ECFA40-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 02:43:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 02:43:06 +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 CAA26419 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 02:42:53 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0EOZ00555SY5SP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:42:05 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA18920; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:41:37 +0100 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 16:41:36 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: six spade or minus one. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EOZ00556SY5SP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Board : 9 S - H AQJ95 D KQ South plays 6S and has lost one trick. South C A4 is on lead in his hand. EW has no more spades. North South claims the rest, spreads his hand and | says :"The rest is of me, one heart I will | discard on a Diamond". Diamand Ace was already South played. EW look at the cards of NS and then S J105 all players see that there is still one club- H J4 loser in South. The TD is called. D 2 C K52 This happened last night. Your decision and advise please. Is your decision dependent of the strength of NS. Suppose NS are average players, but still playing a lot of tournaments. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-2786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-2783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 03:01:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 03:01:10 +1100 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA26471 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 03:01:04 +1100 Received: from 145.18.125.142 (JPPals.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.142]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA23459; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:00:43 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802261600.RAA23459@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl To: "John R. Mayne" Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:05:17 Subject: Re: Ruling Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > On appeal the AC went back to 2H+2. Do you agree? > > > > Hungh. +2? They made 4, right? Is this British parlance for 2H+4? In the NL, as in many other European countries, we tend to write down results as follows: 2H C means contract made, 2H -1 means one down, 2H +2 means contract made with two overtricks, etc. JPP From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 04:23:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:23:33 +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 EAA26858 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:23:20 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 17:22:58 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Feb 98 17:22:56 GMT Message-Id: <16974.9802261722@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: six spade or minus one. Cc: evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Board : 9 > S - > H AQJ95 > D KQ South plays 6S and has lost one trick. South > C A4 is on lead in his hand. EW has no more spades. > North South claims the rest, spreads his hand and > | says :"The rest is of me, one heart I will > | discard on a Diamond". Diamand Ace was already > South played. EW look at the cards of NS and then > S J105 all players see that there is still one club- > H J4 loser in South. The TD is called. > D 2 > C K52 There are two HJ but this doesn't really matter; as long as neither is the HK :-) I rule NS lose one more trick (unless neither defender has three clubs). The intended line of play is unclear but L70 requires "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". South's claim suggests he thinks his hand is good except for the hearts, so he would play along the lines of D2-DK, DQ (discarding H), HA, CA, C4-CK, SJ105, C5 oops. As a TD at the table, I would simply say to South "You're going to lose a club, aren't you". If South agrees then I says it 6S-1. If not, then assuming South's only line for the remaining tricks is the heart finesse (or drop), then I quote L70E. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 04:32:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:32:49 +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 EAA26902 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:32:42 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ah1010073; 26 Feb 98 17:01 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:51:49 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Ruling Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:51:47 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda wrote: BIG SNIP > What is IIUC? > > ########## IIUC = If I understand correctly. IIUC! ########## From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 04:55:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:55:38 +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 EAA26972 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:55:29 +1100 Received: from mike (ipb198.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.198]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA00728 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:55:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980226125538.006da348@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:55:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: six spade or minus one. In-Reply-To: <0EOZ00556SY5SP@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:41 PM 2/26/98 +0100, S.E. Angad-Gaur wrote: >Board : 9 > S - > H AQJ95 > D KQ South plays 6S and has lost one trick. South > C A4 is on lead in his hand. EW has no more spades. > North South claims the rest, spreads his hand and > | says :"The rest is of me, one heart I will > | discard on a Diamond". Diamand Ace was already > South played. EW look at the cards of NS and then > S J105 all players see that there is still one club- > H J4 loser in South. The TD is called. > D 2 > C K52 > >This happened last night. Your decision and advise please. Is your decision >dependent of the strength of NS. Suppose NS are average players, but still >playing a lot of tournaments. >-- I assume the duplicated heart J is a typo, and this is in fact some small heart. Unless the heart K is singleton in the West hand, I rule down 1. With that single exception, there are plenty of ways for South to go wrong. He could finesse for the heart K either way (after discarding the heart on diamonds, he has the option of taking a ruffing finesse in hearts). Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 10:17:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:17:30 +1100 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA28040 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:17:25 +1100 Received: from [131.217.5.101] (mg4-101.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.101]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.4-utas-ff) with SMTP id KAA27933 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:17:20 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:17:20 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: six spade or minus one. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:55 PM 2/26/98, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 04:41 PM 2/26/98 +0100, S.E. Angad-Gaur wrote: >>Board : 9 >> S - >> H AQJ95 >> D KQ South plays 6S and has lost one trick. South >> C A4 is on lead in his hand. EW has no more spades. >> North South claims the rest, spreads his hand and >> | says :"The rest is of me, one heart I will >> | discard on a Diamond". Diamand Ace was already >> South played. EW look at the cards of NS and then >> S J105 all players see that there is still one club- >> H J4 loser in South. The TD is called. >> D 2 >> C K52 >> >>This happened last night. Your decision and advise please. Is your decision >>dependent of the strength of NS. Suppose NS are average players, but still >>playing a lot of tournaments. >>-- > >I assume the duplicated heart J is a typo, and this is in fact some small >heart. > >Unless the heart K is singleton in the West hand, I rule down 1. With that >single exception, there are plenty of ways for South to go wrong. He could >finesse for the heart K either way (after discarding the heart on diamonds, >he has the option of taking a ruffing finesse in hearts). Neither heart finesse is embraced in the original statement of claim, so I would agree with Robin and rule 6S-1 unless KH drops singleton or the clubs fall in two rounds. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 14:21:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:21:30 +1100 Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA28862 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:21:24 +1100 Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id OMKCa08346; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:20:20 -0500 (EST) From: R Craig H Message-ID: <1f3a0b0e.34f630f6@aol.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:20:20 EST To: evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: six spade or minus one. Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 70(e) States that "The director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card. . .." Added is a proviso that declarer's later stated line of play will still be allowed if alternatives are irrational. It does not appear that the proviso applies here. It is simply a matter of applying 70(e). I like the suggestion that if the singleton king appears on the first heart, declarer triumphs, since that does take the proviso into account, but neither the finesse of hearts nor the drop can be allowed to succeed, since either "depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with" the king of hearts. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 14:56:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:56:17 +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 OAA28936 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:56:06 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006646; 27 Feb 98 3:49 GMT Message-ID: <79vVbIAu4h90EwV2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 02:00:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <001101bd4286$e53a5c60$b609440c@apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >Thought I might say hello to everyone. New kid on the block. Jay Apfelbaum. I >live in Pittsburgh, PA. Hi! You made it! Well done! >1 - Not explained, but I assume for purposes of problem this shows cards and >promises balance of power. Sets up forcing passes. Also means that balance- >chair >doubles do not promise trumps. Only doubt about bidding on. Not clear whether >direct-chair doubles promise trumps. Could easily be played as denying fit in >partner's suit and merely suggesting a misfit. > > Does anyone know the answer? Is a direct-chair double a trump stack? >Suggesting a misfit? Maybe I might make a general comment. On this list we tend to look at bridge problems at various levels. This one is from a London club. I doubt that we have the depth of information that you are seeking or might expect from an ACBL Flight A event. [s] >I think the N-S pair did not "play bridge". Even if N-S did "play bridge" well >enough to deserve protection, I do not believe that there any causal >relationship between the bad result and the two failures to follow the alert >procedure. In Europe there is less of an approach about the causal link. The only reason not to give an adjustment to a pair is that their actions are bad enough to seriously suggest that they have tried for a double shot. >The decision was wrong. It should have allowed the table result to stand. > >The East-West pair does have unauthorized information, and had N-S not elected >to defend then I would consider protecting them from any use E-W might have >made >of the misinformation. How bad a decision was that of N/S? >Sorry for the verbosity. If this is too long, please let me know and I will try >to be more brief in the future. No problem. However, if you can limit your line lengths to 72 characters it would be easier to read. -- 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 Feb 27 14:58:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:58:15 +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 OAA28950 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:58:04 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006648; 27 Feb 98 3:49 GMT Message-ID: <7dnVTOAM5h90Ew3M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 02:00:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <01bd42c0$43ecfa40$0100007f@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ken wrote under an assumed name: Hi Ken, nice to hear from you. > Ken (no cats-sorry, how about a teddy-bear?) I wouldn't call Linda a teddy-bear, myself. -- 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 Feb 27 19:32:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 19:32:22 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA29338 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 19:32:16 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h43.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id LAA08889; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:32:06 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34F72367.7733@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:34:47 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re_Ruling Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="RULING.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RULING.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) My thanks to Jay Apfelbaum - for his nice and deep analisys of the board. for my opinion - it works so in Flight A in ACBL as in any Europian tournaments. I almost agree with Ray - that means I would confirm the result for NS cause it was reached (almost in 100%) due to their bridge mistake. Result for EW - is another pair of shoes. As it was clear from previous discussions - there were misinformatiom because in UK JTB-bid should be alerted. That provides to resonable West's bid 3 Diamonds (after opponent doubled 2 hearts) - and it would bring result "minus 100" for 3 Hearts doubled or "minus 150" for 4 Diamonds made. I would vote (in AC) for "minus 150". Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 19:42:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 19:42:04 +1100 Received: from carbon.uunet.be (carbon.uunet.be [194.7.1.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA29369 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 19:41:58 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-131.uunet.be [194.7.13.131]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA02735; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:41:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34F567D8.FEC57DC2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:02:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Kretschmar , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Sufficient Seed Bit Length? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199802261110.MAA26712@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Kretschmar wrote: > > > For the same initial seed value we will always get the same random() sequences. indeed. > With a 32 bit initial seed value we can obtain upto 2^32 (=4.3E9) different > random() sequences. But we have 52!/(13!^4) (=5.3E31) perfectly random sorted > card sequences and 52! (=1.3E69) perfectly random unsorted card sequences. > But if we start with an unsorted pack, there are 52! possible "starting" positions, combined with 2^32 initial seeds = far more than all possible card sequences. > We can attempt to hide the selected unsorted card sequence by e.g. sorting or > pre-shuffling the hands of N, E, S, and W before they are played. > I think that is exactly what I mean. Of course your argument and mine, combine to say that with an ordinary program (starting with a sorted deck), you can NOT produce all possible bridge hands. > All of this put me back to my former statement, that we must also be able to > generate at least 52! different random sequences, something I can't see at > all how it should be achived with 48 bit or even 32 bit seeds/PRNGs. > > For the generation of perfectly random sorted card sequences we need the > rough equivalent of 96 bits, for the generation of perfectly random unsorted > card sequences we need the rough equivalent of 226 bits as initial seed value. > > Martin Kretschmar But an unsorted pack can help in achieving a perfectly random 'starting position' (call it seed if you want). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 27 20:37:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA29472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 20:37:54 +1100 Received: from willow.us.pw.com (pw20.pw9.com [208.141.52.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA29467 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 20:37:48 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id EAA18094; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:38:36 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma018090; Fri, 27 Feb 98 04:38:13 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA08106; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 04:34:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199802270934.EAA08106@fern.us.pw.com> To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 27 Feb 98 09:28:17 GMT Subject: Re: Re_Ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold @ elnet.msk.ru wrote: >Result for EW - is another pair of shoes. Why? As I read JApfelbaum's comments they were: (i) EW have UI, but this was not relevant as things turned out; (ii) NS were not damaged by E's failure to alert. Therefore no adjustment to the score. What law permits giving EW an adjusted score (but not NS) when there is no damage? For sure EW might be awarded a PP, but that's quite different (and, IMO, not normal, at least in the clubs in which I play). >As it was clear from previous >discussions - there were misinformatiom because in UK JTB-bid should be >alerted. That provides to resonable West's bid 3 Diamonds (after >opponent doubled 2 hearts) Presumably you mean *E might bid 3D, but for the UI from partner's alert and comment. Thus there is certainly some merit in this view, but it is one on which I would have some difficulty in concluding without having heard EW. In general it is unlikely that a player who has retreated from 2DX will retreat to 3D. > - and it would bring result "minus 100" for >3 Hearts doubled or "minus 150" for 4 Diamonds made. I would vote >(in AC) for "minus 150". Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 01:42:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:42:41 +1100 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA02536 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:42:32 +1100 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h33.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id RAA00201; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:42:24 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34F77A31.7AED@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:45:05 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re_Ruling_2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="RULING2.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RULING2.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Thanks for remarks to Steve Barnfiels - and SORRY - it was my mistake: indeed, I meant not Wets but East might bid 3 Diamonds (after South's doubled 2 Hearts). Possible reasons for his bidding (if we take that he understood 2 Diamonds natural - his only way to prove the case as misunderstanding - to bid in "Fair faith"): - Double over 2 Diamonds is take-out - his hand was rather good for 3 Diamonds contract in competitive bidding over opponents possible 2 Spades or 3 Clubs - along the way to 3 Diamonds he wanted to show to partner good 4-card suit with high card concentration for planning better defensive play (opening lead in Heart may be better that in Diamonds) - and in case partner had fit in Hearts - there might be even higher contract... But after opponent's Double he rather should return to agreed suit (into 3 Diamonds contract) in spite of partner's Pass - especially after hearing his explanations - for avoiding threat of penalty for use illegal information or for creating the misinformation situation. For constructing the basis of possibility to change the result of EW -- let we look at and discuss correspondent Laws from the Laws: . Interpretation of the Laws "... When these Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained...."), a violation will be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not."" This piece is need to underline that violation of Law where some strong modal verb is used - is treated as serious - and being penalised more often than not. "LAW 10 - ASSESSMENT OF A PENALTY A. Right to Assess Penalty The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable." No comments "LAW 12 - DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or: 1. Laws Provide No Indemnity The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent". EW got profit - but there were no damage at this table - cause NS made bridge mistake and received what they earned. My inner voice (the Bridge Legend:)) prompts me that without violation (that means E alerted 2 Diamonds) it about 10% probability that NS would not double - and EW would not receive this profit.. But EW's profit at this table provide to damage of all the EW pair at other tables. And from the point of contestant nature of tournament bridge - all other EW pairs are also opponents of that very EW pair. It allows me (I hope so!) by adjusting EW's result to redress the damage to another EW-pairs. I understand that such a construction seems to be artificial - but I have no other way to establish adjusting because profit is not adjustable by the Laws. However there are no mentioned that one should treat the Law 12 only to players that are sitting at the same table...Even in the Definitions opponent is not described as the-same-table player. If we agree in such basis - them we may continue this way. If it was misinformation - W broke Law75: "LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS A. Special Partnership Agreements Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." It his very Law verbs "must" and "shall" are used - that gives to TD chance to estimate the case seriously and adjust EW's score. If at the start of the bidding it was misunderstanding - then E used in subsequent bidding illegal information from partner's explanation. Laws 16A and 73C should be applied - where verbs of strong modality "may not" and "must" are used - with the same possibility for TD.. "Law16. A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. "Law73. C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." And this construction is ended by Law 81.C and 84.E: "Law81.C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: 7. Penalties to assess penalties when applicable." "Law84. E. Discretionary Penalty If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal (see Law 81C9)." So I guess (and hope) that it is possible to assess penalty to that EW pair. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 02:30:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:30:15 +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 CAA02840 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:30:07 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0EP100312N1MPJ@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:29:47 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA25237; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:29:16 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:29:15 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: six spade or minus one. Sorry HJ In-reply-to: <199802261912.LAA25800@d2.ikos.com>; from "Everett Boyer" at Feb 26, 98 11:12 am To: everett@ikos.com (Everett Boyer) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EP100313N1MPJ@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Thu Feb 26 08:32 PST 1998 > > > > Board : 9 > > S - > > H AQJ95 > > D KQ South plays 6S and has lost one trick. South > > C A4 is on lead in his hand. EW has no more spades. > > North South claims the rest, spreads his hand and > > | says :"The rest is of me, one heart I will > > | discard on a Diamond". Diamand Ace was already > > South played. EW look at the cards of NS and then > > S J105 all players see that there is still one club- > > H J4 loser in South. The TD is called. > > D 2 > > C K52 > > > > This happened last night. Your decision and advise please. Is your decision > > dependent of the strength of NS. Suppose NS are average players, but still > > playing a lot of tournaments. > > My decision, regardless of NS, is to throw out the result and investigate > why the deck contains two HJ. > > Everett > ----------------------------------------------- Sorry,sorry,sorry. The H J4 of South must be H 43. Sorry. And extra information : West has three haerts with the King. 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 Feb 28 02:37:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:37:45 +1100 Received: from zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA02865 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:37:36 +1100 Received: from compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.2.1]) by zrvsun.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA06766 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:37:31 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12365 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:37:28 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:37:28 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199802271537.QAA12365@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Starting with a shuffled hand Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote: > But if we start with an unsorted pack, there are 52! possible "starting" > positions, combined with 2^32 initial seeds = far more than all possible > card sequences. Well the simple looking "unsorted pack" should of course be a perfect randomly shuffled pack! So yes, if we provide a shuffled pack, e.g. shuffled by hand, we have 52! possible packs and thus the 1:1 equivalent of a 226 bit seed value. If we add another 32 bits as suggested above for further expanding the initial seed value, we get a grand total of 258 bits. There are two problems with an approach like: 1) The perfect randomly shuffled pack must be obtained somehow. If we would like to use the method from above for very hand for an important match, we are back at a more complicated form of shuffling by hand. 2) If we want to use a pre-shuffled hand as one part of the initial seed value, and e.g. further 32 bits as the second part, this is more than perfect for the first hand. But for the second and further hands we will only be able of generating a subset of all possible unsorted card sequences. Or from another point of view: Each deal should be completely independent from every other one, or all deals should (ideally) by treated euqal. And this principle of "symmetry" is violated be choosing a perfect randomly hand for the first hand and then going only for the 2^32 possible followup sequences as suggested above. > Of course your argument and mine, combine to say that with an ordinary > program (starting with a sorted deck), you can NOT produce all possible > bridge hands. So if we start with a perfectly shuffled pack of cards, an additional 30 bit value AND(!) e.g. a 256 bit RNG, we possibly could agree to each other. Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 02:44:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:44:25 +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 CAA02886 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:44:18 +1100 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0EP1003QPNPI2O@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:44:07 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA25307; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:43:37 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:43:36 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: six spade or minus one. In-reply-to: <1f3a0b0e.34f630f6@aol.com>; from "R Craig H" at Feb 26, 98 10:20 pm To: RCraigH@aol.com (R Craig H) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EP1003QQNPI2O@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Law 70(e) States that "The director shall not accept from claimer any unstated > line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather > than the other with a particular card. . .." Added is a proviso that > declarer's later stated line of play will still be allowed if alternatives are > irrational. > > It does not appear that the proviso applies here. It is simply a matter of > applying 70(e). I like the suggestion that if the singleton king appears on > the first heart, declarer triumphs, since that does take the proviso into > account, but neither the finesse of hearts nor the drop can be allowed to > succeed, since either "depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other > with" the king of hearts. > -------------------------------------------------------- I almost agree with this. I think that the drop must be allowed if West had the King singleton, because then with none unrational play you will find the HK. If East has the HK then because of the rules you must take the finisse and you are allowed to go one down. 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 Feb 28 04:52:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 04:52:14 +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 EAA03506 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 04:52:06 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bkinis.ms.com (8.8.6/fw v1.22) id MAA07446 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(140.14.69.95) by bkinis.ms.com via smap (3.2) id xma007397; Fri, 27 Feb 98 12:51:32 -0500 Received: from lnsun39.morgan.com (lnsun39.morgan.com [140.14.98.39]) by cwmail1.morgan.com (8.8.5/hub v1.75) with ESMTP id RAA00876 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:51:31 GMT From: Edward Sheldon Received: (sheldone@localhost) by lnsun39.morgan.com (8.8.5/sendmail.cf.client v1.05) id RAA03847 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:51:30 GMT Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:51:30 GMT Message-Id: <9802271751.ZM3845@ms.com> In-Reply-To: Martin Kretschmar "Starting with a shuffled hand" (Feb 27, 5:04pm) References: <199802271537.QAA12365@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Starting with a shuffled hand Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The advantage of starting with a random deck is minimal. There are 13! ^ 4 = 1503561738404723998944447273369600000000 ways to order a deck for each deal. This is roughly 33 bits of randomness. If you're generating a 32-board set, this gives you the equivalent of a single extra bit of width in your random number generator. To look at it another way, there are 154376567357757115254299126680568197926601488903528305805519055865745014784000000000000 possibilities for the first three boards but only 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 possible initial orderings of the deck. So by the time we've generated the first three hands, the added effect of the manually shuffled deck is gone. Cheers, Ed On Feb 27, 5:04pm, Martin Kretschmar wrote: > Subject: Starting with a shuffled hand > Herman DE WAEL wrote: > > > But if we start with an unsorted pack, there are 52! possible "starting" > > positions, combined with 2^32 initial seeds = far more than all possible > > card sequences. > > Well the simple looking "unsorted pack" should of course be a perfect randomly > shuffled pack! So yes, if we provide a shuffled pack, e.g. shuffled by hand, > we have 52! possible packs and thus the 1:1 equivalent of a 226 bit seed value. > If we add another 32 bits as suggested above for further expanding the initial > seed value, we get a grand total of 258 bits. > > There are two problems with an approach like: > > 1) The perfect randomly shuffled pack must be obtained somehow. If we would > like to use the method from above for very hand for an important match, > we are back at a more complicated form of shuffling by hand. > > 2) If we want to use a pre-shuffled hand as one part of the initial seed > value, and e.g. further 32 bits as the second part, this is more than > perfect for the first hand. > > But for the second and further hands we will only be able of generating > a subset of all possible unsorted card sequences. > > Or from another point of view: Each deal should be completely independent > from every other one, or all deals should (ideally) by treated euqal. And > this principle of "symmetry" is violated be choosing a perfect randomly > hand for the first hand and then going only for the 2^32 possible followup > sequences as suggested above. > > > Of course your argument and mine, combine to say that with an ordinary > > program (starting with a sorted deck), you can NOT produce all possible > > bridge hands. > > So if we start with a perfectly shuffled pack of cards, an additional 30 bit > value AND(!) e.g. a 256 bit RNG, we possibly could agree to each other. > > Martin Kretschmar >-- End of excerpt from Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 05:39:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 05:39:33 +1100 Received: from willow.us.pw.com (pw20.pw9.com [208.141.52.243]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA03831 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 05:39:25 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id NAA14512; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:41:29 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma014507; Fri, 27 Feb 98 13:41:07 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20386; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:37:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199802271837.NAA20386@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 27 Feb 98 16:03:55 GMT Subject: Re: Re_Ruling_2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold @ elnet.msk.ru wrote: -- large snip >EW got profit - but there were no damage at this table - cause NS made >bridge mistake and received what they earned. >My inner voice (the Bridge Legend:)) prompts me that without violation >(that means E alerted 2 Diamonds) it about 10% probability that NS >would not double - and EW would not receive this profit.. If that's so, then, as the AC, you might adjust the score accordingly. I understood we were under the hypothesis there was no damage to NS, hence no adjustment to their score. >But EW's profit at this table provide to damage of all the EW pair at other >tables. And from the point of contestant nature of tournament bridge - all >other EW pairs are also opponents of that very EW pair. It allows me (I >hope so!) by adjusting EW's result to redress the damage to another >EW-pairs. I understand that such a construction seems to be artificial - but >I have no other way to establish adjusting because profit is not adjustable >by the Laws. However there are no mentioned that one should treat the >Law 12 only to players that are sitting at the same table...Even in the >Definitions opponent is not described as the-same-table player. >If we agree in such basis - them we may continue this way. You quote at length from Laws which say what are infractions, and at length from laws which set out the TD's powers to adjust the score. What I think is missing is a link between the two. The link is "damage". There are two potential causes of damage here. One is MI. Here, the link between the infraction (and there were some here), and the potential award of an adjusted score, is L40C "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." Here we've decided NS (who are the opponents, *by definition*) were not damaged by the MI. Therefore there is no adjusted score for it. The other EWs are not relevant to this decision. The other is UI. Here the link is L16A2 "The Director shall ... assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." Whilst I have some sympathy with the view that there *was* damage, the hypothesis is that NS *were not* damaged. That being so, there is no score adjustment. It is, IMO, implicit from the first sentence of L16A2 that the only people whose damage is relevant are NS, not the EWs at other tables. - large snip As to PPs, that is very much a matter for SOs to set a policy for their TDs, and the TDs to then interpret the policy. Doing my best to interpret the EBU's policy, I would not fine EW, unless I thought they were reasonably experienced. In particular the comment "completing the transfer" is gratuitous and potentially gives more UI than an alert would to E. That suggests a fine is more likely to be appropriate that it otherwise would be. In fact, however, IMO, the comment also should have helped NS to avoid the mistake of the X of 2H. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 12:29:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:29:40 +1100 Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.168]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA04710 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:29:34 +1100 Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 5YUGa08345 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 20:28:57 -0500 (EST) From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <83a27acb.34f7685b@aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 20:28:57 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Gift of an Artificial Score Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alice and I played at the Queen Mary regional in Long Beach, CA, for two days this week, getting souvenir mugs for a section win as a gift from the tournament director (TD), an employee of the ACBL. Gift from the TD? Yes, because we won by a very small margin as a result of the following situation: My LHO opens 3D, alerted as a transfer preempt, i.e., equivalent to a 3H opening. Alice doubles, thinking this is a double of a 3H opening (we have not discussed this situation, since we seldom play in events where transfer preempts would be allowed). I call the TD, because this is a General Convention Chart (GCC) event and transfer preempts are not allowed on GCC. TD says continue, let's see what happens. My RHO bids 4H, and I double with S- A10x H-KQ98 D-xxx C-xxx. Alice thinks this is a responsive double, forgetting that we are not playing responsive doubles through 4H (only through 3S) and bids 4S on a four-card suit. She goes down two vulnerable tricks. TD returns to see what happened, and we tell him. TD says he will think about it (probably conferring with his peers, including the Chief Director) and render a decision later. Later he comes back and says the result has been thrown out, we get avg+ and opponents avg-. I thank him, and later ask if he has an e-mail address. He does. Then I ask if he is a subscriber to BLML. He doesn't know what that is, so I explain, and give him the instructions for subscribing. It is evident to everyone on BLML, I hope, that the result should have stood. Alice would have doubled a natural 3H opening, RHO would have bid 4H, I would have doubled, and Alice would have bid 4S. The illegal convention did not harm us, we did ourselves in. We should get -200 on the board, and the opponents should be told to take the convention off their card because it is illegal. Maybe a procedural penalty for them would be in order, I don't know. First, I think that all ACBL TDs (at least those who can access the Internet) should be required to subscribe to BLML. There is no better training facility. Second, this quick resort to artificial scores is typical of ACBL TDs, even though it is seldom necessary, often illegal, and always undesirable. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 13:31:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:31:05 +1100 Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA04819 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:31:01 +1100 Received: from pentium (cc.southcom.com.au [203.60.16.155]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.4-utas-ff) with SMTP id NAA06724 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:30:56 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980228132431.0090ac40@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:24:31 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: six spade or minus one. In-Reply-To: <0EP1003QQNPI2O@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> References: <1f3a0b0e.34f630f6@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:43 PM 2/27/98 +0100, E.Angad-Gaur wrote: >> >> It does not appear that the proviso applies here. It is simply a matter of >> applying 70(e). I like the suggestion that if the singleton king appears on >> the first heart, declarer triumphs, since that does take the proviso into >> account, but neither the finesse of hearts nor the drop can be allowed to >> succeed, since either "depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other >> with" the king of hearts. >> >-------------------------------------------------------- >I almost agree with this. I think that the drop must be allowed if >West had the King singleton, because then with none unrational play you >will find the HK. If East has the HK then because of the rules you must >take the finisse and you are allowed to go one down. >Evert. Declarer's statement of claim did not include taking either the normal or ruffing heart finesse. Because of the rules (Law 70E, below), declarer _cannot_ take the finesse, and will go one down given that neither KH nor the clubs drop. Failure to take the finesse would not be irrational (e.g. there is a choice of normal or ruffing finesse or playing for a drop) and in any case Law 70A instructs the Director to resolve any doubtful points against declarer. Note that had the KH dropped singleton, then the contract makes by Law 70E - failure to then cash QH would be irrational. IMHO this was the stated line of play anyway. LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. (snip) D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. E. Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop) The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 13:54:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:54:21 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (ehp-2.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA04872 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 13:54:15 +1100 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0210617; 28 Feb 98 2:53 GMT Message-ID: <6qovW+CmF390EwUR@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:07:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Ruling revisited MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to everyone for their comments on the hand. Much appreciated. I'll repost the hand because there a number of things I would like to add... AQxxx - Q9xxx Kxx xxx KJTx J98xx AKQT T Axx Qxxx xx x xxxx KJxx AJTx S W N E P P 1S 1N x 2D1 x2 2H x3 End 1 This is alertable in the UK, and also an unusual treatment 2 If North doubles to show Ds then he will not be doubling if it shows Hs. However East's failure to alert may be one of a) forgotten the system b) forgotten to alert 3 Easts pull to 2H and the consequent alert make it seem likely that East has forgotten to alert, from South's point of view. It is now entirely possible from Souths point of view that EW are in a 5-2 fit. Thus his double is not a wild and gambling action. I think it is a poor double but it does have some merit. He is going to lead a diamond to tap dummy (which is what I think he did) rather than a spade to get his ruffs. Equally from North's point of view S may well have 6 hearts. This pair do not play weak 2's, again not all that common in the weaker clubs in and around London. Thus North has no reason to pull the double. All this has come about because of East's failure to alert. There is damage. There has been MI. If one accepts North's statement that he would not have doubled if he had known that 2D showed H, and given East's comment that she had forgotten the system East might well pass too. South is now in the position where he is entitled to know the opponents methods but not that they are having a bidding misunderstanding. Fine. East has heard a request for a transfer and an East who has passed. He has fine defence to a 2D contract and might pass. Result 2D-5, or as one poster pointed out -6. There is nothing in NS's actions which made me think they were trying for a double shot. More than anything however I cannot follow the logic that says NS weren't playing bridge and there was no damage. -- 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 Sat Feb 28 14:03:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:03:07 +1100 Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA04894 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:03:02 +1100 Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id OFYIa09367; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 22:02:20 -0500 (EST) From: R Craig H Message-ID: <1070c7ca.34f77e40@aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 22:02:20 EST To: evert_np@tn.tudelft.nl Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: six spade or minus one. Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I did not state as clearly as I intended that declarer should triumph only if his LHO has a singleton King of Hearts. It would be irrational to duck. But if RHO, behind the dummy, has the singleton King, declarer fails, because he is still left with a choice of plays to succeed, and cannot choose the winning option. Thanks, Evert, for showing that my satement was not as clear as I intended. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 14:23:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:23:46 +1100 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (ehp-1.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA04929 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:23:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0100775; 28 Feb 98 3:23 GMT Message-ID: <9bH0SOAN$390EwWT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 03:09:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Gift of an Artificial Score In-Reply-To: <83a27acb.34f7685b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench wrote: >Alice and I played at the Queen Mary regional in Long Beach, CA, for two days >this week, getting souvenir mugs for a section win as a gift from the >tournament director (TD), an employee of the ACBL. Gift from the TD? Yes, >because we won by a very small margin as a result of the following situation: > >My LHO opens 3D, alerted as a transfer preempt, i.e., equivalent to a 3H >opening. Alice doubles, thinking this is a double of a 3H opening (we have not >discussed this situation, since we seldom play in events where transfer >preempts would be allowed). I call the TD, because this is a General >Convention Chart (GCC) event and transfer preempts are not allowed on GCC. TD >says continue, let's see what happens. My RHO bids 4H, and I double with S- >A10x H-KQ98 D-xxx C-xxx. Alice thinks this is a responsive double, forgetting >that we are not playing responsive doubles through 4H (only through 3S) and >bids 4S on a four-card suit. She goes down two vulnerable tricks. TD returns >to see what happened, and we tell him. > >TD says he will think about it (probably conferring with his peers, including >the Chief Director) and render a decision later. Later he comes back and says >the result has been thrown out, we get avg+ and opponents avg-. I thank him, >and later ask if he has an e-mail address. He does. Then I ask if he is a >subscriber to BLML. He doesn't know what that is, so I explain, and give him >the instructions for subscribing. > >It is evident to everyone on BLML, I hope, that the result should have stood. It may be evident to everyone else, Marv, but it is not evident to me. Why are certain conventions not allowed to be played? Because the authorities have decided that you should not be exposed to them because of their strangeness, ethical problems, or whatever. You were exposed to a convention that you should not have been exposed to. Yes, you went wrong, but so what? From what I have seen there seems to be problems in the ACBL about consistency of rulings in specific areas. The position you quote is one where an EBU/WBU TD has the advantage of a laid-down procedure. In England/Wales you play the board out to see if you get 60%+: if you don't then the result is cancelled and you get A+/A-. It is amazing to me that unlike every other sport in the known universe bridge is the one that does not have the simple rule: You do something wrong, you get screwed. Furthermore it amazes me even more that people expect to do something wrong and not get penalised. No wonder that it gets a fair number of total shits playing the game. Some time ago David Burn suggested that if you do anything wrong on a board you get -1700. You lead out of turn? Ok, -1700. While I do not think he was really serious I believe that if we did have that rule the game would be a better and more enjoyable game than it is today. Your opponents did not follow the rules of the game. Why on earth should they not get a bad score? They deserve one, don't they? It is not difficult to check whether something is legal under GCC: I often do and I tell people what they can and cannot play - and I have never played a single board under ACBL regulations! >Alice would have doubled a natural 3H opening, RHO would have bid 4H, I would >have doubled, and Alice would have bid 4S. The illegal convention did not harm >us, we did ourselves in. We should get -200 on the board, and the opponents >should be told to take the convention off their card because it is illegal. >Maybe a procedural penalty for them would be in order, I don't know. > >First, I think that all ACBL TDs (at least those who can access the Internet) >should be required to subscribe to BLML. There is no better training facility. > >Second, this quick resort to artificial scores is typical of ACBL TDs, even >though it is seldom necessary, often illegal, and always undesirable. That may or may not be fair. The important thing is that the policy in the face of a pair playing an illegal convention should be written down and followed. In the EBU/WBU we can refer to the EBU TD Guide, so there is no question as to what the ruling is. Has the ACBL got a TD guide? if not, why not? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 18:02:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:02:49 +1100 Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA05351 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:02:44 +1100 Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 5NOHa28705 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:01:46 -0500 (EST) From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <60919d5.34f7b65c@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 02:01:46 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Gift of an Artificial Score Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > It is amazing to me that unlike every other sport in the known > universe bridge is the one that does not have the simple rule: You do > something wrong, you get screwed. Furthermore it amazes me even more > that people expect to do something wrong and not get penalised. No > wonder that it gets a fair number of total shits playing the game. > > snip > > Your opponents did not follow the rules of the game. Why on earth > should they not get a bad score? They deserve one, don't they? It is > not difficult to check whether something is legal under GCC: I often do > and I tell people what they can and cannot play - and I have never > played a single board under ACBL regulations! Of course they should get a bad score, and they did (40%). When I said the score should stand, I was referring to our score, not theirs, which I should have made clear. As a TD, I would have given them a zero on the board as a procedural penalty. My point was that we did not deserve a good score. The opponents' use of an illegal convention did no harm to us whatsoever, since we would have obtained the same -200 if the opponent had merely opened 3H instead of the 3D transfer bid. Our score should therefore not have been changed. Many players do have a difficult time understanding all the rules of the ACBL Convention Charts. And TDs too. A TD at the recent Albuquerque regional informed me that weak two bids with more than a 7 HCP range are illegal. He had understandably misread Item 6. under RESPONSES AND REBIDS on the GCC, which only says that conventions cannot be used following a wider range weak two. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 20:11:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA05522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 20:11:56 +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 UAA05517 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 20:11:50 +1100 Received: from default (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA08493 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 10:11:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199802280911.KAA08493@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 10:11:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Gift of an Artificial Score Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marv French shared this with us: > Alice and I played at the Queen Mary regional in Long Beach, CA, for two days > this week, getting souvenir mugs for a section win as a gift from the > tournament director (TD), an employee of the ACBL. Gift from the TD? Yes, > because we won by a very small margin as a result of the following situation: > > My LHO opens 3D, alerted as a transfer preempt, i.e., equivalent to a 3H > opening. Alice doubles, thinking this is a double of a 3H opening (we have not > discussed this situation, since we seldom play in events where transfer > preempts would be allowed). I call the TD, because this is a General > Convention Chart (GCC) event and transfer preempts are not allowed on GCC. TD > says continue, let's see what happens. My RHO bids 4H, and I double with S- > A10x H-KQ98 D-xxx C-xxx. Alice thinks this is a responsive double, forgetting > that we are not playing responsive doubles through 4H (only through 3S) and > bids 4S on a four-card suit. She goes down two vulnerable tricks. TD returns > to see what happened, and we tell him. > > TD says he will think about it (probably conferring with his peers, including > the Chief Director) and render a decision later. Later he comes back and says > the result has been thrown out, we get avg+ and opponents avg-. I thank him, > and later ask if he has an e-mail address. He does. Then I ask if he is a > subscriber to BLML. He doesn't know what that is, so I explain, and give him > the instructions for subscribing. > > It is evident to everyone on BLML, I hope, that the result should have stood. > Alice would have doubled a natural 3H opening, RHO would have bid 4H, I would > have doubled, and Alice would have bid 4S. The illegal convention did not harm > us, we did ourselves in. We should get -200 on the board, and the opponents > should be told to take the convention off their card because it is illegal. > Maybe a procedural penalty for them would be in order, I don't know. Let us RTFLB a little. The SO has regulated the use of conventions according to L40D. I trust that the penalties for violating these regulations are not pinned out in the SO's regulations; otherwise you would have told us which procedural penalty is prescribed. Thus I get to L84E: If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal (see Law 81C9). I cannot find fault with a director who rules that there is just a reasonable possibility that you and your partner would not have been confused by your own methods if no irregularity had occurred. I would have ruled exactly the same way, and I hope that I would have remembered to tell the perpetrators about their right to appeal -- I think I usually do. I also agree that we have to make do with an L12A2 adjustment. Your statement that your confusion was not caused by the illegal convention could be treated under L81C8 as a request for a waiver of the adjustment (very sporting of you), which the TD has declined to follow. Putting down the law book, let me try a lecture: The purpose of the regulation is to protect you and your partner from being confused by gadgets like these. A gadget was used; you and your partner were genuinely confused. Do you seriously expect me as TD to insist that you prove to me that the confusion was caused by the illegal gadget, rather than let your opponents prove to the AC that it wasn't? Independently of all this, the question of how large a PP to slap on top of this is a matter of local tradition. I would be willing to accept any tradition between 0 and 40% of a board as reasonable. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 28 22:21:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 22:21:53 +1100 Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.1.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA05707 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 22:21:48 +1100 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA09589 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:21:06 +0100 Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:21:06 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Mlfrench Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Gift of an Artificial Score In-Reply-To: <83a27acb.34f7685b@aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Mlfrench wrote: > Alice and I played at the Queen Mary regional in Long Beach, CA, for two days > this week, getting souvenir mugs for a section win as a gift from the > tournament director (TD), an employee of the ACBL. Gift from the TD? Yes, > because we won by a very small margin as a result of the following situation: > > My LHO opens 3D, alerted as a transfer preempt, i.e., equivalent to a 3H > opening. Alice doubles, thinking this is a double of a 3H opening (we have not > discussed this situation, since we seldom play in events where transfer > preempts would be allowed). I call the TD, because this is a General > Convention Chart (GCC) event and transfer preempts are not allowed on GCC. TD > says continue, let's see what happens. My RHO bids 4H, and I double with S- > A10x H-KQ98 D-xxx C-xxx. Alice thinks this is a responsive double, forgetting > that we are not playing responsive doubles through 4H (only through 3S) and > bids 4S on a four-card suit. She goes down two vulnerable tricks. TD returns > to see what happened, and we tell him. > > TD says he will think about it (probably conferring with his peers, including > the Chief Director) and render a decision later. Later he comes back and says > the result has been thrown out, we get avg+ and opponents avg-. I thank him, > and later ask if he has an e-mail address. He does. Then I ask if he is a > subscriber to BLML. He doesn't know what that is, so I explain, and give him > the instructions for subscribing. > > It is evident to everyone on BLML, I hope, that the result should have stood. > Alice would have doubled a natural 3H opening, RHO would have bid 4H, I would > have doubled, and Alice would have bid 4S. The illegal convention did not harm > us, we did ourselves in. We should get -200 on the board, and the opponents > should be told to take the convention off their card because it is illegal. I disagree. The idea of a convention chart is that the players get an idea which conventions the opponents will use and have a chance to discuss defenses against those conventions. Here, you knew that the event used the GCC and you didn't see a reason to discuss the defense against transfer preempts as you knew that they wouldn't come up anyway. This is what started the confusion: the first double was already undefined and you had no idea what any follow-up action would mean. I see no sensible reason why a result based on the use of an illegal convention and general confusion by one of the non-offenders as a result of that should stand. 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.