From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 1 01:50:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 01:50:25 +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 BAA08380 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 01:50:18 +1100 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-98.uunet.be [194.7.13.98]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA03366 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:50:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34F82382.F90BDBA4@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:47:30 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: ss Finland and Fifth Friday X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To all interested parties : I have just put on my web-site some information on the two simultaneous tournaments we have so far run : http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/finland.html and http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html including an individual ranking over both. The next session of the fifth friday is on the 29th of May. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 1 03:20:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 03:20:03 +1000 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 DAA09307 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 03:19:54 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0123546; 28 Feb 98 17:19 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 03:47:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling revisited In-Reply-To: <6qovW+CmF390EwUR@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: > >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 > 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. But do we accept North's statement? It is easy enough afterwards to think "If I had not doubled then 2D might have been passed out in a very poor contract" but at the time North would not have been thinking that way. If he really had known that it was a transfer he would have doubled 2D because he would have been happy to get a cheap chance to show his diamonds. He would have only passed if he knew _both_ that it showed hearts _and_ that the oppos were having a misunderstanding, and that is not the way we rule. I think that North's statement is wrong, not because he is lying, but because he does not understand the Laws. In my view if 2D had been alerted and described as hearts then I believe that North would have doubled. > 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. For the above reasons this is not a credible ruling. >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. I agree with this. In NAmerica there is an approach which seems to be that NOs have to justify their actions to get an adjustment. In my view this is part of what is wrong with NAmerican bridge. People who do not follow the rules of the game [Rules = Laws + Regulations] should be penalised: it is one of the weaknesses of bridge that this is often not so, and one of the reasons why some very nasty people play the game. In Europe failure to play the game to its best advantage is not a reason not to get a ruling in your favour, and this is as it should be. NAmerica has gone way overboard in criticising NOs and it is time they reconsidered their policy in this area. This hand is an excellent example. A not-very-good pair sitting N/S have not made the best use of their cards because they are not very competent. A pair sitting E/W have broken the rules of the game. Why on earth should out sympathies not be totally with N/S? In American Football, if you encroach it is a 5-yard penalty: if you have Defensive Pass Interference it is a *large* penalty. This applies *even* if the offense fumble the ball. I see no reason why it should not be similar in bridge, and the game will be fairer and more enjoyable if so. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 1 06:33:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 06:33:18 +1000 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 GAA09671 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 06:33:13 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb44.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.44]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA28439 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 15:33:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980228121738.006e7f9c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:17:38 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Gift of an Artificial Score In-Reply-To: <9bH0SOAN$390EwWT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <83a27acb.34f7685b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:09 AM 2/28/98 +0000, David wrote: > 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. > I disagree that the principle of "you do something wrong, you get screwed" is nearly as universal as you suggest. In some sports, deliberate infractions are fairly common, because the penalty to be paid is less than the cost of failing to break the rules. In basketball, for example, it happens in nearly every game near the end that one side is deliberately fouling the other in order to stop the clock. The NOS gets to shoot penalty free throws, but the hope is that this will be a fair price for getting the ball back. In American-style football, the NOS usually has the option of waiving the penalty and accepting the result of the play, and this happens maybe 10-15% of the time. Every competitive activity has its own rules and system for enforcing the rules, and I think that the general philosophy of redress for damage and restoration of equity is reasonable and appropriate for the game of bridge. As for David Burns' (toungue in cheek?) "-1700 System", it would undoubtedly be simpler to administer, but then what would we have to argue about? ;-) Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 2 02:53:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 02:53:21 +1000 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 CAA14717 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 02:53:14 +1000 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 RAA01285 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 17:53:08 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA00945 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 17:53:06 +0100 Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 17:53:06 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199803011653.RAA00945@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RNG bit lengths Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edward Sheldon wrote: > The advantage of starting with a random deck is minimal. 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. Agreed. But on the other hand it might be a convenient and user-friendly way to generate and enter a multibit seed value by non-computer users. By theory a perfect shuffling algorithm will generate every possible hand with equal probability, without being dependent on any previous actions, like e.g. pre-shuffling. From this perspective pre-shuffling won't help but also won't do any damage either. So pre-shuffling is NOT a prerequisite. Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes, but since they are a subset of a random subset of the total set, > they must be considered completely random in the total set. I don't agree. If the first deal is random, and the second deal depends heavily on the first deal, I can't see how we could call this completely random in the total set. > Secondly, we want to make sure that the hands already played do not > provide enough data to completely reconstruct the next hand still to be > played. We have concluded that provided we deal no more than three > consecutive hands from a fixed position, we cannot reconstruct the next > hand. > > By a simple reshuffle (even 32 bits should do IMO), but of course using > some external reseeding, I do believe this second condition is still > met. Since a perfect randomly unsorted card sequence is good for 226 bits, a perfect randomly sorted card sequence requires only 96 bits, we can get 2 perfect randomly sorted card sequences from 1 good shuffle. But I don't see how we could get 3. On the other hand shuffling 18 packs by hand to be able to provide 36 packs is not very far away from complete shuffling by hand, and can hardly be called a computer algorithm. > I still don't see why you need 256 bit random numbers. > These are just as easily reconstructed (if you know the RNG algorithm) > than 32-bit ones. The RNG algorithm should be openly published and not hidden, just like e.g. the PGP software. Else one would always have to worry about potential information leaks. So it has to be done properly, because normal people might be fooled, but not a computer. And think about the possibilities with computers in 10 years, in 20 years, ... Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > I attach a small program, which is part of my dealing suite. It > does perfect random shuffling. It runs under MS-DOS. Why don't you > try it out? Would you kindly provide us with the details of your perfect random shuffling program? Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 2 03:43:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 03:43:27 +1000 Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.157]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14819 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 03:43:21 +1000 Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 5GUAa16811 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 1998 12:42:37 -0500 (EST) From: Mlfrench Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 12:42:37 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: David Stevenson Dubbed Calendar Expert 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 Excerpts from New York Times Service news item sent here from London: "The Millenium Dome, Britain's ambitious monument to the next century, has been derided as an extravagant irrelevancy, a political vanity project and a colossal waste of $1.24 billion. "But yesterday, Prime Minister Tony Blair swept aside the criticism and declared that the dome, which is scheduled to open Dec. 31, 1999, will be built on time and on budget to become the 'finest exhibition the world has seen.' "The dome is being built in Greenwich to mark the place where Greenwich Mean Time was introduced in 1884 and where the new century will officially dawn. (Many experts say, however, that the new century will not begin until 2001.)" Since David Stevenson also says that, he can take pride in the title of "expert" bestowed on him by the New York Times. Too bad there aren't more such experts in the U. K. They might be able to persuade the contractors not to rush, that a year's delay in completing the dome would be quite appropirate. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 2 09:20:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:20:59 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA15829 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:20:47 +1000 Received: from default (cph18.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.18]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA00094 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 00:20:37 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803012320.AAA00094@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 00:20:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: RNG bit lengths Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Kretschmar wrote: > Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > > I attach a small program, which is part of my dealing suite. It > > does perfect random shuffling. It runs under MS-DOS. Why don't you > > try it out? > > Would you kindly provide us with the details of your perfect random > shuffling program? Martin has chosen to publish my private mail to him and Herman. It has not been my intention to prolong this BLML thread to which Martin is the prime contributor. I would like to apologize to the group that this has been the effect. /Jens -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 2 09:44:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:44:32 +1000 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 JAA15987 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:44:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0102734; 1 Mar 98 23:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 21:28:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Australian Bridge Federation - Director's Bulletin [advert] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have had for some time an article from the November issue of DB, the ABF Director's Bulletin. It posed three questions concerned with MI. Now the February issue provides the answers, using a Panel format. Three more questions are set. Do you want to see them? Look at Bridge Rulings Articles on my Bridgepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm It is my current intention to include one or two articles from each issue of DB on my website. However, it is an excellent publication, the best of its type I have *ever* seen, so I do not actually advise you to rely on my Bridgepage. Fortunately, at the end of my article there are details of how to subscribe, and I advise you to do so! Both the editor, and the moderator of the queries section shown on my website, subscribe to BLML, which may be why one of the questions set for May is very familiar! -- 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 Mar 2 10:34:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:34:28 +1000 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 KAA16228 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:34:19 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0111721; 2 Mar 98 0:28 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 00:26:43 +0000 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: COULDNT POSSI In-Reply-To: <9802242029.0SSI903@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9802242029.0SSI903@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > >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. > ...............................cut................................ I am not sure where you really ended up after that long speech; but one suspects this was good old-fashioned 1950's coffee-housing; it needed TD action 'pour encourager les autres' -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 2 11:31:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:31:52 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16558 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:31:44 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2747.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.71]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA13869 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 01:31:28 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: Subject: David Stevenson Dubbed Calender Expert Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 01:37:17 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd457b$bc224b60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench wrote ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 12:04:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0208045; 2 Mar 98 2:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 01:56:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: David Stevenson Dubbed Calender Expert In-Reply-To: <01bd457b$bc224b60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >I have long argued that the Millenium celebrations should be on >Dec31/Jan1 on the turn of the years 2000/2001. >Being a new contributer to BLML I missed the DS opinion but I am suspect >that I would agree with what he said. My opinion was not on BLML: for those of you who want to see my opinion, it is on my Generalpage under 'A wide variety of articles' at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gen_menu.htm >When my car had "done" 20,000 miles,I celebrated. When it had "done" >80,000 miles, I celebrated. The Millenium is surely of little interest >to other than Christians, but it would seem to me that the time to >celebrate is after the completion of 2000 years after the birth of our >Lord. Like Christmas, I think that the secular interest is not only strong, but possibly paramount. -- 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 Mar 2 13:27:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:27:27 +1000 Received: from mailhost.whirlpool.com (ns.whirlpool.com [158.52.1.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16988 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:27:18 +1000 Received: (qmail 19655 invoked from network); 2 Mar 1998 03:03:08 -0000 Received: from email1.email.whirlpool.com (158.52.27.50) by firewall.whirlpool.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 1998 03:03:08 -0000 Received: from ccMail by email1.email.whirlpool.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 000C8A94; Sun, 1 Mar 98 21:53:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 17:27:41 -0500 Message-ID: <000C8A94.1728@email.whirlpool.com> From: Vladimir_Machat@email.whirlpool.com (Vladimir Machat) Subject: Re: Ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From [JP, via] owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Feb 25 17:14 > 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. We have UI and either MB or MI case. If we come to the conclusion MB had taken place, then IMO we arrive at -630 with arguments given by Vitold. From the E's statement we rather believe in MI. When we set for MI, UI line becomes irrelevant. MI is important feature here. Agreement with David about casual link. GTCOALOP (=Given the constraints of actual level of play) it is difficult to see NS to be interested in diamond [game] contract after West showing diamond lenght [from the bidding] even if later revealing the news by running into hearts. South's failure to make proper inference from the fact that West could not have diamond lenght: N doubling for penalty, E known to have balanced hand, should not prevent them from their redress. After all, there still can be some weird off-shape NT. I also tend to doubt N's "reasoning" not to double 2D transfer bid, but I am prepared to give him(her) benefit of doubt and permit him(her) to bid 3D in the next turn, S doubling 2H or not. IMO West's alert of 2H bid is clear breach of L75D2. From the alert, N should have been aware of MI, but GTCOALOP, *was* he(she)? More, I am not happy with the situation when second offense of the pair in the same deal should prevent NOS from redress for the first infraction. What a loose constructionist am I! I would not mind even to come with heavy artillery of L84E, if necessary. After 3D bid, E and S will surely compete, final contract 5D doubled being reasonable option. Agreement with Anne. My ruling will be, according to L12C2 and GTCOALOP, splitted +150 for NS and +550 for EW, giving N once again the benefit of doubt being able to collect 11 tricks and the chance to defend their ability to reach game contract with AC at the same time. --- Nice regards from Vladimir to everyone. This is my first contribution to BLML. I live in Prague, Czech Republic. I play bridge for 17 years and became engaged at management of the game at country level for some time. Really enjoying BLML fascinating discussions ! -------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 2 19:28:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:28:38 +1000 Received: from mail.vest.net (root@mail.vest.net [195.97.156.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA17870 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:28:26 +1000 Received: from kontoret (p168.vestnet.dk [195.97.156.74]) by mail.vest.net (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA09785 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 09:29:41 +0100 From: "Jens Ulrik Fougt" To: "mailinglist" Subject: Law 83 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 10:23:02 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd45bc$cca97df0$0100007f@kontoret.juf> 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 came across another reason to refer a matter to the AC last night: To make sure It was the final match in our national "1. division" (our top level) and I was called to a table: N played 6S and E had established a revoke: S/EW AT95 Bidding: KT 1C P 1S 2NT (red suits) J85 3D 4D P 5D A974 P P 6C P 8732 4 6S P P P 6 Q97532 Q763 AK942 J853 Q KQJ6 AJ84 T KT62 The play: 1: D A 2: H to the T 3: D to SJ 4: S6 to S9, E discarding a diamond 5: HK to S2 6: S to SQ, E following suit. Declarer took 10 tricks, adjusted to 11 About 10 min. after the end of the match N comes to me, claiming that had E not made the revoke he (N) would always make 12 tricks. I had not studied the board earlier, but now I asked him to tell me how. He explained a line of play, which would only yield 11 tricks. We both shrugged, agreeing that there wasn't more to it, but 15 seconds later he was back, this time with a succesful line of play. I ruled against him, i.e. did not use L64C, L12C to adj. the score. This way I ensured, that the matter would end in the AC. A moment later I remembered the new possibility of referring the matter to the AC myself (The 1987 laws have been used in Denmark until feb. 16.) and used it. There is a little twist to this, you see: EW announced that thay would not appeal any decision as they would play in the 2. division anyway next year, but if a: I adjust to 6S, 12, North stays in the 1. division b: the AC chooses not to adjust to 6S, 12, N will play in the 2. division next year. Thus there is another team which will play either in the 1. or the 2. division next year depending on my decision, but they cannot appeal my decision should I decide to adj. to 6S making. I think this is the perfect reason to refer the amtter to the AC. Jens Ulrik Fougt juf@vestnet.dk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 2 23:44:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:44:31 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18594 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:44:25 +1000 Received: from default (client86a2.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.86.162]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA29237; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:44:02 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Re_Ruling_2 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:05:53 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd45db$ee852720$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" 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 : \\x// \\x// \\x// >"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". 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-pairsthat 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. \\x// \\x// \\x// \\x// #### Dear Vitold, I fear you have misinterpreted the definitions in the laws. For the purposes of the laws 'Opponent' is one of the two players against whom you are playing at the table; 'Contestant' is a unit - team, pair or individual, whatever is the nature of the entry - participating in the tournament; but in connection with Law 12A1 the 'contestant' has to be damaged by an 'opponent' which means the damage has to be inflicted directly on the contestant at the table. So you have no grounds for considering damage to third-party competitors not involved at the table as the basis of your decision. In passing, note that a parallel attitude is reflecting in the way Law 92A does not permit a contestant to appeal a ruling made at a table in which that contestant was not in play.#### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 3 00:26:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:26:19 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20960 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:26:13 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa18112; 2 Mar 98 6:25 PST To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: David Stevenson Dubbed Calender Expert In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Mar 1998 01:37:17 PST." <01bd457b$bc224b60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 06:25:37 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9803020625.aa18112@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, as long as we're nitpicking . . . > The Millenium is surely of little interest > to other than Christians, but it would seem to me that the time to > celebrate is after the completion of 2000 years after the birth of our > Lord. Unfortunately, that time probably came and went a few years ago. No one's really sure when he was born, but according to _Fabulous Fallacies_, by Tad Tuleja: The commonly accepted idea that he was born in "the year One" derives from the reckoning of the sixth-century monk Dionysius Exiguus, whose intepretation most scholars now reject. Bible experts have placed the birth as far back as 20 B.C. and as far forward as A.D. 6. The most respected view today is that Jesus was born toward the end of Herod's reign--probably around 6 "B.C.". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 3 01:56:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 01:56:25 +1000 Received: from ns2.tudelft.nl (ns2.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA21190 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 01:56:14 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by mailhost1.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-10 #27995) with SMTP id <0EP7003PZ88DNZ@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:55:26 +0100 (MET) Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA10678; Mon, 02 Mar 1998 16:54:51 +0100 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 16:54:49 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Law 83 In-reply-to: <01bd45bc$cca97df0$0100007f@kontoret.juf>; from "Jens Ulrik Fougt" at Mar 2, 98 10:23 am To: juf@vestnet.dk (Jens Ulrik Fougt) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <0EP7003Q088DNZ@mailhost1.tudelft.nl> Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk snip > > N played 6S and E had established a revoke: > > S/EW > AT95 Bidding: > KT 1C P 1S 2NT (red suits) > J85 3D 4D P 5D > A974 P P 6C P > 8732 4 6S P P P > 6 Q97532 > Q763 AK942 > J853 Q > KQJ6 > AJ84 > T > KT62 > > The play: > > 1: D A > 2: H to the T > 3: D to SJ > 4: S6 to S9, E discarding a diamond > 5: HK to S2 > 6: S to SQ, E following suit. > > Declarer took 10 tricks, adjusted to 11 > > About 10 min. after the end of the match N comes to me, claiming that had E > not made the revoke he (N) would always make 12 tricks. I had not studied > the board earlier, but now I asked him to tell me how. He explained a line > of play, which would only yield 11 tricks. We both shrugged, agreeing that > there wasn't more to it, but 15 seconds later he was back, this time with a > succesful line of play. > > I ruled against him, i.e. did not use L64C, L12C to adj. the score. This > way I ensured, that the matter would end in the AC. A moment later I > remembered the new possibility of referring the matter to the AC myself (The > 1987 laws have been used in Denmark until feb. 16.) and used it. > > There is a little twist to this, you see: > > EW announced that thay would not appeal any decision as they would play in > the 2. division anyway next year, but if > a: I adjust to 6S, 12, North stays in the 1. division > b: the AC chooses not to adjust to 6S, 12, N will play in the 2. division > next year. > > Thus there is another team which will play either in the 1. or the 2. > division next year depending on my decision, but they cannot appeal my > decision should I decide to adj. to 6S making. I think this is the perfect > reason to refer the amtter to the AC. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- I don'nt think that the TD must take in account who is playing next year in the 1. or 2. division. For me it is only important to know or the NS players are able to find the winning play. In my humble opinion this contract of 6S can only be made if something nice happenes with the Club-suite. Or the QJ of clubs must be singleton or East (has a lot of hearts and diamond so East can't have also a four card clubs) must have a singleton Q or J. Because East shows 10, 11 cards in the red suits it seems that a singleton in the hand of East is more possible then a doubleton. After the second spade from S the declarer also knows that the spades are 4:1 . I think that 1. division-players will find such a line of play. I would ask other players of the same level how they would have played in this case. I tend strongly to let NS to make 6S. 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 Mar 3 03:32:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:32:23 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21686 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 03:32:13 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:31:58 GMT Date: Mon, 2 Mar 98 17:31:57 GMT Message-Id: <8140.9803021731@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 83 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [snip] > N played 6S and E had established a revoke: > > S/EW > AT95 Bidding: > KT 1C P 1S 2NT (red suits) > J85 3D 4D P 5D > A974 P P 6C P > 8732 4 6S P P P > 6 Q97532 > Q763 AK942 > J853 Q > KQJ6 > AJ84 > T > KT62 > > The play: > > 1: D A > 2: H to the T > 3: D to SJ > 4: S6 to S9, E discarding a diamond > 5: HK to S2 > 6: S to SQ, E following suit. > > Declarer took 10 tricks, adjusted to 11 > > About 10 min. after the end of the match N comes to me, claiming that had E > not made the revoke he (N) would always make 12 tricks. I had not studied > the board earlier, but now I asked him to tell me how. He explained a line > of play, which would only yield 11 tricks. We both shrugged, agreeing that > there wasn't more to it, but 15 seconds later he was back, this time with a > succesful line of play. > > I ruled against him, i.e. did not use L64C, L12C to adj. the score. This > way I ensured, that the matter would end in the AC. A moment later I > remembered the new possibility of referring the matter to the AC myself (The > 1987 laws have been used in Denmark until feb. 16.) and used it. > > There is a little twist to this, you see: > > EW announced that thay would not appeal any decision as they would play in > the 2. division anyway next year, but if > a: I adjust to 6S, 12, North stays in the 1. division > b: the AC chooses not to adjust to 6S, 12, N will play in the 2. division > next year. > > Thus there is another team which will play either in the 1. or the 2. > division next year depending on my decision, but they cannot appeal my > decision should I decide to adj. to 6S making. I think this is the perfect > reason to refer the amtter to the AC. I don't think you need L83 here. You gave a ruling at the table which North says afterwards may be wrong. I don't think you have the opportunity to rule again, except under L82C. However, all you have to do is tell North that perhaps you ruled too hastily (not taking L64C in to account) and suggest that North should appeal. North will surely appeal if you support him and if he wins he will avoid relegation. 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 Mar 3 04:17:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 04:17:41 +1000 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 EAA21886 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 04:17:34 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h16.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id VAA03166; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 21:17:05 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34FBA105.55B0@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 22:19:49 -0800 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gester@globalnet.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re_Re_Ruling_2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="RULING3.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RULING3.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ATTN TO: m-r Grattan Endicott CC: BLML Dear sir, I should once more to express my regret for my English - because it might happen that it was reason for misinterpretation. But nevertheless - it was the respected body - the Drafting Committee (and you were it's member) that changed the definition of the word "Opponent" in the Definitions of the Laws: The Laws-1987: "Opponent - A player of the other side, a member of the partnership to which one is opposed (RHO, right-hand opponent; LHO, left-hand opponent)" The Laws-1997: "Opponent - A player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed." And in the Laws-87 it was determined strictly as you described in your e-mail-letter to me - because of terms LHO and RHO were able to understand only if all the mentioned players were situated at the same table.. The simple verb "to oppose" may be understood as "to fight against" - and generally have to do with so second pair on the another line at the same table as all other pairs on the same line at all other tables. Because every EW pairs are fighting against NS pairs at their tables - and against all EW pairs - at other tables. What was the aim of omitting the terms LHO and RHO? The only rational aim (possible, it seems to me only) - is possibility to determine other pairs of the same line at other tables as opposed pair. In accordance with understanding bridge as kind of sport. If the Drafting Committee had another reasons for changing the Definitions - be so kind as to explain them me. Because without such additional explanation my poor English knowledge provided me to misinterpretations. And the discussed case is not the only one. The term "contestant" does with all the participants of the tournament (especially in pair tournament) - so on the same line as on other line... >In passing, note that a parallel attitude is reflecting in the way Law >92A does not permit a contestant to appeal a ruling made at a table >in which that contestant was not in play. Right you are - but it might be made by TD (L83) also - if it becomes necessary. Thank you for your remarks. Sincerely yours Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 3 04:44:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 04:44:57 +1000 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 EAA22033 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 04:44:50 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-35.uunet.be [194.7.13.35]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA24037 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:44:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34FAB549.A7949F51@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 14:34:01 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: RNG bit lengths X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199803011653.RAA00945@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: > > > Since a perfect randomly unsorted card sequence is good for 226 bits, a > perfect randomly sorted card sequence requires only 96 bits, we can get > 2 perfect randomly sorted card sequences from 1 good shuffle. But I don't > see how we could get 3. On the other hand shuffling 18 packs by hand to > be able to provide 36 packs is not very far away from complete shuffling > by hand, and can hardly be called a computer algorithm. > I was not looking for "perfect" random hands. I was only trying to get around the problem of cryptographical analysis that could get the third hand from the first two. This is shown to be impossible; but it should be theoretically possible to deduce the fourth hand from the first three. That is why you must reintorduce a "real" random element after every three deals. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 3 07:01:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:01:56 +1000 Received: from m3.sprynet.com (m3.sprynet.com [165.121.2.55]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA22645 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:01:49 +1000 Received: from default (hdn87-214.hil.compuserve.com [206.175.97.214]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA20794 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:08:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980302205947.00714f48@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 14:59:47 -0600 To: From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: RNG bit lengths Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I was only trying to get around the problem of cryptographical analysis >that could get the third hand from the first two. This is shown to be >impossible; but it should be theoretically possible to deduce the fourth >hand from the first three. That is why you must reintorduce a "real" >random element after every three deals. OK, a non-mathematician asks: Why not shuffle the *order* of the deals once you've gotten your 36 or whatever? Seems to me one couldn't deduce the fourth hand from the first three if the first three are actually hands 5, 19 and 22 or whatever. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas Editing, writing, proofreading If everyone would try and be the person their dog thinks they are, it would be a better world. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 3 09:14:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:14:39 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA23025 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:14:30 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA23807 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:14:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA25969; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:14:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:14:10 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803022314.SAA25969@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: David Stevenson Dubbed Calendar Expert X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Mlfrench [quoting NY Times] > "The dome is being built in Greenwich to mark the place where Greenwich Mean > Time was introduced in 1884 and where the new century will officially dawn. > (Many experts say, however, that the new century will not begin until 2001.)" _A_ new century begins every year, or every second for that matter. Or every microsecond or however finely you care to divide time. _The twenty-first century AD according to the Gregorian calendar_ (or the second millenium AD, or CE if you prefer) begins on 2001 January 1. Of course for most people, the big celebration will be one year earlier, when the first digit of the year changes. (Appropriately enough, the big headache will come the next day, 2000 January 1, when all our computers no longer work.) Any new century "officially dawns" at the easternmost point that is west of the international date line. That's somewhere in the Pacific, although I can't say exactly where. I've read that there will be charter flights to some small island near the location. Why is this so confusing? I haven't seen David's article, but I'm not surprised that he is not among the confused. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 3 10:00:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:00:13 +1000 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 KAA23190 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:00:07 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA00950 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:59:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:59:32 -0800 (PST) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199803022359.PAA00950@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: RNG bit lengths Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Mar 2 13:52 PST 1998 > > >I was only trying to get around the problem of cryptographical analysis > >that could get the third hand from the first two. This is shown to be > >impossible; but it should be theoretically possible to deduce the fourth > >hand from the first three. That is why you must reintorduce a "real" > >random element after every three deals. > > OK, a non-mathematician asks: Why not shuffle the *order* of the deals once > you've gotten your 36 or whatever? Seems to me one couldn't deduce the > fourth hand from the first three if the first three are actually hands 5, 19 > and 22 or whatever. Sounds like a clever idea to me; I like it. I think a clever computer could still solve for later hands, but it would probably add the limitation that you would not know any later hand until you tell it which cards you have. This could be particularly limiting if the computer deals extra boards, perhaps 10000 or more, and picks 36 at random, discarding the extras. Still, I don't quite see the concern with perfection, as long as hands are sufficiently random for human purposes. Do you envision a scenario in which someone uses the first smoke break to load hands into their computer and the second smoke break to examine the computer's predictions of the final hands? 10000 to choose from should be too many then, I suppose. Everett From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 3 10:58:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:58:12 +1000 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 KAA23304 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:57:46 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0210169; 3 Mar 98 0:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:00:31 +0000 To: Vladimir Machat Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <000C8A94.1728@email.whirlpool.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <000C8A94.1728@email.whirlpool.com>, Vladimir Machat writes > > --- Nice regards from Vladimir to everyone. > > This is my first contribution to BLML. I live in Prague, Czech > Republic. I play bridge for 17 years and became engaged at management > of the game at country level for some time. Really enjoying BLML > fascinating discussions ! > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome Vladimir, thanks for the comments -- 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 Mar 3 12:35:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:35:36 +1000 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 MAA23474 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:35:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0129767; 3 Mar 98 2:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:57:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling In-Reply-To: <000C8A94.1728@email.whirlpool.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vladimir Machat wrote: > We have UI and either MB or MI case. If we come to the conclusion MB > had taken place, then IMO we arrive at -630 with arguments given by > Vitold. From the E's statement we rather believe in MI. When we set > for MI, UI line becomes irrelevant. Generally I think you work out both MI and UI, and give the NOs the benefit of the more favourable. > This is my first contribution to BLML. I live in Prague, Czech > Republic. I play bridge for 17 years and became engaged at management > of the game at country level for some time. Really enjoying BLML > fascinating discussions ! Glad to hear from you. Pleased you are enjoying 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 Mar 3 12:36:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:36:07 +1000 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 MAA23489 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:35:54 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0129772; 3 Mar 98 2:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:48:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: David Stevenson Dubbed Calendar Expert In-Reply-To: <199803022314.SAA25969@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Why is this so confusing? I haven't seen David's article, but I'm >not surprised that he is not among the confused. It is obviously time you read it, then! It is on my Generalpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gen_menu.htm -- 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 Mar 3 12:36:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:36:36 +1000 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 MAA23503 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:36:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa0129771; 3 Mar 98 2:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 00:53:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re_Re_Ruling_2 In-Reply-To: <34FBA105.55B0@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >But nevertheless - it was the respected body - the Drafting Committee >(and you were it's member) that changed the definition of the word >"Opponent" in the Definitions of the Laws: > >The Laws-1987: >"Opponent - A player of the other side, a member of the partnership >to which one is opposed (RHO, right-hand opponent; LHO, left-hand >opponent)" > >The Laws-1997: >"Opponent - A player of the other side; a member of the partnership >to which one is opposed." The terms LHO and RHO still appear in the Definitions: they have just been moved to appear under LHO and RHO. -- 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 Mar 3 22:03:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:03:34 +1000 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 WAA24753 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 22:03:27 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-116.uunet.be [194.7.9.116]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA12176 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:03:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <34FBC25F.E84B2592@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:42:07 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: RNG bit lengths X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <2.2.32.19980302205947.00714f48@m3.sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: > > >I was only trying to get around the problem of cryptographical analysis > >that could get the third hand from the first two. This is shown to be > >impossible; but it should be theoretically possible to deduce the fourth > >hand from the first three. That is why you must reintorduce a "real" > >random element after every three deals. > > OK, a non-mathematician asks: Why not shuffle the *order* of the deals once > you've gotten your 36 or whatever? Seems to me one couldn't deduce the > fourth hand from the first three if the first three are actually hands 5, 19 > and 22 or whatever. > Because if the "random shuffle" is based on the same RNG algorithm, you could also deduce that, I imagine. This only makes the problem harder, not impossible. Don't forget that we're dealing with super-super-super-computers here. If it's mathematically possible, we don't want it. But if after every three boards we have the user type in a letter at random, which reseeds the whole process, then the "algorithm" gets confused and it is also theoretically impossible to deduce the following hands. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 4 00:37:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 00:37:36 +1000 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 AAA27469 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 00:37:31 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with SMTP id JAA30443; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:37:23 -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-1998Mar03.212400.1189.182792; Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:30:46 -0500 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge-laws), everett@ikos.com (Everett Boyer) Message-ID: <1998Mar03.212400.1189.182792@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:30:46 -0500 Subject: RE: RNG bit lengths Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Everett Boyer[SMTP:everett@ikos.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 1998 7:27 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: RNG bit lengths >> OK, a non-mathematician asks: Why not shuffle the *order* of the deals once >> you've gotten your 36 or whatever? Seems to me one couldn't deduce the >> fourth hand from the first three if the first three are actually hands 5, 19 >> and 22 or whatever. >Sounds like a clever idea to me; I like it. >I think a clever computer could still solve for later hands, >but it would probably add the limitation that you would not know any >later hand until you tell it which cards you have. This could be >particularly limiting if the computer deals extra boards, >perhaps 10000 or more, and picks 36 at random, discarding the extras. The problem with either of these approaches is that the pseudo-random number generator which is being used to reorder the deals or to select which deals out of a thousand to select is (presumably) the same number which was being used to seed the original deal generation. Little tricks like the ones which are being proposed actually do relatively little to make a brute force attack more difficult. In my mind, the only way to make the deal generation more resistant to a brute force attack is to reseed the deals fairly frequently. My guess is that at this point in time, it would not be unreasonable to reseed after generating deals for each session. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 4 01:02:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 01:02:09 +1000 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 BAA27581 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 01:01:49 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id KAA15525; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:03:48 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma015518; Tue, 3 Mar 98 10:03:07 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21930; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:59:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199803031459.JAA21930@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 3 Mar 98 08:02:52 GMT Subject: Re: Ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vladimir_Machat @ email.whirlpool.com wrote: >IMO West's alert of 2H bid is clear breach of L75D2. This was played in an English club, where it would be normal for the EBU's alerting rules to be followed. Under those rules W's alert, far from being a " clear breach of L75D2" is *required*. Of course W's gratuitous comment "completing the transfer" is UI to E, but in fact probably helpful to NS. Of course S should have called the TD after W's alert: then N could have changed the X of 2D. Also W should have called the TD at the end of the auction, since N could then have changed N's final pass. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 4 06:33:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:33:27 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA29104 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:33:19 +1000 Received: from default (cph56.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.56]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA15985 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:33:10 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803032033.VAA15985@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:33:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Computer Dealing and Cryptography Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A thread is currently addressing the cryptographic aspects of computer dealing. I feel that this is diverging too far from mainstream BLML subject matter for my liking. In spite of that, or rather to help that discussion avoid cluttering BLML with trivialities, I would like to offer some advice. Our esteemed correspondents are currently reinventing the wheel in the guise of the science (or engineering discipline, if you will) of cryptography. I recommend that these correspondents take time out, maybe one hour, to check out two FAQ lists. This might allow those of you who take an interest in these matters to stand on the shoulders of others. (I believe this phrase is due to Isaac Newton). Note that some of the URLs are rather long, so some software on the way may have chopped it into two lines. ============================ This first list is the basic tutorial that you should be motivated to read at this point http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/cryptography-faq/top.html The FAQs that shed most light on the issue discussed recently are 4.4. Why is the one-time pad secure? 4.8. In mathematical terms, what can you say about brute-force attacks? 8.8. What is the unicity point (a.k.a. unicity distance)? ============================ For further reading, I recommend http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/cryptography-faq/snake-oil/faq.html Here, the relevant FAQ is o Key Sizes ============================ Finally, the technical report that has been reported on BLML as "alarming" news about a brute-force attack on the DES algorithm (56 bit key), can be found in http://www.distributed.net/des/nugget.txt ============================ Enjoy! -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 4 15:38:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:38:15 +1000 Received: from oznet02.ozemail.com.au (oznet02.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.124]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00494 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:38:10 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri5p18.ozemail.com.au [203.108.233.34]) by oznet02.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA11623 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:38:06 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980303220149.006da3e0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 22:01:49 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Law 27. Premature correction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The two major NCBOs in zone 7 (Australia and NZ)are currently using vastly different interim interpretations of Law 27 re the treatment of premature corrections of an insufficient bid before the TD is called. I would be interested in learning of the official approach of other NCBOs or zones. We have seen on BLML the EBU interpretation. If I am correct, this is it briefly: Correction to next legal level where neither bid is conventional - bidding proceeds and no opportunity for offender to hear his options and withdraw his call. Correction to a double or redouble: must be corrected, partner is barred. No opportunity to have his bid cancelled and hear his options. Other correction: Bid is cancelled, options explained under 10C1, after which he selects his call. The Australian approach: Law 10C1 is a law which applies in all appropriate situations whether it is specifically mentioned in the Law or not. If it is to be used to justify cancelling the premature correction under 27B2, then it should also justify cancelling it under 27B1 and 27B3. So we are almost back to the 1987 Laws situation. The NZ approach: There is nothing in the new Law 27 which authorises cancelling such a call. If such a premature correction is made, then the offender is stuck with the consequences of his premature action. One proviso: common situations such as 4NT (Blackwood) - 4D are often inadvertent and directors should be conscious of this. The NZ CTD cites a discussion paper where Kaplan made it quite clear that this was his intention when the new Laws were drafted. Obviously zone 7 will need to reach agreement on this. Knowledge of the interpretation in other jurisdictions would I'm sure be very helpful. I have no official status within the zone, but will be able to pass on to the CTDs any replies. Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 4 23:49:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 23:49:35 +1000 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 XAA01466 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 23:49:27 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h52.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id QAA04754; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:49:18 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34FE0540.BCF@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 17:52:00 -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_Definitions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David:) Hi all:) In Laws - 1987 the definishions said that there were opponents: LHO and RHO only. In Laws 1997 due to move terms LHO and RHO from the definition of opponents became clear (hope that not only for me) that: - there were opponents - LHO and RHO were two possibile opponents - among others Thanks for remark Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 5 13:40:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:40:10 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA06496 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:40:02 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2024029; 5 Mar 98 3:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 02:59:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re_Definitions In-Reply-To: <34FE0540.BCF@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vtold wrote: >Hi David:) >Hi all:) >In Laws - 1987 the definishions said that there were opponents: LHO and >RHO only. In Laws 1997 due to move terms LHO and RHO from the definition >of opponents became clear (hope that not only for me) that: > - there were opponents > - LHO and RHO were two possibile opponents - among others Among others? I think we need to agree that opponents are those we play at the table. Vitold: the Laws do not accept opponents at other tables. Russia: Moscow: I would love to be there: invite me to Moscow as a Director, and I can explain what I mean in person. :) -- 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 Mar 5 18:46:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:46:37 +1000 Received: from devserver2.fsp.cz ([195.70.134.209]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA07256 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:46:29 +1000 Received: from pc52.fsp.cz (unverified [195.70.134.52]) by devserver2.fsp.cz (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Thu, 05 Mar 1998 09:45:51 +0100 Received: by pc52.fsp.cz with Microsoft Mail id <01BD481B.81DA5BD0@pc52.fsp.cz>; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:46:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01BD481B.81DA5BD0@pc52.fsp.cz> From: Jan Volhejn To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Re_Definitions Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:46:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>In Laws - 1987 the definishions said that there were opponents: LHO and >>RHO only. In Laws 1997 due to move terms LHO and RHO from the definition >>of opponents became clear (hope that not only for me) that: >> - there were opponents >> - LHO and RHO were two possibile opponents - among others > Among others? I think we need to agree that opponents are those we >play at the table. > > Vitold: the Laws do not accept opponents at other tables. And what about the opponent sitting at the same table just across the table? Often the most dangerous of all! ;-)) Jan Volhejn, Praha (Listening to the list with interest for long time and awaiting his opportunity for poor joke...) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 5 20:48:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA07493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:48:07 +1000 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 UAA07488 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:48:00 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h26.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id NAA21952; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 13:47:51 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <34FF2C3D.7374@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 14:50:38 -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_Definitions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="DEFINIT.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="DEFINIT.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David:) Hi all:) David wrote: >Among others? I think we need to agree that opponents are those we >play at the table. > >Vitold: the Laws do not accept opponents at other tables. > >Russia: Moscow: I would love to be there: invite me to Moscow as a >Director, and I can explain what I mean in person. :) Well - let us look at things once more: 1. We discussed Contract Bridge as sporting game, not as rubber game 2. When we play rubber bridge - there really are only two opponents, at the same table 3. In sporting bridge you play against pair that is sitting on other line at the same table as you are sitting, and against all other pairs that are sitting on the same line as you but at the other tables and will play the same boards. In reality you are fighting against them - and pair that at the moment is sitting at your table is only an instrument for receiving results that will be compared with results of these pairs from the same line. Yes, the feature of the bridge is that this instrument is also fighting against you - but treating you as similar instrument for receiving the best comparable results for himselves. 4. In all kinds of sport participants that are fighting against you are called as opponents. The only basic principle of all kinds of sport is equal conditions for every participants - and this principle is working with some modifications in every sport. 5. In sporting bridge that provides to determination as opponents all others pairs that will play the same boards and at the same line. Features of essence of bridge add to this multitude the pair that is playing at the same table on the other line. 6. I hope that the Legislator knew what he made when these little changes in the Definitions were made, because these changes may be interpreted as bringing bridge nearer to other kinds of sport. I guess that it may be especially important in contacts of bridge authority bodies with Olympic Committee. 7. That's why I try to prove that new version of the Laws determines pairs, playing the same boards on the same lines, as opponents. Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 6 02:03:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 02:03:44 +1000 Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10588 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 02:03:33 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts003p10.pop9b.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.66]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA09613 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:03:15 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:03:15 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <199803051603.SAA09613@alpha.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Law 25 and screens Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Under the old laws, regulations when screens were in use stated that a call was not considered made until the tray had been moved to the other side of the tray. In other words, an inadvertent call could be changed even after LHO had called. (The apparent contradiction between the regulations and the laws was explained by the fact that as the tray had not yet been moved, legally LHO had not yet called.) Under new law 25 an inadvertent call may be changed until partner calls. If the same screen regulation is still in effect, the regulation is now stricter than the law, whereas previously it had been more lenient. (There is also the question of the legality of this regulation if it still exists, under the new law 25; but this does not concern me at the moment.) Can anybody tell me if there has been a change in screen regulations? Perhaps one of the Hammemet directors is reading this and can tell me if there were new screen regulations at the Bermuda Bowl. Eitan Levy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 6 10:01:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:01:54 +1000 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 KAA12312 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:01:48 +1000 Received: from [131.217.5.75] (mg4-75.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.75]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.4-utas-ff) with SMTP id LAA12402 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:01:45 +1100 (EST) X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:01:47 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: ajmillen@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: Re_Definitions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:50 PM 3/5/98, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >David wrote: >>Among others? I think we need to agree that opponents are those we >>play at the table. >> >>Vitold: the Laws do not accept opponents at other tables. >> >>Russia: Moscow: I would love to be there: invite me to Moscow as a >>Director, and I can explain what I mean in person. :) > >Well - let us look at things once more: > >1. We discussed Contract Bridge as sporting game, not as rubber game Yes, we are discussing the "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" >2. When we play rubber bridge - there really are only two opponents, >at the same table >3. In sporting bridge you play against pair that is sitting on other line >at the same table as you are sitting, and against all other pairs that are >sitting on the same line as you but at the other tables and will play the >same boards. In reality you are fighting against them - and pair that at >the moment is sitting at your table is only an instrument for receiving >results that will be compared with results of these pairs from the same >line. Yes, the feature of the bridge is that this instrument is also >fighting against you - but treating you as similar instrument for >receiving the best comparable results for himselves. Yes, you play against your table opponents, but are scored against your field. >4. In all kinds of sport participants that are fighting against you are >called as opponents. The only basic principle of all kinds of sport is >equal conditions for every participants - and this principle is working >with some modifications in every sport. One can only approach equity in duplicate bridge. For true equity one would have to play each board and record a table score against every pair of contestants... which is fortunately expressly forbidden by law 15B. >5. In sporting bridge that provides to determination as opponents all >others pairs that will play the same boards and at the same line. >Features of essence of bridge add to this multitude the pair that is >playing at the same table on the other line. >6. I hope that the Legislator knew what he made when these little >changes in the Definitions were made, because these changes may be >interpreted as bringing bridge nearer to other kinds of sport. I guess >that it may be especially important in contacts of bridge authority >bodies with Olympic Committee. The Laws do not provide for opponents to be anything other than LHO and RHO. >7. That's why I try to prove that new version of the Laws determines >pairs, playing the same boards on the same lines, as opponents. Neither the previous edition of the Laws, nor the current ones specify that opponents are other than those seated at your table. However the Laws could be slightly more clear about this. Let us do some RTFLBing, in particular the definitions section. My comments follow the asterixes. CHAPTER I Definitions Alert A notification, whose form may be specified by a sponsoring organisation, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation. * It would not be the intention to have to explain to the entire field the meaning of an alerted bid Defender An opponent of (presumed) declarer. * This does not exclude the possibility of declarer having opponents who are not defenders, i.e. are at other tables. However if one's opponents were interpreted to be the entire field then this definition would be obscenely loosely worded. LHO Left-hand opponent. Matchpoint A unit of scoring awarded to a contestant as a result of comparison with one or more other scores. * Does not specify that these comparisions will be against scores of _opponents_ Opponent A player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed. * Appropriately, this provides the best justification for the prevailing interpretation of the identity of opponents : "A player of the other _side_" (singular), and "a member of the _partnership_" (singular) requires that there is only _one_ opposing pair, who can only be those seated at your table in the other direction. Partner The player with whom one plays as a side against the other two players. * This could be clearer, and could specify that the other two are the opponents. If one considers the verb "to oppose" to mean the same as "to play against" then "the other two players" at the table must become synonymous with "the partnership to which one is opposed". RHO Right-hand opponent. Side Two players who constitute a partnership against the other two players. * The word "against" strongly suggests the "partnership to which one is opposed" consists of the other two players at the table, when read with the definitions of Opponent and Partner. Vitold, while the wording of some of the above definitions is less than perfect, they become so once the definition of Opponent is read clearly. There is only one pair to which one is opposed; they are a side against which your side plays; that side consists of two players (see definitions of Opponent, Side and Partner). If we consult the Laws on scoring, Laws 77 and 78, LAW 77 - DUPLICATE BRIDGE SCORING TABLE TRICK SCORE Scored by declarer's side if the contract is fulfilled AT A NOTRUMP CONTRACT PREMIUM SCORE Scored by declarer's side UNDERTRICK PENALTIES Scored by declarer's opponents if the contract is not fulfilled * Declarer's opponents are ones whose score is given here when declarer fails to fulfil the contract. This conflicts with any view that declarer's opponents comprise the rest of the field in the same direction. LAW 78 - METHODS OF SCORING A. Matchpoint Scoring In matchpoint scoring each contestant is awarded, for scores made by different contestants who have played the same board and whose scores are compared with his, two scoring units (matchpoints or half matchpoints) for each score inferior to his, one scoring unit for each score equal to his, and zero scoring units for each score superior to his. * Not the scores made by opponents, but the "scores made by different contestants" I find no justification for any alternative interpretation. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 6 11:05:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:05:16 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA12446 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:05:10 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000526; 6 Mar 98 1:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:59:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re_Definitions In-Reply-To: <34FF2C3D.7374@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >4. In all kinds of sport participants that are fighting against you are >called as opponents. The only basic principle of all kinds of sport is >equal conditions for every participants - and this principle is working >with some modifications in every sport. This is not untrue. If Spartak Moscow play Dinamo Moscow in the Russian football league then their opponents are Dinamo Moscow - yet they are struggling to finish ahead of all the other teams in the league. >6. I hope that the Legislator knew what he made when these little >changes in the Definitions were made, because these changes may be >interpreted as bringing bridge nearer to other kinds of sport. I guess >that it may be especially important in contacts of bridge authority >bodies with Olympic Committee. Why on earth should the Laws be altered to be more like other games? That is not relevant. >7. That's why I try to prove that new version of the Laws determines >pairs, playing the same boards on the same lines, as opponents. The wording of the Laws is quite clear that this is not so. It would be unhelpful if it were so, and make the whole business of the Laws much more difficult. The definitions make it quite clear that your opponents are sitting at your table - and that is the way it should be. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 6 16:58:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA13076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:58:27 +1000 Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA13071 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:58:19 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts002p14.pop9b.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.52]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA06142 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:58:11 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:58:11 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <199803060658.IAA06142@alpha.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry - there was a power failure while preparing this and I left out a crucial part when retyping this question, which should read as follows: >Under the old laws, regulations when screens were in use stated that a call >was not considered made until the tray had been moved to the other side of >the tray. In other words, an inadvertent call could be changed even after >LHO had called. (The apparent contradiction between the regulations and the >laws was explained by the fact that as the tray had not yet been moved, >legally LHO had not yet called.) > >Under new law 25 an inadvertent call may be changed until partner calls. If >the same screen regulation is still in effect, the regulation appears stricter than the law, whereas previously it had been more lenient. (There >is also the question of the legality of this regulation if it still exists, >under the new law 25; but this does not concern me at the moment.) > However, if a call is not considered made until the tray has been passed, then partner's call is not made until the tray comes back, so that under the new law 25 and the (old?) regulation, in effect an inadvertent call may be changed at any time until the tray comes back again, even after partner (and also RHO) has called. >Can anybody tell me if there has been a change in screen regulations? >Perhaps one of the Hammemet directors is reading this and can tell me if >there were new screen regulations at the Bermuda Bowl. > >Eitan Levy > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 6 20:16:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:16:45 +1000 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 UAA13575 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:16:38 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id FAA27726; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 05:18:11 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma027679; Fri, 6 Mar 98 05:17:27 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA09378; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 05:13:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199803061013.FAA09378@fern.us.pw.com> To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 4 Mar 98 14:35:57 GMT Subject: Re: Re_Definitions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold @ elnet.msk.ru wrote: >In Laws - 1987 the definishions said that there were opponents: LHO and >RHO only. In Laws 1997 due to move terms LHO and RHO from the definition >of opponents became clear (hope that not only for me) that: > - there were opponents > - LHO and RHO were two possibile opponents - among others Let us look at the definition of opponent: "A player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed". Now look at the definition of "side": "Two players who constitute a partnership against the other two players." IMO the only possible "opponents" are those at your table. No-one else fits the definition. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 6 23:00:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:00:07 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA14084 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:59:57 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003143; 6 Mar 98 12:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:00:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: vitold@elnet.msk.ru, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Re_Definitions In-Reply-To: <199803061013.FAA09378@fern.us.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803061013.FAA09378@fern.us.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@eur ope.notes.pw.com writes >vitold @ elnet.msk.ru wrote: > >>In Laws - 1987 the definishions said that there were opponents: LHO and >>RHO only. In Laws 1997 due to move terms LHO and RHO from the definition >>of opponents became clear (hope that not only for me) that: >> - there were opponents >> - LHO and RHO were two possibile opponents - among others > >Let us look at the definition of opponent: "A player of the other side; a >member of the partnership to which one is opposed". Now look at the definition >of "side": "Two players who constitute a partnership against the other two >players." > >IMO the only possible "opponents" are those at your table. No-one else fits >the definition. > I'd not thought about this before but: "Opponents" are those people sitting against you at your table. This is clear. In a two winner Mitchell there are two classes of pairs other than yourselves. a) Those in your line against whom you are *competing*. I would call them your "Competitors". b) The pond life in the opposite line for whom you have no interest except when you play them. I would just call them "Contestants". -- 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 Mar 7 00:10:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:10:40 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14488 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:10:21 +1000 Received: from default (client87a5.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.165]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA32172; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:10:07 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Reg Busch" Subject: Re: Law 27. Premature correction Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:32:37 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4904$54073fe0$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: Reg Busch To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 04 March 1998 06:25 Subject: Law 27. Premature correction >The two major NCBOs in zone 7 (Australia and NZ)are currently using vastly >different interim interpretations of Law 27 re the treatment of premature >corrections of an insufficient bid before the TD is called. I would be >interested in learning of the official approach of other NCBOs or zones. > \X/ \X/ snip snip \X/ \X/ > >The NZ approach: There is nothing in the new Law 27 which authorises >cancelling such a call. If such a premature correction is made, then the >offender is stuck with the consequences of his premature action. One >proviso: common situations such as 4NT (Blackwood) - 4D are often >inadvertent and directors should be conscious of this. The NZ CTD cites a >discussion paper where Kaplan made it quite clear that this was his >intention when the new Laws were drafted. > #### I have no wish to comment upon procedures around the world, but I can confirm from Kaplan's correspondence with the committee that his specific intention was to remove the cancellation of a call 'prematurely substituted' and if the player does substitute a call before the Director arrives at the table he should apply 27B1 or 27B2 to the substituted call as appropriate. I think that the Committee as a whole, having adopted the proposal (to remove all after "pass"), can be deemed to have adopted also Kaplan's reasons for the change - i.e. to remove any ambiguity as to LHO's right to accept the substituted call. If he has made a correction as the law requires then he has done it. As to the application of Law10C1 it requires the Director to tell the player what his options *are*, but I hardly think this requires the offender to be told what his options would have been if he had acted differently, had not substituted the call etc., but no longer are. Law 10B authorizes the Director in his discretion to cancel any payment or waiver of a penalty prior to his explanation of the options; the substitution of a call, however, is rectification and is not payment of a penalty. #### Grattan #### #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 7 00:10:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:10:50 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA14570 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:10:34 +1000 Received: from default (client87a5.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.165]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA32187; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:10:12 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Re_Re_Ruling_2 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:08:14 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4909$4e07a8a0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 March 1998 03:42 Subject: Re: Re_Re_Ruling_2 >Vitold wrote: > >>But nevertheless - it was the respected body - the Drafting Committee>> #### guilty #### >>The Laws-1997: >>"Opponent - A player of the other side; a member of the partnership >>to which one is opposed." > #### Relevant also is the definition of 'side' in this context; it says:- "Two players who constitute a partnership against the other two players." ...note : TWO. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 7 04:28:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 04:28:53 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA18154 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 04:28:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2012833; 6 Mar 98 18:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:54:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens In-Reply-To: <199803060658.IAA06142@alpha.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: >Sorry - there was a power failure while preparing this and I left out a >crucial part when retyping this question, which should read as follows: > >>Under the old laws, regulations when screens were in use stated that a call >>was not considered made until the tray had been moved to the other side of >>the tray. In other words, an inadvertent call could be changed even after >>LHO had called. (The apparent contradiction between the regulations and the >>laws was explained by the fact that as the tray had not yet been moved, >>legally LHO had not yet called.) >> >>Under new law 25 an inadvertent call may be changed until partner calls. If >>the same screen regulation is still in effect, the regulation appears >stricter than the law, whereas previously it had been more lenient. (There >>is also the question of the legality of this regulation if it still exists, >>under the new law 25; but this does not concern me at the moment.) >> >However, if a call is not considered made until the tray has been passed, >then partner's call is not made until the tray comes back, so that under the >new law 25 and the (old?) regulation, in effect an inadvertent call may be >changed at any time until the tray comes back again, even after partner (and >also RHO) has called. > >>Can anybody tell me if there has been a change in screen regulations? >>Perhaps one of the Hammemet directors is reading this and can tell me if >>there were new screen regulations at the Bermuda Bowl. According to the the most recent WBF regulations that I have seen: A call is considered to have been made when a player releases it onto the tray (but Law 25 may apply). There doesn't seem any problem with this to me, but then this is not the regulation you quoted. -- 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 Mar 7 08:09:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:09:57 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18800 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:09:50 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client270f.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.15]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA29741 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:09:44 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:15:53 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd494d$6d7167a0$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 thought I understood now that , remembering David Stevensons 1NT Pass Pass 1C, corrected to 2C (conv) that the corrected bid was cancelled and the LHO of the offender was deemed to have accepted the 1C by calling.Law27A. However Grattan explains that the intention of the Law makers was to "remove the cancellation of a call prematurely substituted". Do I understand that in David's example the 2C(conv) bid has now been accepted and that in applying Law27B2, the partner of the player who had not heard his rights ,is silenced. Confused Anne from Cardiff:-))))) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 7 08:12:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:12:55 +1000 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 IAA18817 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:12:50 +1000 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 JAA07601 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 09:12:46 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980307090618.0091f700@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 09:06:18 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Re_Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <199803061013.FAA09378@fern.us.pw.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I'd not thought about this before but: >"Opponents" are those people sitting against you at your table. This is >clear. >In a two winner Mitchell there are two classes of pairs other than >yourselves. >a) Those in your line against whom you are *competing*. I would call >them your "Competitors". >b) The pond life in the opposite line for whom you have no interest >except when you play them. I would just call them "Contestants". Under law both of these "classes" are contestants. Why are we trying to draw a distinction? What rights are we suggesting that those contestants against whom you are scored should have? Mark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 7 08:32:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:32:20 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18866 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:32:13 +1000 Received: from default (client8765.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.101]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA31858 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:32:08 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Re: Law 27. Premature correction Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:33:25 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd494f$e0acb1a0$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: Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; Reg Busch Date: 06 March 1998 13:32 Subject: Re: Law 27. Premature correction >From: Reg Busch >> > >>The two major NCBOs in zone 7 (Australia and NZ)are currently using vastly >>different interim interpretations of Law . >> > \X/ \X/ snip snip \X/ \X/ >> ####Commenting earlier I used rather sloppy English: it is of course the offender who makes the correction; 'he' refers to the offender not to LHO.## Grattan#### From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 7 10:10:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:10:00 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19164 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:09:48 +1000 Received: from default (client8781.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.129]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA07491; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:09:42 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:04:51 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd495c$a65d6780$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 : Anne \\\\\\\; I am expounding what the drafters thought they were doing - please follow whatever guidelines your own national authority settles upon; there is nothing so effective in creating confusion as a new code of bridge laws and our efforts then to achieve common positions as to what they say. #### Grattan #### Anne wrote: >I thought I understood now that , remembering David Stevensons 1NT Pass >Pass 1C, corrected to 2C (conv) >that the corrected bid was cancelled and the LHO of >the offender was deemed to have accepted the 1C by calling.Law27A. >However Grattan explains that the intention of the Law makers was to >"remove the cancellation of a call prematurely substituted". >Do I understand that in David's example the 2C(conv) bid >has now been accepted and that in applying Law27B2, >the partner of the player who had not heard his rights ,is >silenced. >Confused Anne from Cardiff:-))))) > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 7 10:09:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:09:52 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19163 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:09:46 +1000 Received: from default (client8781.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.129]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA07486 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:09:39 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Fw: Law 27. Premature correct Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:58:46 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd495b$ccea4a40$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: Grattan Endicott To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Date: 06 March 1998 23:31 Subject: Re: Law 27. Premature correct > >gester@globalnet.co.uk >Grattan Endicott >Liverpool L18 8DJ : > >-----Original Message----- >From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >To: gester@globalnet.co.uk >Date: 06 March 1998 17:23 >Subject: Law 27. Premature correct > > >> >>Dear Mr. Endicott, >> >>Could you please clarifiy your post because your antecedents are not >>clear to me. >> >>For instance, to what does 'to remove the cancellation of a call >>'prematurely substituted'' refer? >> >>Also, 'have adopted also Kaplan's reasons for the change - i.e. to remove >>any ambiguity' to which ambiguity?> > >#### I apologise for cutting corners. Of course, LHO has the option whether >to accept or not accept the substituted call; no intention to >bypass 27A which is an absolute statement applying to every >insufficient bid. LHO is given that opportunity without the loss from >view of the corrective action offender has already taken as was >technically the case in the previous code; if offender does not wait >for the options to be explained he no longer enjoys a right to hear >any that are no longer available. > The ambiguity which was being debated or alleged arose in the >1987 law; it was whether the cancellation of the substituted call >meant LHO could not accept it; removing this ambiguity meant >clarifying that LHO does have the right to accept it. So now, as the >drafting committee intended, there is no cancellation: offender has >taken action to rectify his irregularity as the law requires and this >action stands. It is however a premature action since it breaches >Law 9B2; Law 9C applies to premature actions but does not say >they are to be annulled, and it may be said that offender having >committed the further offence has little to complain about if the >laws act harshly upon him. > Taking 27A and 27B together it would follow that LHO has the >option under 27A of accepting the insufficient bid but if he does not >accept it then offender has decided what his substitute call is. >It would seem to me that if the insufficient bid is accepted then >Law 9C will apply to the substituted call. And as far as I can see >that does all hang together as a logical framework; but it is much >better all round if players who commit infractions draw a deep >breath and do nothing to 'remedy' the situation until the Director >arrives. > [Aide memoire - the words deleted from the 1987 version are >"the offender is entitled to select his final call at that turn after the >applicable penalties have been stated, and any call he has previously >attempted to substitute is cancelled but the lead penalties of Law 26 >may apply"] > > Please say if I am still being obscure; I recognise that the most >troublesome language problems arise between persons who speak >the same language! #### warm regards,Grattan #### > post scriptum: The danger here is that offender may be led into a false position by the 'good advice' of opponents; the Director should have recourse to Law 11 if he deems this to be so. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 9 07:55:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:55:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA00193 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:55:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003791; 8 Mar 98 21:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:44:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction In-Reply-To: <01bd495c$a65d6780$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >Anne \\\\\\\; I am expounding what the drafters thought they >were doing - please follow whatever guidelines your own >national authority settles upon; there is nothing so effective >in creating confusion as a new code of bridge laws and our >efforts then to achieve common positions as to what they say. Perhaps I could complicate matters by pointing out that Anne *is* responsible for guidelines in her country, being the Chairman of the Welsh L&EC! What we have in this Law is a perceived ambiguity. As we have done in other cases on BLML we have discussed it to see what we think is a reasonable interpretation. When Reg Busch quoted that he had read the English interpretation he was right, but only coincidentally. What *I* write on BLML is not always the English interpretation and is certainly not official. When we have a Law that is written unambiguously, ie written in such a fashion that everybody sensible and experienced reads it in the same way, then that interpretation is the one that stands. The Law-makers could change it, of course, but unless they do so the accepted interpretation stands, whatever they meant originally. More interesting are ones where an ambiguity has crept in. There again, if the Law-makers wish to make an official interpretation and promulgate it officially, then that has the force of Law. If at Lille they meet, and say that no-one is allowed to withdraw any form of correction when they have made an insufficient bid, then that will have the force of Law. However, unless they do so, we have to interpret Laws 25 and 27 in this area, and there are clear problems in doing so. When Grattan gives us the background to the re-writing of the Law, and Kaplan's opinion, that is useful input, but is not final. If national authorities provide guidelines that is well and good. There are problems in this area. I gave an opinion, which happens to reflect the English view, and seems generally to be accepted here. Reg has mentioned two diametrically opinions from NZ and Australia. Kaplan's view appears to be different again. There is no absolute need for different geographical areas to agree with each other on interpretation, though discussions here may result in that. We have got along quite nicely with the term Logical alternative meaning different things in different parts of the world. -- 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 Mar 9 08:05:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:05:17 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA00236 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:05:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2003789; 8 Mar 98 21:50 GMT Message-ID: <08VG7GAz0wA1Ewpm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:27:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27. Premature correct In-Reply-To: <01bd495b$ccea4a40$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >> Please say if I am still being obscure; I recognise that the most >>troublesome language problems arise between persons who speak >>the same language! Speaking as a former regular partner of Grattan, I can assure you that language difficulties were often apparent in the bidding ... -- 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 Mar 9 18:32:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA01518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:32:00 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA01513 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:31:51 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2657.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.87]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA18452 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:31:35 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Standards Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:19:08 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4b34$08270740$911993c3@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 am not sure if I should thank you David, for "blowing my cover." For those who are not familiar with the UK, Wales is a country which has about 3000 members of its Bridge association, the Welsh Bridge Union. Wales has a border with England of about 200 miles. As many Welsh Bridge players play Bridge in England, and vice-verca we have no wish to regulate our Bridge by different standards. This is frequently where the problem starts, What are the standards? The Orange book of Conventions and Directives, an EBU publication has been adopted, as has TFLB. However when it comes to finding out what are the "Official" interpretations when there is doubt as to meanings within. This is why BLML is so helpful. To realise that opinions worldwide are so different, but to breathe a sigh of relief when everyone seems to agree on a point. But those who agree don't bother very often to write. It is far more fun to argue! But not as constructive for those of us who have a need to know. Anne (I'LL have to design one of those fabulous signatures)Jones From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 01:07:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:07:11 +1000 Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04659 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 01:06:58 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts003p4.pop9b.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.60]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA32139 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:06:41 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:06:41 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <199803091506.RAA32139@alpha.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:54 PM 6/3/98 +0000, you wrote: >Eitan Levy wrote: >> ...snip .... >>However, if a call is not considered made until the tray has been passed, >>then partner's call is not made until the tray comes back, so that under the >>new law 25 and the (old?) regulation, in effect an inadvertent call may be >>changed at any time until the tray comes back again, even after partner (and >>also RHO) has called. >>>Can anybody tell me if there has been a change in screen regulations? >David Stevenson wrote: > According to the the most recent WBF regulations that I have seen: >A call is considered to have been made when a player releases it onto >the tray (but Law 25 may apply). > > There doesn't seem any problem with this to me, but then this is not >the regulation you quoted. > David, are the WBF regulations you have from Hammamet? And if so do you know if these were changed for this event? The European regulations were (are?) different: I quote from Regulation C3 of the Open Teams at the 43 European Bridge Championships at Montecatini: -quote- A call is not considered "made" until it has been moved on the bidding tray to the other side of the screen. Illegal or inadmissible calls brought to a player's attention should be corrected without penalty, provided the tray has not been transferred. Any inadvertent call may be changed until the tray is transferred, but a player may not change his mind about a call deliberately selected once it is placed on the tray. - unquote - The relevant part of this regulation (to law 25A) is the -moved to the other side- or -tray is transferred- So if these European regulations are still in force, there is a limitation imposed by the regulation that contradicts law 25A (the right to change an inadvertent call until partner calls is removed.) At the moment we have not changed the regulation in Israel, but are interpreting it under old law 25A, that is, allowing an advertent call to be changed only until the tray is tranferred. So before we get a complicated legalistic appeal on regulation versus law we should perhaps change the regulation to -releases it onto the tray- but I am interested to know if the EBL has changed its regulations. Eitan. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 03:50:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:50:18 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05347 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:50:11 +1000 Received: from default (client87f1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.241]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA22381; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:49:56 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:45:19 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4b83$20a93140$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 08 March 1998 22:38 Subject: Re: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction >Grattan Endicott wrote: and David said: >>> > More interesting are ones where an ambiguity has crept in. There >again, if the Law-makers wish to make an official interpretation and >promulgate it officially, then that has the force of Law. If at Lille >they meet, and say that no-one is allowed to withdraw any form of >correction when they have made an insufficient bid, then that will have >the force of Law. > \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ \X/ #### But be in no doubt *now* that the cancellation of a correction has been removed from Law 27 and the basis for doing of it is null and this was the determination of the WBF Drafting Committee and ratified by the full Laws Committee #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 03:50:15 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:50:15 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05342 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:50:08 +1000 Received: from default (client87f1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.241]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA22397; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:50:01 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Standards Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:51:03 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4b83$edbc9500$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: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: 09 March 1998 09:27 Subject: Standards >I am not sure if I should thank you David, for "blowing my cover." \x/ \x/ \x/ #### Anne, you have my sympathy! But never mind about David, he can blow anything. #### G #### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 03:50:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:50:20 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05353 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:50:14 +1000 Received: from default (client87f1.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.241]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA22391; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:49:59 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27. Premature correct Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:47:30 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4b83$6e62a740$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 08 March 1998 22:38 Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27. Premature correct >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>> Please say if I am still being obscure; I recognise that the most >>>troublesome language problems arise between persons who speak >>>the same language! > > Speaking as a former regular partner of Grattan, I can assure you that >language difficulties were often apparent in the bidding ... > #### Yes, I often wondered what language he could understand.###G### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 08:58:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 08:58:25 +1000 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 IAA06646 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 08:58:20 +1000 Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17009; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:56:30 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980310085738.009552f0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 08:57:39 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: [NON-BLML] information needed Cc: CMartahus@aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This request came directly to me. It's not a BLML problem, but an interesting question that I can't answer. I think rgb is a bit too noisy for useful responses to this... :-) so I thought I'd pass the request on to the great minds on this list. Responses to Carl please. Cheers, Markus >From: CMartahus >Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:45:01 EST >To: markus@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: information needed > >Sirs: > >I am trying to locate a notable celebrity, sports figure, ie. someone with >national name recognition to act as a possible host to a televison production >on bridge for Public Television. If you know of anyone that might fit the >description, please let me know. Unfortunately neither Omar Shariff or James >B. Sikking have responded. This is a serious inquiry and I'd appreciate a >reply. > >Thank you. > >Carl M. Martahus > > 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 Tue Mar 10 09:06:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:06:38 +1000 Received: from relay1.telekom.ru ([194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06672 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:06:31 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h11.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id CAA04477; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 02:05:41 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <35051F30.5B59@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 03:08:32 -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_Definition_last Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="DEFINIT2.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="DEFINIT2.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) At the beginning I'd like to remind that there are three great groups of sports: - sports with direct single combat of participants, according with inner-sport rules (chess, soccer, box, hockey etc.) - sports where contestants (simultaneously or consecutively) make the same exercises that estimated by means of natural methods (running, jumping, etc.) - sports with mediated competing only, where results are estimated by means of some rather artificial methods (ice-dancing, ski-jumping etc.) Where is bridge situated among these sports? It seems that match-contest is at the first group, pairs-contest - in the third one. And one may notice that any adjusting (or penalty) decision in match bridge influents at once on the result of both "opponents" - pair at the same table and pair at second table, sitting at the same line:)) By the way, final results (and final place of participants) depends on the method of estimations - even slight change in that method can provide to essential changes in final ranking. And at most pair contests we have modern method of scoring where for every best result you receive not 2 MP but 2.05 MP or 2.03 or something similar. Well - it is made for us, and in some Regulations it is mentioned. But not at every Regulations... - then it is a kind of infraction of the Laws. And now we have an infraction of the Laws that is acceptable and accepted... Hm. Starting with my respond to m-r M.Abraham remarks I'd like to say him my sincere thanks for his great work and deep analysis:) And I agree with almost everything he wrote - but even he suggested that some definitions might be made more clear for not allowing to interpret half a participants'' field as opponents. And it is a point - whether the Legislator includes such changes I will join to his (and most of disputant's) position, especially if there are re-established the definition of the opponents as LHO and RHO only - as it was at the Laws-1987. Otherwise the expression like "The Laws do not provide for opponents to be anything other than LHO and RHO" is only kind of credo - and one may have another credo:)) And both will be agreed with the Laws:)). And I try to give all the opponents rights to receive compensations when there happens special kind of damage - such as in case, described in note "Ruling" a week ago in BLML:) I appreciate David Stevenson's interesting remarks, demonstrating his interest and knowledge so in bridge as in Russian soccer:)) David wrote: > Why on earth should the Laws be altered to be more like other games? >That is not relevant. But it does be relevant. Otherwise why our authority bodies make so much efforts for join Olympic Committee? We have some problems when curling (about 20,000 players) is recognised by the Olympic Committee and bridge (millions players) is not, haven't we?:) I was very glad to see remarks from G. Endicott and S.Barnfield. Among other points they discussed definition of opponent: >"A player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed". Then S. Barnfield wrote: >Now look at the definition of "side": "Two players who constitute >a partnership against the other two players." > >IMO the only possible "opponents" are those at your table. No-one else >fits the definition. And G. Endicott wrote: >#### Relevant also is the definition of 'side' in this context; it says:- > "Two players who constitute a partnership against > the other two players." >...note : TWO. Why did not both of them try to interpret the words "is opposed"? For me these very words may be understood as "is competed against" - and it is the whole problem. As our arguments are repeated - it is my last remarks on the matter. I will wait for the Legislator words:) Thanks for reading, sorry for too long text (especially David:)).Thanks for the discussion. Enjoyed From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 10:10:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:10:33 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA06828 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:10:27 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014112; 10 Mar 98 0:02 GMT Message-ID: <5$C1L7BomDB1EwQe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:49:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens In-Reply-To: <199803091506.RAA32139@alpha.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: >David, are the WBF regulations you have from Hammamet? No, they were issued with a late draft of the Law book, and I do not know whether they are current. >So if these European regulations are still in force, there is a limitation >imposed by the regulation that contradicts law 25A (the right to change an >inadvertent call until partner calls is removed.) My understanding is that L80E allows screen regulations that conflict with Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 12:22:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:22:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07085 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:22:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1015291; 10 Mar 98 2:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 00:50:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction In-Reply-To: <01bd4b83$20a93140$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> More interesting are ones where an ambiguity has crept in. There >>again, if the Law-makers wish to make an official interpretation and >>promulgate it officially, then that has the force of Law. If at Lille >>they meet, and say that no-one is allowed to withdraw any form of >>correction when they have made an insufficient bid, then that will have >>the force of Law. > >#### But be in no doubt *now* that the cancellation of a correction >has been removed from Law 27 and the basis for doing of it is >null and this was the determination of the WBF Drafting Committee >and ratified by the full Laws Committee #### Grattan #### Ok, we accept that. Does that give it force of Law? I would not think so. Knowing what was intended is not of itself a statement that this is the case, surely? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 19:00:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:00:50 +1000 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 TAA07746 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:00:43 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-220.uunet.be [194.7.9.220]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25026 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:00:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <35043EC6.46F43969@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 20:11:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Interpretation of Laws X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a different thread, David Stevenson wrote: (since this is some time ago - I do not snip as much as I probably should) > What we have in this Law is a perceived ambiguity. As we have done in > other cases on BLML we have discussed it to see what we think is a > reasonable interpretation. That is exactly why we are here. > What *I* > write on BLML is not always the English interpretation and is > certainly not official. > But usually quite near the correct point. > When we have a Law that is written unambiguously, ie written in such a > fashion that everybody sensible and experienced reads it in the same > way, then that interpretation is the one that stands. The Law-makers > could change it, of course, but unless they do so the accepted > interpretation stands, whatever they meant originally. > No problem there. > More interesting are ones where an ambiguity has crept in. There > again, if the Law-makers wish to make an official interpretation and > promulgate it officially, then that has the force of Law. If at Lille > they meet, and say that no-one is allowed to withdraw any form of > correction when they have made an insufficient bid, then that will > have the force of Law. That seems right. > However, unless they do so, we have to interpret Laws > 25 and 27 in this area, and there are clear problems in doing so. I don't want to go into the details of this perceived problem, as I still don't really understand what the problem is, or where it has changed under the new laws. Probably my fault. > When > Grattan gives us the background to the re-writing of the Law, and > Kaplan's opinion, that is useful input, but is not final. If national > authorities provide guidelines that is well and good. > And this is where I start to disagree with David. If the Lawmakers have written some piece of text, and a minority of the world (it would be something else if it were a majority, or perhaps even not) find a different interpretation, then surely the word from Grattan or some others of that standing, promulgating the views of the Law Commission itself, should be enough to quell that minority and have the world (or at least blml) agree. > There are problems in this area. I gave an opinion, which happens to > reflect the English view, and seems generally to be accepted here. Reg > has mentioned two diametrically opinions from NZ and Australia. Kaplan's > view appears to be different again. > > There is no absolute need for different geographical areas to agree > with each other on interpretation, though discussions here may result in > that. We have got along quite nicely with the term Logical alternative > meaning different things in different parts of the world. > Surely David, you do not feel that it is a good thing for different parts of the world to have different interpretations on simple things like this ? There can be only one correct line of ruling in a technical case. Or rather there should be. If there is some disagreement as to one interpretation or another, then indeed blml is a great forum to discuss this. When a "minor" member of blml has an interpretation problem, he will usually be helped by the majority of the members and told the "accepted" interpretation. But when "major" members (absolutely no pejorative meanings attached to these terms) start to disagree, the discussion can sometimes drag on and on. Quite often (and even more so with the new laws), there is no final consensus. This can not be healthy. In some cases then, we should be able to listen to the "higher" powers. We have in out midst several members of the Laws Committee, and among those even their secretary (I do hope that is the correct title). Surely we might defer out interpretation to these people. Now I do not want to impose on Grattan and/or others the burden of leading us out into the world and have us blindly follow their lead. But if we cannot agree on interpretations, then surely we should be able to ask those that wrote the text what the interpretation should be. Grattan has once made a comment to the effect that once a text is on paper, it has a life of its own. Perhaps that is true in legalistic terms, but not really here. We cannot expect the Lawmakers to write texts that stand up to the most austere semantic analysis. The Lawmakers of every nation on earth have scores and scores of qualified legal minds that go over every text with a fine comb, and even they don't always get it right. And even when they do, Laws are still frequently challenged in all sorts of courts, and almost as frequently, judges look up parliamentary comments and such, to find out the true intention of the Lawmakers. It would be silly of us to think the Laws of bridge are cast in stone and have to be followed to the letter. We should be able to refer to the parliamentary comments, even if they only reach us as Grattan's recount of Edgar's tales. I therefor call upon all members, and especially David, to sometimes defer to Grattan and others in interpretations. I also call upon Grattan to more frequently interfere and tell us the original wishes of the Lawmakers. If he cannot do that in an official capacity, then perhaps he should be allowed to do it in a personal capacity, while asking the other Lawmakers to read his comments and interfere when they do not agree. But I do not think a complete committee should meet in Lille to discuss these minor points. Isn't that what they have a secretary for ? So now please someone (Reg ?) state the original problem concerning L25-27 again and please Grattan, help us (them ?) out of this impasse. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 21:51:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:51:16 +1000 Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.NetVision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA08154 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:51:08 +1000 Received: from netvision.net.il (ts005p11.pop9b.netvision.net.il [207.232.28.103]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA23471 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:50:56 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:50:56 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <199803101150.NAA23471@alpha.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > My understanding is that L80E allows screen regulations that conflict >with Laws. > No I don't think so. It depends on how one understands the words -special conditions-.I don't think that changing a law or enforcing a regulation conflicting with a law could be described as a condition. Conditions would include how to bid, how to alert (pre alert, self alert ...), skip bid regulations, use of screens and so on, all within the existing laws. The only law changes that Law 80E allows, and these are specifically mentioned, are for the suspension of penalty provisions of certain laws. If -establishing special conditions for bidding and play- allows regulations that conflict with the laws then there's no problem in banning psychic bids, or, to exaggerate a little (!), allowing play after an opening lead out of turn to continue anti-clockwise. Oh oh, it looks as if another thread is developing, so I'd better stop now. All I really want are up to date screen regulations! Eitan From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 23:55:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:55:07 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA08654 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:55:00 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1008882; 10 Mar 98 13:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 12:48:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens In-Reply-To: <199803101150.NAA23471@alpha.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> My understanding is that L80E allows screen regulations that conflict >>with Laws. >> >No I don't think so. It depends on how one understands the words -special >conditions-.I don't think that changing a law or enforcing a regulation >conflicting with a law could be described as a condition. Conditions would >include how to bid, how to alert (pre alert, self alert ...), skip bid >regulations, use of screens and so on, all within the existing laws. The >only law changes that Law 80E allows, and these are specifically mentioned, >are for the suspension of penalty provisions of certain laws. That *is* in conflict with the Laws! You cannot suspend penalty provisions *and* not conflict! >If -establishing special conditions for bidding and play- allows regulations >that conflict with the laws then there's no problem in banning psychic bids, >or, to exaggerate a little (!), allowing play after an opening lead out of >turn to continue anti-clockwise. I did not mean that it allowed you to throw the Law book out of the window. All right, I shall reword it. 'My understanding is that L80E allows *certain* screen regulations that conflict with Laws.' Sorry for not being clear. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 10 23:58:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:58:07 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA08707 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:57:48 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018750; 10 Mar 98 13:50 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:51:14 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Interpretation of Laws Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:51:13 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: #######SNIP######## > > More interesting are ones where an ambiguity has crept in. There > > again, if the Law-makers wish to make an official interpretation and > > promulgate it officially, then that has the force of Law. If at > Lille > > they meet, and say that no-one is allowed to withdraw any form of > > correction when they have made an insufficient bid, then that will > > have the force of Law. > > That seems right. > > ###### SNIP#######> > > There is no absolute need for different geographical areas to agree > > with each other on interpretation, though discussions here may > result in > > that. We have got along quite nicely with the term Logical > alternative > > meaning different things in different parts of the world. > > > > Surely David, you do not feel that it is a good thing for different > parts of the world to have different interpretations on simple things > like this ? > > There can be only one correct line of ruling in a technical case. > Or rather there should be. > > ######### Is part of the problem that different parts of the world do > wish to rule differently and cannot therefore agree on a uniform > approach? Are some laws deliberately ambiguous in order to permit > different interpretations? I cannot help but notice that the area in > the 1997 Laws 25 and 27 where there is ambiguity now is one where > previously there was strongly held contradictory views between Europe > and the US. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 00:47:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 00:47:27 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11458 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 00:47:21 +1000 Received: from default (client87f5.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.245]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA17751; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:47:08 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:48:38 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4c33$9c8be9a0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : ----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: 10 March 1998 10:11 Subject: Interpretation of Laws \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ #### A very gracious point of view, Herman, although I would not want to stifle discussion. And I do have to be careful. There are two possibilities, either I do know the purpose of a change in the laws as proposed by the drafting committee and that it has been adopted in those terms by the full WBF Laws Committee, or my information is incomplete because Kaplan failed to send me his detailed thoughts (or those of the rest of the committee), and it was not an item discussed anywhere when I was present in the flesh. In the latter case I offer a view as to what was intended and either recommend that interpretation or leave it open to argument as to the meaning of the words. But where I have knowledge that the drafting body *and* the full WBF Laws Committee have clearly agreed on a change *and* the effect it will have, this is not only a change but also an *interpretation* of the law. Such is the case with the deletion from Law 27 - it was done to establish that under the 97 laws the substituted call is *not* cancelled and the Laws Committee agreed that position, and that if the LHO does not wish to accept the insufficient bid under 27A (as is his right) he can accept the substitute bid and this purpose was enunciated so clearly that it cannot reasonably be suggested the Committee has failed to prescribe the interpretation. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 01:19:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:19:26 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA11697 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:19:20 +1000 Received: from default (client87f4.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.244]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA22025; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:19:14 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Eitan Levy" Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:20:27 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4c38$0e863d40$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: Eitan Levy To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 March 1998 12:52 Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens >David Stevenson wrote: >> My understanding is that L80E allows screen regulations that conflict >>with Laws. \x/ \x/ \x #### The decision of a joint hearing by the relevant bodies of the WBF in Geneva determined that a regulation under 80E that was possibly in conflict with the laws was in any case valid because regulations made under 80E are not subordinate to Law 80F. This precedent establishes that 80F applies only to regulations made under itself and not to regulations which other sections of the laws empower the SO to make, these being subject to the terms of the section that enables them to be promulgated. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 02:09:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 02:09:46 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12062 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 02:09:39 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA17590 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:09:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01117; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:09:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:09:14 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803101609.LAA01117@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> My understanding is that L80E allows screen regulations that conflict > >>with Laws. Perhaps better would have been "L80E allows screen regulations that _would otherwise_ conflict with Laws." > From: "Grattan Endicott" > This precedent establishes that 80F applies only to regulations made > under itself and not to regulations which other sections of the laws > empower the SO to make, these being subject to the terms of the > section that enables them to be promulgated. This is an enormously useful clarification and sets straight a whole range of issues. (It also seems to me the obvious interpretation, but it can't but help to make it explicit.) Of course, it begs the question of just what regulations L80E permits. In particular, L25A allows correction of an inadvertent call until partner has called. I don't see that L80E allows an SO to revoke that right. As a practical matter, such corrections must be rare -- how can a player know he has put the wrong call on the tray once the tray disappears? But I don't see how any SO can forbid them, as long as the attempted correction comes before partner has called. Depending on the regulations, "partner has called" can reasonably be defined as "when the bid card is put on the tray" or "when the tray is passed." This seems clearly within the purview of the SO, and it is not surprising if different SO's adopt different rules. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 02:27:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 02:27:39 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12136 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 02:27:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA16968 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01141; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:27:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:27:01 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803101627.LAA01141@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Such is the case with the deletion from Law 27 - it was done to > establish that under the 97 laws the substituted call is *not* cancelled > and the Laws Committee agreed that position, and that if the LHO does > not wish to accept the insufficient bid under 27A (as is his right) he can > accept the substitute bid and this purpose was enunciated so clearly > that it cannot reasonably be suggested the Committee has failed to > prescribe the interpretation. The problem I'm having is that I cannot reconcile this view with the written text. Perhaps someone can help me out. The problems come when a player has made an insufficient bid and has then attempted to substitute another call. I see a minor problem and a major one. The minor problem is the phrase in L27B2 saying to apply L10C1. What does this mean if the attempted substituted call is not cancelled? I suppose I can accept that it means only "any options still remaining" (even though there are none). Certainly there is no explicit mention of cancelling the substituted call. Still, for clarity, if the intent is as Grattan states, it would have been better to omit this phrase. L10C1 always applies, and it seems pointless to draw special attention to it in a situation where there are no options to explain. The major problem is that I find no mention whatsoever of allowing LHO to accept the substituted call. Acceptance is, in fact, explicitly forbidden if the substituted call is a double or redouble (L27B). Allowing acceptance would be quite a reasonable rule, but I just don't see it in the text. On the other hand, the rule as David and I interpret it is playable (even if not optimum) and agrees with the text. Yet Grattan says it is not what was intended. What do we do? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 03:19:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:19:23 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA12346 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:19:11 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2021670; 10 Mar 98 17:10 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:06:55 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Interpretation of Laws Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:06:54 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: ######SNIP###### > The minor problem is the phrase in L27B2 saying to apply L10C1. What > does this mean if the attempted substituted call is not cancelled? I > suppose I can accept that it means only "any options still remaining" > (even though there are none). Certainly there is no explicit mention > of cancelling the substituted call. Still, for clarity, if the intent > is as Grattan states, it would have been better to omit this phrase. > L10C1 always applies, and it seems pointless to draw special attention > to it in a situation where there are no options to explain. > > The major problem is that I find no mention whatsoever of allowing LHO > to accept the substituted call. Acceptance is, in fact, explicitly > forbidden if the substituted call is a double or redouble (L27B). > Allowing acceptance would be quite a reasonable rule, but I just don't > see it in the text. > > ######## What happens if the substituted call is insufficient? Is > this a case where Law 10C1 might apply and the second insufficient bid > is cancelled? If not then the reference to Law 10C1 is at best > unhelpful and at worst misleading. It seems to me that the old > European approach of applying Law 25 to all substituted calls was far > simpler and less confusing, yet this is now explicitly forbidden by > the footnote to Law 25.######## > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 03:27:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:27:07 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12400 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 03:26:58 +1000 Received: from default (client838f.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.143]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA07497; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:26:50 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:28:17 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4c49$e9b7c3a0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 10 March 1998 03:17 Subject: Re: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>From: David Stevenson > Ok, we accept that. Does that give it force of Law? I would not >think so. Knowing what was intended is not of itself a statement that >this is the case, surely? > ##### You understate the force of the Committee's action. They not only agreed the change, they also agreed the effect of it. That is more than merely 'intention'. See my concurrent reply to Herman de Wael. #### G #### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 05:02:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:02:55 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12876 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:02:48 +1000 Received: from default (client8424.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.36]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA25381; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:02:40 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Eitan Levy" Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:03:55 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4c57$460a7c80$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: Eitan Levy To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 09 March 1998 16:34 Subject: Re: Law 25 and screens >At 12:54 PM 6/3/98 +0000, you wrote: >>Eitan Levy wrote: >>> ...snip .... >>>However, if a call is not considered made until the tray has been passed, >>>then partner's call is not made until the tray comes back, so that under the >>>new law 25 and the (old?) regulation, in effect an inadvertent call may be >>>changed at any time until the tray comes back again, even after partner (and >>>also RHO) has called> > \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ #### Regulations for use of screens are under consideration for Lille. The draft says "any call selected and taken from the bidding box may be changed provided it has not been placed and released from the hand (Law 73F2 may apply). A call placed and released may be changed if (a) it is illegal or inadmissible (in which case the change is obligatory)**....; or (b) it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently made; .........etc." [NOTE: at this point the regulation has to be clarified since there are two statements made about infringing calls which have been transferred to the other side of the screen and the statements are not in harmony. One says apply the laws normally as though screens were absent; the other says return the tray to the side where the irregularity occurred for rectification. We must await further news of this]. #### Grattan #### (** Some words omitted here not being relevant to the point.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 07:41:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 07:41:36 +1000 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 HAA13527 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 07:41:32 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port3.ana.hare.net.au [203.55.88.70]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA08905; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:41:15 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:41:15 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199803102141.IAA08905@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: Leeds Swiss Teams and Premature Correction Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:50 AM 10/03/1998 +0000, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>From: David Stevenson > >>> More interesting are ones where an ambiguity has crept in. There >>>again, if the Law-makers wish to make an official interpretation and >>>promulgate it officially, then that has the force of Law. If at Lille >>>they meet, and say that no-one is allowed to withdraw any form of >>>correction when they have made an insufficient bid, then that will have >>>the force of Law. > > >>#### But be in no doubt *now* that the cancellation of a correction >>has been removed from Law 27 and the basis for doing of it is >>null and this was the determination of the WBF Drafting Committee >>and ratified by the full Laws Committee #### Grattan #### > > Ok, we accept that. Does that give it force of Law? I would not >think so. Knowing what was intended is not of itself a statement that >this is the case, surely? > Sorry, David, for this little grass root, the commentary above was a revelation. I think I finally understand the new Law 27. I would much rather rule the way I know the Laws were intended to be applied, than the way I think the rules as written mean, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 11 12:32:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:32:11 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA14191 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:32:04 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2022003; 11 Mar 98 2:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 02:20:02 +0000 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws In-Reply-To: <199803101627.LAA01141@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803101627.LAA01141@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> Such is the case with the deletion from Law 27 - it was done to >> establish that under the 97 laws the substituted call is *not* cancelled >> and the Laws Committee agreed that position, and that if the LHO does >> not wish to accept the insufficient bid under 27A (as is his right) he can >> accept the substitute bid and this purpose was enunciated so clearly >> that it cannot reasonably be suggested the Committee has failed to >> prescribe the interpretation. > >The problem I'm having is that I cannot reconcile this view with the >written text. Perhaps someone can help me out. The problems come when >a player has made an insufficient bid and has then attempted to >substitute another call. I see a minor problem and a major one. > >The minor problem is the phrase in L27B2 saying to apply L10C1. What >does this mean if the attempted substituted call is not cancelled? > Labeo: Law 27B2 is not dealing per se with a premature correction but with the plain situation where a player has properly done nothing before the Director arrives and has still to choose his course of action if the insufficient bid is not accepted. 10C1 is then wholly relevant. By removing the provision for cancellation the position is created in which a player who changes his call prematurely has committed himself and the other options are no longer available to him and do not enter into the Director's explanation of available options. The player has done what 27B (first two lines) requires, but has exposed himself to possible further penalty - see Law 9C - as for instance if LHO now accepts the insufficient bid in which case there could be lead penalties relating to his substitute action. I think it is no longer a case under the changed law that the player "has attempted" to substitute another call - he has in fact done it and has no way back unless Law 11 applies since the only use of 'attempted' in the law relates to an inadmissible substitution. Following this thread it seems posters are wriggling on the hook because they still have the fragrance in their noses of the law as it was and are having difficulty coming to terms with it as it is with that aroma removed by major surgery. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 00:06:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:06:14 +1000 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 AAA16279 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:05:45 +1000 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 PAA15578 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:03:25 +0100 (MET) Received: (from caakr01@localhost) by compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07800 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:03:18 +0100 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:03:18 +0100 From: Martin Kretschmar Message-Id: <199803111403.PAA07800@compserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Generation of independent deals Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Now that I'm back from Spain, I can address some of the mentioned points. I apologize for publishing fragments of a private e-mail, but since the rest of the e-mails was pretty public, it never occured to me that this specific e-mail was considered being privat. Using an shuffled unsorted deck of cards as "initial seed value" is acceptable, but since humans are imperfect shufflers, such decks should undergo a 7 times shuffle. www.geom.umn.edu/docs/snell/chance/course/topics/winning_number.html: It takes just seven ordinary, imperfect shuffles to mix a deck of cards thoroughly, researchers have found. Fewer are not enough and more do not significantly improve the mixing. Concerning http://www.distributed.net/des/nugget.txt: With brute force the key 76 9E 8C D9 F2 2F 5D EA was searched and found after testing approximately 63686000000000000 of 72057594037927936 possible keys. But of course some processing power was necessary to achive this: Distributed.net is equivalent in processing power to: 11,264 DEC Alpha 21064 533s 15,316 Sun Ultra I 167s 22,393 Intel Pentium II 333s Concerning http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/ cryptography-faq/snake-oil/faq.html: Of course I agree to: > ``Trust Us, We Know What We're Doing'' > > Perhaps the biggest warning sign of all is the ``trust us, we know what > we're doing'' message that's either stated directly or implied by the > vendor. > Secret Algorithms > > Avoid software which uses secret algorithms. This is not considered a safe > means of protecting data. If the vendor isn't confident that its encryption > method can withstand scrutiny, then you should be wary of trusting it. Herman DE WAEL wrote: > That is why you must reintroduce a "real" random element after every three > deals. > But if after every three boards we have the user type in a letter at > random, which reseeds the whole process, then the "algorithm" gets > confused and it is also theoretically impossible to deduce the following > hands. But the problem is to get "real" random elements at all. We can convert a thoroughly shuffled desk into two completely independent or three somewhat dependent deals. Altogether this is still pretty close to shuffling by hand. If e.g. the user is required to enter a letter after every three boards, this adds roughly 8/3 bits of randomness, which really isn't that much. Perfect randomness means 100% indepency from previous results. And if we want the second set of three deals to be as random as the first set, we have to treat the second set just the same way as the first set. Randomness doesn't come cheaply. Martin Kretschmar From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 00:10:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:10:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA16309 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:09:55 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2011665; 11 Mar 98 13:02 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:01:38 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Interpretation of Laws Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:01:36 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: #######SNIP######## > Labeo: Law 27B2 is not dealing per se with a premature correction but > with the plain situation where a player has properly done nothing > before the Director arrives and has still to choose his course > of action if the insufficient bid is not accepted. 10C1 is then wholly > relevant. By removing the provision for cancellation the position is > created in which a player who changes his call prematurely has > committed > himself and the other options are no longer available to him and do > not > enter into the Director's explanation of available options. The player > has done what 27B (first two lines) requires, but has exposed himself > to > possible further penalty - see Law 9C - as for instance if LHO now > accepts the insufficient bid in which case there could be lead > penalties relating to his substitute action. I think it is no longer a > case under the changed law that the player "has attempted" to > substitute > another call - he has in fact done it and has no way back unless Law > 11 > applies since the only use of 'attempted' in the law relates to an > inadmissible substitution. Following this thread it seems posters are > wriggling on the hook because they still have the fragrance in their > noses of the law as it was and are having difficulty coming to terms > with it as it is with that aroma removed by major surgery. > -- Labeo > > ########## Accepted that the above is the Law if that is what the WBF > Drafting Committee has decided, but then surely the reference to Law > 10C1 is in the wrong place as it equally applies to non-conventional > insufficient bids? ############ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 00:44:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:44:04 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18695 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:43:57 +1000 Received: from default (client87e2.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.87.226]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA04065; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:43:43 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: WBF Laws Committee: agenda for meeting in Lille. Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:32:04 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4cfa$75f0eb20$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01BD4CFC.70886B20" 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_0015_01BD4CFC.70886B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ=20 ############### : In discussion with the Committee Chairman the following items have been = noted for the agenda of the WBF Laws Committee in Lille : - 'At most average minus' in 25B - Avoidance under Law 25 of requiring a player to stay in a stupid and unintended contract - cue bid etc.(example: where=20 responder decides not to go beyond game but forgets to convert = the=20 cue bid to the trump denomination at the lowest level.) - Premature correction under Law 27=20 - Face up lead out of turn simultaneously with face down lead - Laws for computer bridge. The chairman (Ton Kooijman) would welcome any additional subjects=20 for the agenda which BLML contributors might wish to suggest. In particular there would be interest in any matter that a broad consensus=20 of BLML contributors would like us to discuss and issue a statement on. Suggestions for the agenda to me please. (It would probably be helpful if the proposal consisted of (a) a headline subject, and (b) a succinct, concise, short, statement of what is the problem.This is *not* the place = to develop the argument - do that in the normal BLML slots. We do read=20 them.) The Committee, under its new chairman, is seeking to be more=20 communicative with the outside world than in the past, and part of this = is=20 a wish to target its discussions and decisions where the bridge world at = large would most like its help, [or at least a decision! :-) ]. ######## Grattan ####### =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BD4CFC.70886B20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
gester@globalnet.co.uk &n= bsp;   =20
Grattan=20 Endicott           = ;        =20
Liverpool  L18 8DJ  
###############        &= nbsp;      =20 :
In discussion with the Committee Chairman the following items have = been=20  
noted for the agenda of the WBF Laws = Committee=20 in Lille :
    - 'At most average minus' in 25B
     - Avoidance = under Law=20 25 of requiring a player to stay in 
        a stupid and unintended contract - = cue bid=20 etc.(example: where
       =20 responder decides not to go beyond game but forgets to = convert the=20
       =20 cue bid to the trump denomination at the lowest=20 level.)
     = - Premature=20 correction under Law 27 
     -=20 Face up lead out of turn simultaneously with face down = lead
     - Laws for computer=20 bridge. 
 
The chairman (Ton Kooijman) would welcome any = additional=20 subjects
for the agenda which BLML contributors might wish to = suggest.=20 In
particular there would be interest in any matter = that a broad=20 consensus
of BLML contributors would like us to discuss and = issue a=20 statement on.
Suggestions for the agenda to me please. (It would = probably be=20 helpful 
if the proposal consisted of (a) a headline subject, = and (b) a=20 succinct, 
concise, short, statement of = what is the=20 problem.This is *not* the place
to develop the argument - do that in the normal BLML = slots. We=20 do read
them.)
 
The Committee, under its new chairman, is seeking to = be more=20
communicative with the outside world than in the = past, and=20 part of this is
a wish to target its discussions and decisions where = the=20 bridge world at
large would most like its help, [or at least a = decision! :-)=20 ].
 
######## Grattan = #######
 
 
 
 
 
 

       &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;         =20  

 
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BD4CFC.70886B20-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 01:26:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:26:47 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19035 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:26:40 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA08112 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:26:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01759; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:26:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:26:05 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803111526.KAA01759@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > Labeo: Law 27B2 is not dealing per se with a premature correction but > with the plain situation where a player has properly done nothing > before the Director arrives and has still to choose his course > of action This is fine, but it's true of the whole of L27. > if the insufficient bid is not accepted. 10C1 is then wholly > relevant. But then why not put the reference to it at the beginning of L27B or, even better, at the beginning of L27? (Or omit a specific reference, given that L10C1 always applies?) Why _only_ in L27B2? Or rather, _given that lawmakers chose to put the reference is where it is_, how are we to read L27B2? As I have noted, I regard this as a minor problem, but the apparently intended interpretation is not the way I would have read the text as it is written. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 01:41:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:41:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA19132 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:41:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002247; 11 Mar 98 15:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:05:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Instruction from Director MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. A Director has given a player an instruction [as it happens, it is to do with psyching]. This instruction covers his future conduct ["Don't psyche again with this partner"]. The instruction is both contrary to the Laws of Bridge and to the Regulations of the SO [in the actual case, the ACBL]. However, as has been pointed out, to ignore the instruction is in contravention of L81C5 [It is the TD's responsibility to interpret the laws and advise players of their rights and responsibilities...] and L90B8 [Offenses subject to penalty: failure to comply with a director's instructions]. So what should the player do? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 01:49:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:49:04 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19179 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 01:48:58 +1000 Received: from default (client8415.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.21]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA12571; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:48:41 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Martin" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:49:55 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4d05$56178880$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Martin To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Date: 10 March 1998 18:42 Subject: RE: Interpretation of Laws >Steve wrote: > >######SNIP###### Still, for clarity, if the intent >> is as Grattan states, it would have been better to omit this phrase. >> L10C1 always applies, and it seems pointless to draw special attention >> to it in a situation where there are no options to explain. >> >> The major problem is that I find no mention whatsoever of allowing LHO >> to accept the substituted call. Acceptance is, in fact, explicitly >> forbidden if the substituted call is a double or redouble (L27B). >> Allowing acceptance would be quite a reasonable rule, but I just don't >> see it in the text. >> >> ######## What happens if the substituted call is insufficient? > {The above snipped and snipped again.} #### You may well be right about advantage in not mentioning 10C1 but if we took our eyes off the ball it was because we were not thinking about premature corrections but only about standard procedure. No statement about acceptance is necessary where the player has decided, albeit prematurely, his action; as now worded the law makes no provision for remission of a premature action. (This is the point that needs to be grasped by those who are failing to see how the law now hangs together....and what ain't there aren't part of the game; in fact I have been rather imprecise about LHO 'accepting' the substitute call - LHO's right is to accept the insufficient bid if he will; if he does not accept it then he is swept along on the tide of offender's requisite correction and the premature action has determined what this correction is to be: LHO is obliged to pick up the auction as it is, which is the case anyway when the correction follows standard procedure.) I am not sure that I have seen anything about the substitute bid being insufficient; what is clear is that correction to an insufficient bid is inadmissible, (Law 27B: "must be corrected by substitution of a sufficient bid or a pass"), so that action does not stand and I would think personally there can be no acceptance of it and the player must select a sufficient bid or pass and Law 16C may apply to the insufficient substitute bid. I say 16C not 9C because it may be premature but it is not a correction. #### G #### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 03:13:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 03:13:32 +1000 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 DAA19678 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 03:13:25 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA19278; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:12:39 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca1-01.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.33) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019212; Wed Mar 11 11:12:25 1998 Message-ID: <3506C4C2.2CCF@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:07:14 -0800 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix17.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Instruction from Director References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. A > Director has given a player an instruction [as it happens, it is to do > with psyching]. This instruction covers his future conduct ["Don't > psyche again with this partner"]. The instruction is both contrary to > the Laws of Bridge and to the Regulations of the SO [in the actual case, > the ACBL]. > > However, as has been pointed out, to ignore the instruction is in > contravention of L81C5 [It is the TD's responsibility to interpret > the laws and advise players of their rights and responsibilities...] and > L90B8 [Offenses subject to penalty: failure to comply with a director's > instructions]. > > So what should the player do? If the player picks up a hand ideally suited to his methods with that particular partner, he should psyche. A player is obliged to follow all _lawful_ instructions from a TD; he has no obligation to obey unlawful or extralegal instructions. (Reductio ad absurdum: If a TD told him to murder his partner...) If this scenario actually occurs, I'd buy a ticket to watch the dialogue that would be exchanged between the player and the TD subsequent to the post-warning psyche. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 03:55:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 03:55:29 +1000 Received: from tungsten (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA19897 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 03:55:20 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.53.147] by tungsten with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yCpie-0004GZ-00; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:55:08 +0000 Message-ID: <001201bd4d16$bd8e97e0$933563c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:54:28 -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 > So what should the player do? He should continue to psyche with that partner, but not while that Director is around. Surely a unanimous panel? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 04:15:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 04:15:33 +1000 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 EAA20030 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 04:15:25 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h53.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id VAA22606; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:15:19 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <35077E22.1069@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:18:11 -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_Interpretation_of_Law Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="INTTRPRT.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="INTTRPRT.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) The more I read the discussion about 25-27 Laws (and connected matter about interpretation of the Laws) - the more I'd like to chose words with the greatest possible care. For example - it was discussed possibilities of L80E and L80F to overrule the Laws. I'd like to remind you a little piece of my former country's (USSR) history: in 30-th years of this century USSR had one of the best in Europe Criminal Code - so logic as human. But there was one law in it - it was called "less than less and more than more". The sense of this law may be demonstrated on example: let a man was under the law that preserve punishment fro 3 years till 6. But the judge might order 1 year (less than less) or 10 years (more than more)... Such a decision depended on personality, phone power, etc., etc. Presence of that law "removed and cancelled" all the Code... I doubt that we want to have similar law in our Laws. And one more remark: with great pleasure I noticed that there were several notes where there was underlined necessarity to know the intentions of the Legislator - between (higher than?) the letter of the Laws. Legend... :))) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 04:30:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 04:30:48 +1000 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 EAA20128 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 04:30:26 +1000 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 NAA04134; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:28:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:30:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803111830.NAA00016@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:05:23 +0000) Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. A > Director has given a player an instruction [as it happens, it is to do > with psyching]. This instruction covers his future conduct ["Don't > psyche again with this partner"]. The instruction is both contrary to > the Laws of Bridge and to the Regulations of the SO [in the actual case, > the ACBL]. > However, as has been pointed out, to ignore the instruction is in > contravention of L81C5 [It is the TD's responsibility to interpret > the laws and advise players of their rights and responsibilities...] and > L90B8 [Offenses subject to penalty: failure to comply with a director's > instructions]. I've had a similar problem when a director told me to Alert a particular call which shouldn't be Alertable. Partner had either miscounted his points or made a tactical decision to make an extremely light takeout double on something like KJxx x xxxx Axxx. The TD was called, and ruled no damage, but that if we make such light takeout doubles we need to Alert them. This was correct; however, I told the TD that partner's double was in violation of our agreements, in which a minimum takeout double of 1H would be KJxx x Qxxx Axxx. The TD said that even that would make a takeout double Alertable. We complied with the TD for the duration of the tournament, but the Alert here was not only wrong but also counter-productive. "The double promises support for all three unbid suits and 13 points in support of spades; it could be as little as 10 HCP with good shape." This led to followup questions such as, "Why is this Alertable?" to which I could only reply, "A director told us that it was"; it also promoted a lack of interest in more important Alerts. What is the proper action here? Complying with the TD's order for the duration of the tournament is probably the most practical solution; if the problem comes up at a later tournament, the TD would have to come before the committee and say, "I ordered these players never to psyche again in this situation after they did it six months ago," and will hopefully get laughed out of committee. -- 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 Mar 12 05:03:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 05:03:18 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA20327 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 05:03:11 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025024; 11 Mar 98 18:35 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:29:44 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Instruction from Director Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:29:43 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > So what should the player do? > > > He should continue to psyche with that partner, but not while that > Director is around. > > Surely a unanimous panel? > > ####### Some might suggest that he should psyche especially when that > Director is around and then be prepared to disagree *politely* with > the TD and appeal any inappropriate ruling that may have been given. > After all, why should he be disadvantaged by being inhibited in his > choice of actions as a result of a potentially illegal instruction > from a potentially incompetent Director? If the game is one where > psyching is not permitted at all then the only remedy for the SO is to > refuse to allow the player/pair to participate in future such games. > If the Director's problem is the particular pair's frequency of > psyching then he should follow the SO's procedures for potential CPU > and fielding situations; eg. in EBU-land, by completeing a Psyche > report form and sending it to the L&E. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 06:49:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 06:49:36 +1000 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 GAA20830 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 06:49:30 +1000 Received: from renepion (ppp-annex-0663.que.total.net [205.236.100.145]) by bretweir.total.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA08412 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:49:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803112049.PAA08412@bretweir.total.net> From: "APion" To: "Bridge List" Subject: 3 hearts stand or not Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:45:22 -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 At a table, declarer in South opened bids with 2D Flannery forgetting she told her partner they would play 2D weak. Her left opponent asked North what it was; North answered weak. West passed; North bid 3D and East passed. South (recognizing her error by North explanation) bid 3 H. The opponents called the director. The director said that the declarer could not bid 3 H after her partner's explanation so 3D should be played. DO you agree with this decision? A. Pion apion@total.net From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 07:04:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:04:13 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA20897 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:04:07 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (max20.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.99]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA27019; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:03:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3506FCE6.27336E03@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:06:46 -0500 From: "Nancy T. Dressing" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Instruction from Director References: <199803111830.NAA00016@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > David Stevenson writes: > > > An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. A > > Director has given a player an instruction [as it happens, it is to do > > with psyching]. This instruction covers his future conduct ["Don't > > psyche again with this partner"]. The instruction is both contrary to > > the Laws of Bridge and to the Regulations of the SO [in the actual case, > > the ACBL]. > > > However, as has been pointed out, to ignore the instruction is in > > contravention of L81C5 [It is the TD's responsibility to interpret > > the laws and advise players of their rights and responsibilities...] and > > L90B8 [Offenses subject to penalty: failure to comply with a director's > > instructions]. > > I've had a similar problem when a director told me to Alert a particular > call which shouldn't be Alertable. Partner had either miscounted his > points or made a tactical decision to make an extremely light takeout > double on something like KJxx x xxxx Axxx. The TD was called, and ruled > no damage, but that if we make such light takeout doubles we need to > Alert them. This was correct; however, I told the TD that partner's > double was in violation of our agreements, in which a minimum takeout > double of 1H would be KJxx x Qxxx Axxx. The TD said that even that > would make a takeout double Alertable. > > We complied with the TD for the duration of the tournament, but the > Alert here was not only wrong but also counter-productive. "The double > promises support for all three unbid suits and 13 points in support of > spades; it could be as little as 10 HCP with good shape." This led to > followup questions such as, "Why is this Alertable?" to which I could > only reply, "A director told us that it was"; it also promoted a lack of > interest in more important Alerts. > > What is the proper action here? Complying with the TD's order for the > duration of the tournament is probably the most practical solution; if > the problem comes up at a later tournament, the TD would have to come > before the committee and say, "I ordered these players never to psyche > again in this situation after they did it six months ago," and will > hopefully get laughed out of committee. > > -- > 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. It is my understanding of ACBL rules that this double would be alertable because over 1H* it promises 13 points *with spade support* * which should be a guarantee of 4 spades. A natural takeout double promises at least 3 card support in the unbid suits and shortness in the bid suit. This sounds like a partnership understanding that the opponents should be told. ...Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 07:48:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:48:27 +1000 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 HAA21025 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:48:21 +1000 Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 5FVZa06379 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:47:41 -0500 (EST) From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <99ae1a8.35070680@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:47:41 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Instruction from Director 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 Brissman wrote, in re a TDs warning not to repeat a psych in the same situation with the same partner: > If the player picks up a hand ideally suited to his methods with that > particular partner, he should psyche. A player is obliged to follow all > _lawful_ instructions from a TD; he has no obligation to obey unlawful > or extralegal instructions. (Reductio ad absurdum: If a TD told him to > murder his partner...) > > If this scenario actually occurs, I'd buy a ticket to watch the dialogue > that would be exchanged between the player and the TD subsequent to the > post-warning psyche. > And if I'm the player, you would get your money's worth. Actually, my approach is to go ahead and obey the TD for the one session only, then speak to him afterwards to say that I will not obey his instruction in the future, explaining why. However, if he persists in enforcing his prohibition in a future session, he gets an earful (within the bounds of Zero Tolerance, of course), a visit to an AC, and notoriety on BLML. Watch out, I'm changing ISPs tomorrow, dumping AOL for a cable ISP, but will retain the pemanent e-mail address. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 08:07:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:07:02 +1000 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21071 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:06:55 +1000 Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 5WWQa26839 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:06:14 -0500 (EST) From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <2f891a33.35070ad8@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:06:14 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Instruction from Director 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 Nancy T. Dressing wrote: >It is my understanding of ACBL rules that this double would be alertable >because over 1H* it promises 13 points *with spade support* * which should be >a guarantee of 4 spades. A natural takeout double promises at least 3 card > support in the unbid suits and shortness in the bid suit. This sounds like > a partnership understanding that the opponents should be told. I can't find any such ACBL rule, and no definition of what is "natural" for a takeout double. A takeout double doesn't show anything; it asks partner to bid his/her longest suit and give some indication of his/her hand strength. However, if a partnership has understandings about takeout doubles that are "unusual," they must Alert. What is "unusual"? That's not stated, making it a subjective opinion by TDs/ACs. Marv (Marvin L. French, permanent E-mail address mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 08:16:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:16:07 +1000 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 IAA21111 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:16:01 +1000 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 RAA10681; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:13:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:15:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803112215.RAA04903@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: nancy@pinehurst.net CC: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3506FCE6.27336E03@pinehurst.net> (nancy@pinehurst.net) Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > David Grabiner wrote: >> I've had a similar problem when a director told me to Alert a particular >> call which shouldn't be Alertable. Partner had either miscounted his >> points or made a tactical decision to make an extremely light takeout >> double on something like KJxx x xxxx Axxx. The TD was called, and ruled >> no damage, but that if we make such light takeout doubles we need to >> Alert them. This was correct; however, I told the TD that partner's >> double was in violation of our agreements, in which a minimum takeout >> double of 1H would be KJxx x Qxxx Axxx. The TD said that even that >> would make a takeout double Alertable. >> We complied with the TD for the duration of the tournament, but the >> Alert here was not only wrong but also counter-productive. "The double >> promises support for all three unbid suits and 13 points in support of >> spades; it could be as little as 10 HCP with good shape." > It is my understanding of ACBL rules that this double would be > alertable because over 1H* it promises 13 points *with spade support* > * which should be a guarantee of 4 spades. A natural takeout double > promises at least 3 card support in the unbid suits and shortness in > the bid suit. This sounds like a partnership understanding that the > opponents should be told. ...Nancy That wasn't the issue. I will make a takeout double with 13 points in support of spades but only three-card spade support. However, if I do this, I will then have a full opening bid, such as KJx xx AQxx QJxx or Kxx x KJxxx Axxx. (Both count to 13 after subtracting one for three-card support.) My only deviation from what the TD considered standard was that I will double on some hands just short of an opening if the shape is perfect. (Change the example to KJxx x Kxxx Axxx and many players will open it.) -- 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 Mar 12 08:25:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:25:10 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21137 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:25:01 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa29654; 11 Mar 98 14:24 PST To: Bridge List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: 3 hearts stand or not In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:45:22 PST." <199803112049.PAA08412@bretweir.total.net> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:24:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9803111424.aa29654@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > At a table, declarer in South opened bids with 2D Flannery forgetting she > told her partner they would play 2D weak. Her left opponent asked North > what it was; North answered weak. West passed; North bid 3D and East > passed. > South (recognizing her error by North explanation) bid 3 H. > The opponents called the director. The director said that the declarer > could not bid 3 H after her partner's explanation so 3D should be played. > > DO you agree with this decision? Not this time. In most cases like this, I tend to agree that the person who forgot is required to pass. The usual case is along these lines: over the opponent's 1D opening, West makes a bid that she thinks shows clubs and spades, but partner thinks it shows hearts and spades, and explains it that way to the opponents. So partner bids hearts. West is normally not allowed to correct to a black suit (except with extreme distribution) because, in essence, West is not allowed to hear partner's explanation. Thus, West is required to reason like this: "If partner heard me show clubs and spades, but bid hearts anyway, he must have a lot of them, so I have to respect his decision and pass (or raise)." This case is very different though, because 3D is probably *not* a natural bid. At least, I wouldn't take it as one. I have successfully avoided playing Flannery for many years, so I don't know what current practice is regarding Flannery follow-ups; but when I used to play it, 3D was stopper-asking. So passing would not be a logical alternative---the only alternatives are 3H and 3NT. Given that Flannery users undoubtedly have other meanings for the 3D call, I can't say off the top of my head which calls should be allowed and which shouldn't. But the director should not require South to pass unless passing in the *Flannery* auction 2D-3D (whatever it should mean) is a reasonable alternative. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 08:26:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:26:01 +1000 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 IAA21152 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:25:34 +1000 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 RAA10925 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:22:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:24:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803112224.RAA05048@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199803112049.PAA08412@bretweir.total.net> (apion@total.net) Subject: Re: 3 hearts stand or not Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk APion writes: > At a table, declarer in South opened bids with 2D Flannery forgetting she > told her partner they would play 2D weak. Her left opponent asked North > what it was; North answered weak. West passed; North bid 3D and East > passed. > South (recognizing her error by North explanation) bid 3 H. > The opponents called the director. The director said that the declarer > could not bid 3 H after her partner's explanation so 3D should be played. > DO you agree with this decision? It depends on the hand and the agreements. As I learned Flannery, 3D asks for a diamond stopper, and opener should bid 3NT with a stopper, 3S with no stopper and a maximum, and 3H with no stopper and a minimum. If that is how South believes Flannery is played, and she has KQxx AJxxx x Qxx, then 3H is the only LA and is the correct bid; the fact that it will get her out of trouble is irrelevant. If South has KQxx AJxxx x Axx, then 3S is the only LA without UI, and South's 3H should be corrected, but to 3S, not pass. If 3D is a game invitation in diamonds, then pass is probably an LA, but some South hands may make 3NT or 4D the LA's, in which case the bid should be corrected to 3NT or 4D as appropriate. -- 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 Mar 12 09:08:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:08:57 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21311 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:08:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA04367 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:08:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02083; Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:08:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 18:08:23 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803112308.SAA02083@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > You may well be right about advantage in not mentioning 10C1 but > if we took our eyes off the ball it was because we were not thinking > about premature corrections but only about standard procedure. Thanks for the clarification. I did say it was a minor problem, but it is a good example of the sort of interpretation where readers may not see what the writers intended. Perhaps worth another look in 2007? > I am not sure that I have seen anything about the substitute bid being > insufficient; what is clear is that correction to an insufficient bid is > inadmissible, (Law 27B: "must be corrected by substitution of a sufficient > bid or a pass"), so that action does not stand and I would think personally > there can be no acceptance of it and the player must select a sufficient > bid or pass and Law 16C may apply to the insufficient substitute bid. > I say 16C not 9C because it may be premature but it is not a correction. "Clear" may be an overbid. :-) Why can't an attempted correction to an insufficient bid be accepted? This at first glance seems to run counter to the original assertion that a premature correction must stand and also to the principle that an attempted correction to double invokes L27C. Consider: Case 1: Case 2: North: 2NT North: 2NT East: 1H.. oops 2H. East: 1H.. oops Double. All: Director! All: Director! Clearly South can accept 1H in either case (L27A). Can South accept the attempted correction? "No" in case 2 seems clear from L27B, but case 1 may be arguable. Is the attempted correction part of the original infraction, where L27B applies? Or is it a new infraction of its own, to which L27A applies just as much as to the original infraction? (The double is not an insufficient bid, so L27A can never apply to it, and we have no ambiguity.) On careful reading, I agree with Grattan. Neither 2H nor double is a valid correction of the original infraction, and we have to have a valid correction before anything else can occur. The point about L16C and not L9C is a very fine one indeed. Allowing South to accept 2H might be logical, but it isn't legal. Perhaps the 2007 Laws should have L27D, 'Premature Attempt to Correct an Insufficient Bid'? It wouldn't need to change anything, just make correct procedure unambiguous. Now where does all this leave us on David's question from last January: > 1NT Pass Pass 1C! > You can't, says someone! > Oh dear, says he, and changes it to 2C [1NT P P 2C shows the majors]. > Pass from the 1NT opener. It appears to me that 2C is a legal (if premature) correction, so it stands. The insufficient bidder's partner is barred, since 2C would have been conventional. You might modify this ruling if "someone" is an opponent who is deemed to have induced the premature correction or to have talked opener out of his right to accept the 1C call. Are we all happy with this? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 09:41:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:41:33 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21420 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:41:25 +1000 Received: from default (cph19.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.19]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA00348 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:41:09 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803112341.AAA00348@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:41:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. A > Director has given a player an instruction [as it happens, it is to do > with psyching]. This instruction covers his future conduct ["Don't > psyche again with this partner"]. The instruction is both contrary to > the Laws of Bridge and to the Regulations of the SO [in the actual case, > the ACBL]. > > However, as has been pointed out, to ignore the instruction is in > contravention of L81C5 [It is the TD's responsibility to interpret > the laws and advise players of their rights and responsibilities...] and > L90B8 [Offenses subject to penalty: failure to comply with a director's > instructions]. > > So what should the player do? Comply and appeal. Further appeal to the national authority would be reasonable if the original appeal does not convince the director that he should change his instructions. The appeal might include a claim of damage if a suitable hand came up while the player was complying, but many AC's might take that as entertainment. I would give the TD a lot of leeway if he issues L91 penalties to players who refuse to comply with his directives given as interpretations of the laws, even if that interpretation is later overturned. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 09:46:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:46:35 +1000 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 JAA21465 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:46:30 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p11.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.163]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA15087; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:45:46 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980311163150.006c8c00@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:31:50 +1000 To: "Grattan Endicott" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws In-Reply-To: <01bd4c33$9c8be9a0$LocalHost@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:48 10/03/98 -0000, you wrote: > >gester@globalnet.co.uk >Grattan Endicott >Liverpool L18 8DJ : >#### >A very gracious point of view, Herman, although I would not >want to stifle discussion. And I do have to be careful. There >are two possibilities, either I do know the purpose of a change >in the laws as proposed by the drafting committee and that it >has been adopted in those terms by the full WBF Laws Committee, >or my information is incomplete because Kaplan failed to send me >his detailed thoughts (or those of the rest of the committee), and >it was not an item discussed anywhere when I was present in the flesh. >In the latter case I offer a view as to what was intended and either >recommend that interpretation or leave it open to argument as to the >meaning of the words. >But where I have knowledge that the drafting body *and* the full WBF >Laws Committee have clearly agreed on a change *and* the effect >it will have, this is not only a change but also an *interpretation* of the >law. Such is the case with the deletion from Law 27 - it was done to >establish that under the 97 laws the substituted call is *not* cancelled >and the Laws Committee agreed that position, and that if the LHO does >not wish to accept the insufficient bid under 27A (as is his right) he can >accept the substitute bid and this purpose was enunciated so clearly >that it cannot reasonably be suggested the Committee has failed to >prescribe the interpretation. #### Grattan #### I am happy to accept Grattan's views as authoritative (especially as my own views are similar!), and will report them to the Aust. and NZ authorities, who are currently in disagreement on this. But please clarify what is meant by the statement that "LHO can accept the substituted bid." It seems to me that offender's substituted call (if legal) is his final call at that turn. We cannot offer LHO the right to accept it under Law 25. Or are we talking about a situation where LHO also acts before the TD is called, thereby possibly forfeiting his penalty rights under Law 11? If the sequence goes insufficient bid - substituted call - director called, the the TD will offer LHO the option to accept the insufficient bid. But, if he declines, then the substituted bid (with its penalty consequences) stands and bidding proceeds. Is this not so? Reg Busch. > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 11:15:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:15:25 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21760 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:15:19 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018307; 12 Mar 98 1:09 GMT Message-ID: <6+nvj1Fr3yB1Ewhp@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:35:55 +0000 To: Grattan Endicott Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: WBF Laws Committee: agenda for meeting in Lille. In-Reply-To: <01bd4cfa$75f0eb20$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bd4cfa$75f0eb20$LocalHost@default>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > >The Committee, under its new chairman, is seeking to be more >communicative with the outside world than in the past, and part of this is >a wish to target its discussions and decisions where the bridge world at >large would most like its help, [or at least a decision! :-) ]. > >######## Grattan ####### > Whilst I have no desire further to complicate the Laws as I have more than enough problems with them already, I want to express my delight that the Law Making process is being seen more to be listening to the wishes of the Players via their TDs. The openness is to be praised. -- 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 Mar 12 11:35:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:35:33 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21801 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:35:24 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1021920; 12 Mar 98 1:09 GMT Message-ID: <9uSu3wF+xyB1Ewh7@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:29:50 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Instruction from Director In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. A >Director has given a player an instruction [as it happens, it is to do >with psyching]. This instruction covers his future conduct ["Don't >psyche again with this partner"]. The instruction is both contrary to >the Laws of Bridge and to the Regulations of the SO [in the actual case, >the ACBL]. > > However, as has been pointed out, to ignore the instruction is in >contravention of L81C5 [It is the TD's responsibility to interpret >the laws and advise players of their rights and responsibilities...] and >L90B8 [Offenses subject to penalty: failure to comply with a director's >instructions]. > > So what should the player do? > Put one out on the next board and await developments ? With some justification I read the whole of Law 90B to one of the YC players a while ago (my way of calming players down when they're being Tigger-like), with particular stress on L90B8 Failure to comply with any instruction of the Director and then told him to "Drop Dead". Did his failure so to do result in the same contravention? In other words if I instruct a player about something which is not within the scope of the Laws viz Drop Dead or Don't Psyche I don't see why the player shouldn't just ignore me, and either continue living or put another one out as the case may be. FWIW the whole card room fell about in a heap and I got order back to my complete satisfaction. -- 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 Mar 12 12:13:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:13:10 +1000 Received: from mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA21901 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:12:50 +1000 Received: from apfelbaum ([12.68.150.101]) by mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA8024 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 02:12:13 +0000 Message-ID: <002101bd4d5c$104db520$6596440c@apfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing Group" Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:10:39 -0500 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 recall an incident from about 10 years ago. My partner and I were playing Blue Team Club, including the 13-17 NT range. When an opponent questioned the validity of this range (ACBL reg at the time prohibited a wide range), the TD ruled we could not play the Blue Team Club NT. (NOTE: 1NT promises either 13-15 hcp with either 3-3-3-4 or 3-3-2-5 distribution or any 16-17 hcp balanced hand) Anyway, when the TD ruled we could not play this NT I disagreed and appealed. The TD informed me that my appeal would be heard at the end of the session, but in the meanwhile we could not play this bid. I pointed out that this would give us no redress for the remainder of the session. The TD politely said that was unfortuneate, but as we were in a different building from the DIC we would have to wait. Meanwhile, we could not play this NT range. At this point I stated that I appealed that part of the ruling as well. I stated that we would continue to play the NT range with the understanding that we would accept whatever sanction was imposed if our appeal was not successful. However, if we were successful in our appeal there would be no basis to sanction us. I added that this would adequately protect any opposing pair, and that we would gladly report any instance where the bid was used. The TD ruled this would not be permitted, and I appealed that as well. Apparantly, this caused the TD to rethink his position. He called the TD and after some conversation reversed his position. So a happy ending. Does anyone care to comment? Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 12:23:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:23:43 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA21923 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:23:35 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1021919; 12 Mar 98 1:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 00:49:40 +0000 To: APion Cc: Bridge List From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: 3 hearts stand or not In-Reply-To: <199803112049.PAA08412@bretweir.total.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803112049.PAA08412@bretweir.total.net>, APion writes >At a table, declarer in South opened bids with 2D Flannery forgetting she >told her partner they would play 2D weak. Her left opponent asked North >what it was; North answered weak. West passed; North bid 3D and East >passed. >South (recognizing her error by North explanation) bid 3 H. >The opponents called the director. The director said that the declarer >could not bid 3 H after her partner's explanation so 3D should be played. > >DO you agree with this decision? > > >A. Pion > > >apion@total.net Yes because 3H would not be a logical alternative given the UI. Incidentally what does 3D mean over Flannery 2D? South's notional failure to alert it might lead to MI. -- 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 Mar 12 12:45:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:45:41 +1000 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 MAA21993 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:45:34 +1000 Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.68.130.148]) by mtigwc05.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA15995 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 02:44:58 +0000 Message-ID: <35074C19.228CE786@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:44:41 -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: Instruction from Director References: <199803112341.AAA00348@isa.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: [deletion] > Comply and appeal. Further appeal to the national authority would be > reasonable if the original appeal does not convince the director > that he should change his instructions. The appeal might include a > claim of damage if a suitable hand came up while the player was > complying, but many AC's might take that as entertainment. > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ Presumably if you decide to comply there is an obligation to inform your opponents as well. -- 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 Thu Mar 12 22:19:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:19:34 +1000 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 WAA23036 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:19:28 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id HAA18757; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:21:39 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma018704; Thu, 12 Mar 98 07:20:49 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA18285; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:17:11 -0500 Message-Id: <199803121217.HAA18285@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 12 Mar 98 08:23:36 GMT Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk willner @ cfa183.harvard.edu wrote: >> From: Labeo >> Labeo: Law 27B2 is not dealing per se with a premature correction but >> with the plain situation where a player has properly done nothing >> before the Director arrives and has still to choose his course >> of action > >This is fine, but it's true of the whole of L27. > >> if the insufficient bid is not accepted. 10C1 is then wholly >> relevant. > >But then why not put the reference to it at the beginning of L27B or, >even better, at the beginning of L27? (Or omit a specific reference, >given that L10C1 always applies?) I agree. L10C1 always applies where there are options, so why the need for a reference to it at all? I also agree that it is just as relevant to L27B1 as to L27B2, which is why its incorrect positioning confused me too for some time. >Why _only_ in L27B2? Or rather, >_given that lawmakers chose to put the reference is where it is_, how >are we to read L27B2? > >As I have noted, I regard this as a minor problem, but the apparently >intended interpretation is not the way I would have read the text as it >is written. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 22:48:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:48:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA23125 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:48:14 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1006240; 12 Mar 98 12:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 03:41:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Instruction from Director In-Reply-To: <3506FCE6.27336E03@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T. Dressing wrote: > It is my understanding of ACBL rules that this double would be alertable >because over 1H* it promises 13 points *with spade support* * which should be >a guarantee of 4 spades. A natural takeout double promises at least 3 card >support in the unbid suits and shortness in the bid suit. This sounds like a >partnership understanding that the opponents should be told. ...Nancy Why should spade support be a guarantee of 4 spades? This is taking alerting to ridiculous lengths. If I double 1H with a 3=1=4=5 hand then I have support for all unbid suits and a completely standard normal takeout double. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 23:12:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:12:24 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA23194 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:12:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1006233; 12 Mar 98 12:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 03:36:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws In-Reply-To: <199803112308.SAA02083@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Are we all happy with this? No. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 12 23:58:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:58:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA23314 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:58:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2018230; 12 Mar 98 13:48 GMT Message-ID: <1xEWoSAzw9B1EwxP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:59:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Instruction from Director In-Reply-To: <199803112341.AAA00348@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. A >> Director has given a player an instruction [as it happens, it is to do >> with psyching]. This instruction covers his future conduct ["Don't >> psyche again with this partner"]. The instruction is both contrary to >> the Laws of Bridge and to the Regulations of the SO [in the actual case, >> the ACBL]. >> >> However, as has been pointed out, to ignore the instruction is in >> contravention of L81C5 [It is the TD's responsibility to interpret >> the laws and advise players of their rights and responsibilities...] and >> L90B8 [Offenses subject to penalty: failure to comply with a director's >> instructions]. >> >> So what should the player do? >Comply and appeal. Further appeal to the national authority would be >reasonable if the original appeal does not convince the director >that he should change his instructions. The appeal might include a >claim of damage if a suitable hand came up while the player was >complying, but many AC's might take that as entertainment. > >I would give the TD a lot of leeway if he issues L91 penalties to >players who refuse to comply with his directives given as >interpretations of the laws, even if that interpretation is later >overturned. Hoh yes? What are you appealing? You are appealing against a TD in his interpretation of the Laws. If he is the TDic he will hear the appeal himself. This is much easier if you actually get the statement as part of a ruling on a board that is appealable. Then you can discuss the matter in front of an AC. However, they are still likely to accept the TD's view of the interpretation of the Regulations, even with the written regulations available. If I was playing in a NABC, and on the first day a TD told me not to bid 1H, and then he told me that he would hear my appeal himself, I really do not think that I could play out the rest of the NABC not opening 1H and take an appeal to the ACBL later. More likely a lawsuit. So what is different? Others have suggested that if it is clearly insupportable ["Murder your partner"] then you do not follow a TD's instructions. However, where do you draw the line? To be honest, I do not think this problem is easy or trivial. Now that I have actually seen the ACBL Regulations, it has become apparent that *many* of the stories of psyching in the ACBL as told on RGB, RGBO and BLML involve Directors at various levels making rulings contrary to those regulations, primarily in the direction of curbing psyching even when legitimate. Of course, the regulations may have changed recently. But if not, why are the players not being allowed to do what is permitted by Law and Regulation? It might be thought from the above that I am criticising ACBL Directors. No. I believe there is a problem, but I am not sure where it emanates from. For example, if the Directors are merely doing what they have been told in a separate instruction from the BoD, or from Memphis, then the fault is not theirs. I still believe it is a serious problem if Regulations differ in a marked way from a TD's instruction to the players. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 01:13:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:13:14 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25761 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:13:05 +1000 Received: from default (client83b3.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.179]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA28017; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:12:53 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4dc9$7c838040$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: 12 March 1998 00:34 Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws >Thanks for the clarification. I did say it was a minor problem, but it >is a good example of the sort of interpretation where readers may not >see what the writers intended. Perhaps worth another look in 2007? > ### It may be unnecessary to wait so long; the new chairman is inclined to review numbers of things and see where we ought to be now - it was inevitable that with Edgar's departure things he put through with a degree of 'force majeure' (when a real consensus was not obtained) would come under scrutiny . So the present stance may turn out to be an interim position until the Committee gets at it again.### >> I am not sure that I have seen anything about the substitute bid being >> insufficient; what is clear is that correction to an insufficient bid is >> inadmissible, (Law 27B: "must be corrected by substitution of a sufficient >> bid or a pass"), so that action does not stand and I would think personally >> there can be no acceptance of it and the player must select a sufficient >> bid or pass and Law 16C may apply to the insufficient substitute bid. >> I say 16C not 9C because it may be premature but it is not a correction. > >"Clear" may be an overbid. :-) Why can't an attempted correction to an >insufficient bid be accepted? This at first glance seems to run >counter to the original assertion that a premature correction must >stand and also to the principle that an attempted correction to double >invokes L27C. Consider: > >Case 1: Case 2: >North: 2NT North: 2NT >East: 1H.. oops 2H. East: 1H.. oops Double. >All: Director! All: Director! > >Clearly South can accept 1H in either case (L27A). Can South accept >the attempted correction? "No" in case 2 seems clear from L27B, but >case 1 may be arguable. Is the attempted correction part of the >original infraction, where L27B applies? Or is it a new infraction of >its own, to which L27A applies just as much as to the original >infraction? (The double is not an insufficient bid, so L27A can >never apply to it, and we have no ambiguity.) > >On careful reading, I agree with Grattan. Neither 2H nor double is a >valid correction of the original infraction, and we have to have a >valid correction before anything else can occur. The point about L16C >and not L9C is a very fine one indeed. Allowing South to accept 2H >might be logical, but it isn't legal. > >Perhaps the 2007 Laws should have L27D, 'Premature Attempt to Correct >an Insufficient Bid'? It wouldn't need to change anything, just make >correct procedure unambiguous. > >Now where does all this leave us on David's question from last January: >> 1NT Pass Pass 1C! >> You can't, says someone! >> Oh dear, says he, and changes it to 2C [1NT P P 2C shows the majors]. >> Pass from the 1NT opener. > >It appears to me that 2C is a legal (if premature) correction, so it >stands. The insufficient bidder's partner is barred, since 2C would >have been conventional. > >You might modify this ruling if "someone" is an opponent who is deemed >to have induced the premature correction or to have talked opener out >of his right to accept the 1C call. > >Are we all happy with this? > #### I am prepared to stand my ground on the basis that the word is "MUST" - the strongest imperative - and until a correction such as the law *demands* has been made I do not think anything has happened : that is to say, nothing that an opponent is permitted to accept. There may be UI or a lead penalty possibility. And I agree there may be cause to refer to Law 11 if the premature birth has been induced. There may be a good case for enacting that Law 27B3 shall apply to any attempted substitution of a call other than a sufficient bid or a pass. #### These are personal opinions, not backed with any committee decision.#### ## G ## From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 01:53:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:53:22 +1000 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25884 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:53:07 +1000 Received: from ldubreui.uqss.uquebec.ca by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.37.109.24/15.6) id AA035267981; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:53:01 -0500 Message-Id: <350804E9.F1@UQSS.UQuebec.CA> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:53:13 -0500 From: Laval Dubreuil X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold [fr] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Subject: law 27: premature correction Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From recent discussions concerning Law 27, I understand now that when a player makes a premature correction after an insufficient bid, this secound call becomes the replacement call (when LHO does not accepts the first one). Then, no penality if offender replaced his first bid by the lower one in the same demomination, but partner is barred if the premature correction was something else. I understand also that when the premature correction was an illegal X or XX, this secound call is cancelled, the offender must make a legall call and partner is barred. What if premature correction by the lower sufficient bid in the same denomination becomes a convention? The offender is stucked with this replacement bid and partener is barred (seems stupid)? The offender may choose any call (partner barred)(seems more logic but not evident from text of law)? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 05:27:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA26787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:27:13 +1000 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 FAA26782 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:27:02 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.compulink.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.6) id TAA11515 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:27:04 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 12 Mar 98 19:25 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Instruction from Director 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: > > An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. A > Director has given a player an instruction [as it happens, it is to do > with psyching]. This instruction covers his future conduct ["Don't > psyche again with this partner"]. The instruction is both contrary to > the Laws of Bridge and to the Regulations of the SO [in the actual case, > the ACBL]. > > However, as has been pointed out, to ignore the instruction is in > contravention of L81C5 [It is the TD's responsibility to interpret > the laws and advise players of their rights and responsibilities...] and > L90B8 [Offenses subject to penalty: failure to comply with a director's > instructions]. > > So what should the player do? > Well, on the next board, after explaining to opponents the shared partnership knowledge about the director's instruction and L90 obligations (surely they are entitled to know), you make a normal first call, and then summon the director. Partner and oppos have the extraneous unauthorised information (from director's prior instruction - as by etc under L16B) that your bid is genuine. Obviously the hand becomes unplayable under the normal rules of bridge so 60/60. .and the next hand...the next.. etc. If only I can persuade director to issue his instruction early on I should be in for one of my better sessions:-) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 06:59:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:59:49 +1000 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 GAA27257 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:59:42 +1000 Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 5VBKa09366 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:58:16 -0500 (EST) From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <4c2b8b27.35084c6b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:58:16 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ACBL & normal or unusual takeout doubles 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 B. Kribs writes: > Gary Blaiss in the March issue of the ACBL Bulletin on page 80 addresses the > takeout double circumstance you questioned on the BLML message string > "Instruction from the Director". > The Bulletin article quotes Amalya Kearse's beliefs as to what a negative double should show, which does not quite agree with the description in The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, produced by the ACBL, a perhaps more pertinent source of information. Kearse says, according to Blaiss, that a takeout doubler "...promises strength at least roughly equivalent to an opening bid. He suggests that he is short in the suit doubled and has at least three-card support for any other suit that his partner might choose to bid....However, what the doubler lacks in distribution can be compensated for by extra high-card strength." The more authoritative (I would think) Encyclopedia has similar language, but uses the word "suggests" instead of "promises," an important difference. It also states "a player who doubles a major-suit opening tends to hold four cards in the unbid major, and this may be a factor in deciding to double." Now, the ACBL Alert Procedure calls for an Alert of any call that may be based on "unusual" strength, length, shape, or restrictions. If a player tends to double a 1H opening with 4=1=6=2 distribution and minimum but normal strength, on the basis of "equal level conversion," that would not be "unusual," even though it does not include three or more cards in clubs. Since the double only "suggests" support for all unbid suits, not "promising" that, the possiblility of this sort of hand for a takeout double does not call for an Alert. Marv (mlfrench@writeme.com) - Don't use the AOL address. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 07:27:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:27:31 +1000 Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA27348 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:27:25 +1000 Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 5WKQa05360 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:24:52 -0500 (EST) From: Mlfrench Message-ID: <10902b25.350852a7@aol.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:24:52 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Instruction from Director 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: > To be honest, I do not think this problem is easy or trivial. Now > that I have actually seen the ACBL Regulations, it has become apparent > that *many* of the stories of psyching in the ACBL as told on RGB, RGBO > and BLML involve Directors at various levels making rulings contrary to > those regulations, primarily in the direction of curbing psyching even > when legitimate. Of course, the regulations may have changed recently. > But if not, why are the players not being allowed to do what is > permitted by Law and Regulation? > > It might be thought from the above that I am criticising ACBL > Directors. No. I believe there is a problem, but I am not sure where > it emanates from. For example, if the Directors are merely doing what > they have been told in a separate instruction from the BoD, or from > Memphis, then the fault is not theirs. I think the tendency emanates from the fact that TDs HATE psychs, because they create so much ill-will among unsophisticated contestants. The ill-will rubs off on them, and if there's anything that TDs want to do, it's to maintain good will. TDs that make enemies through no fault of their own may find themselves "disinvited" to some sectional tournament if one of those enemies is involved in the TD selection process. Another reason for TD's hating psychs is that they create more work, not just for the call to the table, but for analyzing the psychers's tendencies, keeping track of psych abusers, etc. The loophole they use to justify their intolerance for psychs is L40A's words that a psych may not be "based on a partnership understanding." According to many TDs, one psych in one situation with one partner creates a partnership understanding that a bid in that situation may be psychic, so partner will be looking for, and allowing for, a psych in that situation. This is not a justifiable argument IMO, but there is a grain of truth to it. A certain influential L. A. pro opens weak two bids with 2-11 HCP and uses conventions following the opening. His card is marked 5-11 HCP, but when the TD is called about a 2 HCP opening, he just says it was a psych and the TD nods and walks away. (Pros don't always get the same treatment that we peons get). The TD should have looked into this further, and required the pro to change his card to show 2-11 HCP (which means no conventions after a weak two) if that is his practice (it is), or warn him that frequent openings of that nature would constitute a partnership understanding. How you administer this sort of thing, I don't know. Marv (mlfrench@writeme.com -- don't use the AOL address) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 07:56:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:56:38 +1000 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA27473 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:56:12 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA27936 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:56:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA28600; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:58:45 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:58:45 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199803122158.NAA28600@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mlfrench wrote: |I think the tendency emanates from the fact that TDs HATE psychs, because they |create so much ill-will among unsophisticated contestants. The ill-will rubs |off on them, and if there's anything that TDs want to do, it's to maintain |good will. TDs that make enemies through no fault of their own may find |themselves "disinvited" to some sectional tournament if one of those enemies |is involved in the TD selection process. Hah. If TDs around here cared about "good will," they'd behave very differently from how they do. TDs don't get "disinvited" to sectionals. The director selection process is far more arcane than you imagine. I don't think TDs hate psychs at all. I don't think they care in general. Some players hate them. |Another reason for TD's hating psychs is that they create more work, not just |for the call to the table, but for analyzing the psychers's tendencies, |keeping track of psych abusers, etc. Which (a) they don't do, and (b) they are not tasked with doing. So what do they care? |The loophole they use to justify their intolerance for psychs is L40A's words |that a psych may not be "based on a partnership understanding." According to |many TDs, one psych in one situation with one partner creates a partnership |understanding that a bid in that situation may be psychic, so partner will be |looking for, and allowing for, a psych in that situation. Aha...now we see the error. In this paragraph, "they" is Memphis. TDs are not organized on their own in the ACBL. |This is not a justifiable argument IMO, but there is a grain of truth to it. A |certain influential L. A. pro opens weak two bids with 2-11 HCP and uses |conventions following the opening. His card is marked 5-11 HCP, but when the |TD is called about a 2 HCP opening, he just says it was a psych and the TD |nods and walks away. (Pros don't always get the same treatment that we peons |get). The TD should have looked into this further, and required the pro to |change his card to show 2-11 HCP (which means no conventions after a weak two) |if that is his practice (it is), or warn him that frequent openings of that |nature would constitute a partnership understanding. This isn't a case of a director kowtowing to a pro. This is a case of an uninformed director erring. |How you administer this sort of thing, I don't know. I do. You use the recorder system. I am not a certain influential LA pro, but on the last board of a recent regional, I figured we needed about two tops to win, but one might do it. (I was being optimistic, I'm afraid.) I opened a 10-12 NT with Qxxxx x J10xxx xx. (If pressed by a real ignoramus, I'd've claimed that I had ten points: 3 in high cards, 3 for distribution, and 4 for the pinochle.) The bidding proceded rather strangely, as one might imagine, and we ended up +500 vs. air for our top. (Which wasn't good enough.) It was the last board, so we scored it up and wandered away. About five minutes later, I heard a shriek from our last table when an opponent figured out what had happened. She called the director, rather irately. The director said, "hmmm...that doesn't look like a stretch; it looks like an outright psych. He's allowed to do that." "As far as I know, he's allowed to lie about his hand as long as his partner is taken in, too. Jeff, have you ever perpretrated this psych before in this partnership?" "Not as far as I know." "Remember, you can't do it again." "OK, if I ever hold this hand again in this position, I'll open 2NT instead. Unless I don't." "That's fine." "I'd better check, though, about the point requirements for 10-12s. I'll get back to you if there's a problem." After the event, he chided me a little about psyching at table 2, but otherwise seemed pretty rational about the whole manner. Again, this was at a recent LA regional. My experience has been like that in general. Opponents hate psychs. They call the director and accuse us of cheating. They scream and wave their arms. The director seems to get confused sometimes, but never does anything really silly. Mostly, they seem bored. That's at tournaments. At club games, directors come to the table, look vapid, and do nothing. Of course, that's par for the course at club games. I was pleasantly surprised the other day, however, when a club director walked across the room to get a lawbook and checked a ruling. It was even one I didn't know and admitted not knowing at the table. (The bidding went 1C-1NT-pass-Dbl-pass*-director. * Idiot partner was _proud_ of this action, thinking himself clever.) --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 Mar 13 08:13:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:13:31 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA27518 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:13:25 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA10676 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:12:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from 148.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.148) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010569; Thu Mar 12 16:11:56 1998 Received: by 148.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD4DD9.B9DDBA40@148.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:10:15 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD4DD9.B9DDBA40@148.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Interpretation of Laws Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:10:13 -0500 Encoding: 32 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Are you saying that a substantial revision of the Laws is likely before 2007, or just that some statements of clarification may be forthcoming? Also, IS ten years the right length of time between revisions now that the potential for instantaneous worldwide communication and dissemination in at hand? I join others as very much appreciative of your statesmanlike comments and the effort to involve concerned persons in bridge in shaping the laws in future. Craig Senior ---------- From: Grattan Endicott[SMTP:gester@globalnet.co.uk] Subject: Re: Interpretation of Laws gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner >Thanks for the clarification. (snip) Perhaps worth another look in 2007? > ### It may be unnecessary to wait so long; the new chairman is inclined to review numbers of things and see where we ought to be now - it was inevitable that with Edgar's departure things he put through with a degree of 'force majeure' (when a real consensus was not obtained) would come under scrutiny . So the present stance may turn out to be an interim position until the Committee gets at it again.### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 10:46:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:46:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA27838 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:46:36 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028106; 13 Mar 98 0:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:32:41 +0000 To: Laval Dubreuil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: law 27: premature correction In-Reply-To: <350804E9.F1@UQSS.UQuebec.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <350804E9.F1@UQSS.UQuebec.CA>, Laval Dubreuil writes ..............................cut................................... > >What if premature correction by the lower sufficient bid in the same >denomination becomes a convention? >The offender is stucked with this replacement bid and partener is barred >(seems stupid)? Labeo: I am not sure that a player twice in breach of the Laws - insufficient bid and failure to wait for the Director before taking further action - deserves great sympathy. But, even though the bid may be technically conventional, it will in fact be the case that he has the suit since he has already bid it naturally at a lower level. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 11:07:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:07:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA28001 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:07:24 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1029703; 13 Mar 98 0:50 GMT Message-ID: <60lPBNGsJIC1EwZJ@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:48:44 +0000 To: Laval Dubreuil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: law 27: premature correction In-Reply-To: <350804E9.F1@UQSS.UQuebec.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <350804E9.F1@UQSS.UQuebec.CA>, Laval Dubreuil writes >From recent discussions concerning Law 27, I understand now that when a >player makes a premature correction after an insufficient bid, this >secound call becomes the replacement call (when LHO does not accepts the >first one). Then, no penality if offender replaced his first bid by the >lower one in the same demomination, but partner is barred if the >premature correction was something else. > >I understand also that when the premature correction was an illegal X or >XX, this secound call is cancelled, the offender must make a legall call >and partner is barred. > >What if premature correction by the lower sufficient bid in the same >denomination becomes a convention? >The offender is stucked with this replacement bid and partener is barred >(seems stupid)? >The offender may choose any call (partner barred)(seems more logic but >not evident from text of law)? > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City Whilst I agree with your comments I think the offender did himself in by not having the Director called. he made his choice - he didn't want to know his option - he suffers. maybe I'm too draconian. -- 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 Mar 13 15:26:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:26:14 +1000 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 PAA28546 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:26:08 +1000 Received: from apfelbaum ([12.68.22.98]) by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAD19207 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:25:30 +0000 Message-ID: <002701bd4e40$37f94b40$6216440c@apfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:23:14 -0500 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 A point of information for this thread. ACBL Board of Directors in the past couple of years passed a regulation that prohibits psyches, responses and rebids for any convention that may by agreement promise fewer than ten (10) hcp. I have not heard of any rulings that are expressly based on this regulation, but it is part of the General Convention Chart. When this was first considered, the National Laws Commission stated that passing such a regulation was unwise and discouraged the BoD from passing it. However, the NLC also admitted the BoD had authority to pass this regulation. Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 16:22:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:22:52 +1000 Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA28773 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:22:46 +1000 Received: from Mlfrench@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 5OJWa01102 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:22:09 -0500 (EST) From: Mlfrench Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:22:09 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Instruction from Director 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 Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > A point of information for this thread. ACBL Board of > Directors in the past couple of years passed a regulation > that prohibits psyches, responses and rebids for any > convention that may by agreement promise fewer than ten > (10) hcp. At what meeting was this passed? I can't find it. > > I have not heard of any rulings that are expressly based on > this regulation, but it is part of the General Convention > Chart. The GCC (under DISALLOWED) prohibits psychs of "artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto," and psychs of "conventional suit responses, which are less than two notrump, to natural openings." The Mid-Chart and Super Chart agree with the GCC on the first part, but do not disallow psychs of a conventional response to a natural opening. While "natural" is defined on the GCC, neither "artificial" nor "conventional" are defined there. The last omission is rather strange, since the main subject of the Convention Charts is conventions. At least they could have referenced the Laws' definition, if they didn't want to quote it. > > When this was first considered, the National Laws > Commission stated that passing such a regulation was unwise > and discouraged the BoD from passing it. However, the NLC > also admitted the BoD had authority to pass this > regulation. The language of the Convention Charts in re psychs seems reasonable, if not quite legal. The trouble with such regulations is that they open the door for the the ACBL to prohibit the psyching of any convention, which I don't think the lawmakers intend. Marv (mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 17:40:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:40:04 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA29216 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:39:57 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1011732; 13 Mar 98 7:12 GMT Message-ID: <0F3WEDAAiNC1Ewr9@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:56:00 +0000 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Instruction from Director 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: >> >> An interesting point has been thrown up by a thread on RGB. > >Well, on the next board, after explaining to opponents the shared >partnership knowledge about the director's instruction and L90 >obligations (surely they are entitled to know), you make a normal first >call, and then summon the director. Partner and oppos have the extraneous >unauthorised information (from director's prior instruction - as by etc >under L16B) that your bid is genuine. Obviously the hand becomes >unplayable under the normal rules of bridge so 60/60. .and the next >hand...the next.. etc. > >If only I can persuade director to issue his instruction early on I should >be in for one of my better sessions:-) > Labeo: You don't mean 'better', you mean 'more enjoyable'. But I have a feeling I have seen it asserted that it is always proper to announce your bidding methods and to inform opponents of your intention to conform to them at all times. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 23:51:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:51:33 +1000 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 XAA00333 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:51:26 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic139.cais.com [207.226.56.139]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA29722 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:30:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980313085049.006c9a9c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:50:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 3 hearts stand or not In-Reply-To: <199803112224.RAA05048@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199803112049.PAA08412@bretweir.total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:24 PM 3/11/98 -0500, David wrote: >APion writes: > >> At a table, declarer in South opened bids with 2D Flannery forgetting she >> told her partner they would play 2D weak. Her left opponent asked North >> what it was; North answered weak. West passed; North bid 3D and East >> passed. >> South (recognizing her error by North explanation) bid 3 H. >> The opponents called the director. The director said that the declarer >> could not bid 3 H after her partner's explanation so 3D should be played. > >> DO you agree with this decision? > >It depends on the hand and the agreements. As I learned Flannery, 3D >asks for a diamond stopper, and opener should bid 3NT with a stopper, 3S >with no stopper and a maximum, and 3H with no stopper and a minimum. If >that is how South believes Flannery is played, and she has KQxx AJxxx x >Qxx, then 3H is the only LA and is the correct bid; the fact that it >will get her out of trouble is irrelevant. If South has KQxx AJxxx x >Axx, then 3S is the only LA without UI, and South's 3H should be >corrected, but to 3S, not pass. > >If 3D is a game invitation in diamonds, then pass is probably an LA, but >some South hands may make 3NT or 4D the LA's, in which case the bid >should be corrected to 3NT or 4D as appropriate. This would make for an interesting "rule of coincidence" case in my area (Washington DC), where the usual agreements are: 2D(weak)-P-3D is weak, furthering the preempt. 2D(Flannery)-P-3D is an artificial slam try, requiring(!) opener to bid 3H so responder can clarify her intentions. So, assuming that the rule of coincidence is applied, is N, upon hearing S's "impossible" 3H bid, "allowed" (in the sense of not being subject to a subsequent adjustment if 3H turns out to be the top spot) to diagnose that S forgot that she wasn't playing Flannery, and pass? Does this tell us anything about the validity of the rule of coincidence? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 13 23:59:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:59:42 +1000 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 XAA00360 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:59:37 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb4.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.4]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA18483 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:59:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980313085934.006d5520@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:59:34 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Interpretation of Laws In-Reply-To: <01BD4DD9.B9DDBA40@148.middletown-04.va.dial-access.ATT.NET > Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:10 PM 3/12/98 -0500, Craig wrote: > Are you saying that a substantial revision of the Laws is likely >before 2007, or just that some statements of clarification may be >forthcoming? Also, IS ten years the right length of time between revisions >now that the potential for instantaneous worldwide communication and >dissemination in at hand? The potential certainly is there, but in view of the ACBL's apparent reluctance to publish the 1997 version of the Laws on their web site, the reality of "instantaneous worldwide communication" doesn't exactly live up to the potential. How about it Chyah? What's the hold-up? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 00:55:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:55:16 +1000 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 AAA02718 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:55:09 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-126.uunet.be [194.7.9.126]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA16895 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:55:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <35091C27.88EAF413@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:44:39 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Instruction from Director X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <002701bd4e40$37f94b40$6216440c@apfelbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > > A point of information for this thread. ACBL Board of > Directors in the past couple of years passed a regulation > that prohibits psyches, responses and rebids for any > convention that may by agreement promise fewer than ten > (10) hcp. > > I have not heard of any rulings that are expressly based on > this regulation, but it is part of the General Convention > Chart. > > When this was first considered, the National Laws > Commission stated that passing such a regulation was unwise > and discouraged the BoD from passing it. However, the NLC > also admitted the BoD had authority to pass this > regulation. > This seems to e a very sound rule, when combined with some rules that describe minimum ranges to make certain systems allowable. Indeed, as in Merv's case, if there is a rule that outlaws systemic openings below 5HCP, then surely it cannot be wise to allow a player to (falsely) fill out his CC 5-?? and then claim psyching when he does it with 2HCP. That is why I have in my rulings always applied such a "rule" even if it does not exist. If Bridge Lawyers around the world find that such a rule is inadmissible because of conflicting with L40 or others, then I for one advocate that the Laws be changed to allow the possibility of strict application of system regulations. If a system is forbidden, then you should also be forbidden to do it anyway and claim it's a psyche. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 01:59:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:59:26 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA02980 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:59:20 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA15621 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:59:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03328; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:59:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:59:04 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803131559.KAA03328@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: law 27: premature correction X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > But, even though the bid > may be technically conventional, it will in fact be the case that > he has the suit since he has already bid it naturally at a lower > level. In fact, the harm may more likely come to the NOS. The offender has created a natural bid that he could not otherwise have made. TD's should not overlook L27B1b. Note to Mr. Endicott: come to think of it, given the latest modifications to L27, isn't L27B1b in rather an odd location? (There is nothing terribly wrong with its substance.) Shouldn't it apply as soon as LHO declines the insufficient bid and before offender decides how to correct? Perhaps it should be given its own subsection or otherwise more prominence in the next revision. Or perhaps not. Tinkering with numbering can be confusing too. Good thing you guys get paid so well for making tough decisions. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 02:15:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:15:09 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA03227 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:15:00 +1000 Received: from default (client83a5.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.83.165]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA21002; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:14:48 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:12:15 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4e9a$c9b2a4a0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD4E9B.7FD1DF80" 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_001A_01BD4E9B.7FD1DF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable gester@globalnet.co.uk =20 Grattan Endicott =20 Liverpool L18 8DJ : =20 Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC, would like to make known his=20 view on the Committee's relationship with BLML. He says:-=20 For a long time I have subscribed to this distinguished discussion = group.=20 I have an opinion as to the impact of its existence. It is sometimes interesting, sometimes boring, but it involves and reaches out to many important 'bridge-laws' people. Sometimes it is as if there is a meeting of the WBFLC in progress, but not so and we need to have a look at the status of discussions on this worldwide network. 'New' interpretations of the laws formed in this network group, even = with an overwhelming majority opinion, are not valid interpretations without = the=20 agreement of WBFLC. So I will do my best to make sure that WBFLC is responsive and to use modern lines of communication wherever we can - although I ask you to understand that even so discussion may take some = time. With such an expert committee as I have, it can hardly be expected = that there will be no difficulty in persuading some who hold strong = opinions. We will have to restrict our priorities to the more important issues, = and we may take the initiative if we feel BLML is rolling along dangerously. Individual members of the Committee may offer personal opinions, and we will distinguish WBFLC agreed positions from these. In general our policy will seek to be modest and limited in what it attempts. Some people are working, I see, on adaptations of bridge laws to computer bridge. Looking at developments, that seems an important job. Too important, I would say, not to get these rules incorporated within = the WBF as a whole. Which means that the WBFLC should have a final say=20 in it. But please do not stop your work; to get nicely adjusted laws we = need=20 the expertise of people who know and can judge the longer term expectations. So let us try to work together for the sake of efficiency. This 'speech' is going out to a wide variety of people in a = discussion=20 group; I felt the need to say something to the group. It is for BLML = itself to know whether it wants to nominate a small representative sub-group to have dialogue with WBFLC; it depends what advantage BLML might see=20 in this. A number of us do at all events follow the threads on BLML. But anyway let us all share our love for bridge using all the knowledge that = is available. Ton Kooijman, Chairman, WBFLC. =20 =3D + =3D + =3D + =3D + =3D New Law 25 - new questions I don't agree with much of the criticism that concerns the new elements = in Law 25. I might be considered the originator of some of these changes so you are = entitled to be suspicious of my view, but there were problems that had to be = solved. When a player changed a deliberate call immediately he was given the = possibility of changing=20 his call to any call he wanted, the penalty being that his partner then = had to pass. But if a player realised he had made a stupid call then asked the TD = what could be=20 done, his call had to stand. This was an enormous disadvantage to the = obedient player and it needed to be put right. It is true that a player might become aware of his mistake by a gesture = from an opponent and then change his call if LHO has not called, but this was also = possible under the previous laws. Let us concentrate on a possible consequence of the change in Law 25 = which we=20 became aware of in Holland in practical play. North, dealer, opens 1Spade but South at the same time puts the pass=20 card down. An opening call out of turn. The pass is 'subsequent' (Law = 33)=20 and West does not accept it.Very clever North now asks the TD whether=20 he can change his call, LHO not having called yet. North knows his = partner=20 will probably have to pass - this being authorised information for = North.=20 No surprise that WBFLC has not discussed any such circumstances.=20 Frankly spoken I like the idea of offering North this possibility. The = main idea of L25 is to avoid situations in which a player has to play a ridiculous contract. The auction goes 1H - 4C (splinter) and opener passes forgetting to convert. In the opinion of WBFLC it is ridiculous = to=20 force them to play 4 clubs; the player should be allowed to play four of = the=20 major. Do you agree North should get the option to change his call, do you like this idea? T.K. ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD4E9B.7FD1DF80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
gester@globalnet.co.uk &n= bsp;   =20
Grattan=20 Endicott           = ;        =20
Liverpool  L18=20 8DJ           &nbs= p;    =20 :
           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;  =20  
Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC, = would like=20 to make known his  
view on the=20 Committee's relationship with BLML. He says:- 
 
For a long time I have subscribed to = this=20 distinguished discussion group.
I have an opinion as to the impact = of its=20 existence. It is sometimes
interesting,=20 sometimes boring, but it involves and reaches out to many
important 'bridge-laws' people. = Sometimes it is=20 as if there is a meeting 
of the WBFLC in progress, but not so = and we need=20 to have a look at the 
status of discussions on this = worldwide=20 network. 
   =20 'New' interpretations of the laws formed in this network group, even=20 with 
an overwhelming majority opinion, = are not valid=20 interpretations without the  
agreement of WBFLC. So I will do my = best to make=20 sure that WBFLC is 
responsive and to use modern lines = of=20 communication wherever we can 
- although I ask you to understand = that even so=20 discussion may take some  
time. With such an expert committee = as I have,=20 it can hardly be expected
that there=20 will be no difficulty in persuading some who hold strong = opinions.
We will have to restrict our = priorities to the=20 more important issues, and we 
may take the initiative if we feel = BLML is=20 rolling along dangerously. 
   =20 Individual members of the Committee may offer personal=20 opinions,
and we = will=20 distinguish WBFLC agreed positions from these. In = general 
our policy will seek to be modest = and limited in=20 what it attempts. 
    Some=20 people are working, I see, on adaptations of bridge laws = to
computer bridge.=20 Looking at developments, that seems an important job. 
Too important, I would say, not to = get these=20 rules incorporated within the 
WBF as a whole.  Which means = that the WBFLC=20 should have a final say  
in it. But please do not stop your = work; to get=20 nicely adjusted laws we need
the expertise of people who know and = can judge=20 the longer term 
expectations. So let us try to work = together for=20 the sake of efficiency. 
    This=20 'speech' is going out to a wide variety of people in a discussion=20
group; = I felt the=20 need to say something to the group. It is for BLML itself = to 
know whether it wants to nominate a = small=20 representative sub-group to
have dialogue with WBFLC; it depends = what=20 advantage BLML might see  
in this. A number of us do at all = events follow=20 the threads on BLML. But
anyway = let us all share our love for bridge using all = the=20 knowledge that is
available.
 
Ton Kooijman, Chairman, = WBFLC.
 
    
                                       =20 =3D + =3D + =3D + =3D +=20 =3D=
 
                                   =20 New Law = 25 - new=20 questions
 
I don't agree with much of the criticism that = concerns the new=20 elements in Law 25.
I might be considered the originator of some of = these changes=20 so you are entitled 
to be suspicious of my view, but there were problems = that had=20 to be solved. When a 
player changed a deliberate call immediately he was = given the=20 possibility of changing  
his call to any call he wanted, the penalty being = that his=20 partner then had to pass.
But if a player realised he had made a stupid call = then asked=20 the TD what could be  
done, his call had to stand. This was an enormous = disadvantage=20 to the obedient player
and it needed to be put right. 
 
It is true that a player might become aware of his = mistake by=20 a gesture from an opponent
and then change his call if LHO has not called, but = this was=20 also possible under the 
previous laws. 
 
Let us concentrate on a possible = consequence of=20 the change in Law 25 which we
became aware of in Holland in = practical=20 play.
 
North, dealer, opens 1Spade but = South at the=20 same time puts the pass
card down. An opening call=20 out of turn. The pass is 'subsequent' (Law 33)
and West does not accept it.Very clever=20 North now asks the TD whether
he can change his call, LHO = not having=20 called yet. North knows his partner
will probably have to pass - this being=20 authorised information for North.
No surprise that WBFLC has not discussed = any such circumstances.
Frankly spoken I like the idea of offering North = this=20 possibility. The main 
idea of L25 is to avoid situations in which a player = has to=20 play a 
ridiculous contract. The auction goes 1H - 4C = (splinter) and=20 opener 
passes forgetting to convert. In the opinion of = WBFLC it is=20 ridiculous to  
force them to play 4 clubs; the player should be = allowed to=20 play four of the
major.    Do you agree North should = get the=20 option to change his call,
do you like this idea? 
T.K.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD4E9B.7FD1DF80-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 04:06:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:06:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA03582 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 04:06:28 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1024603; 13 Mar 98 15:28 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:27:45 +0000 To: Labeo Cc: Laval Dubreuil , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: law 27: premature correction In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Labeo writes >In message <350804E9.F1@UQSS.UQuebec.CA>, Laval Dubreuil @UQSS.UQuebec.CA> writes > >..............................cut................................... >> >>What if premature correction by the lower sufficient bid in the same >>denomination becomes a convention? >>The offender is stucked with this replacement bid and partener is barred >>(seems stupid)? > >Labeo: I am not sure that a player twice in breach of the Laws - >insufficient bid and failure to wait for the Director before taking >further action - deserves great sympathy. But, even though the bid >may be technically conventional, it will in fact be the case that >he has the suit since he has already bid it naturally at a lower >level. >-- Labeo While I have to recognise Grattan's greater experience in these matters and his clear insight into the Lawmaker's intentions it seems that we do have a very significant change here from 1987 (or certainly how we interpreted it here in England) and it is difficult to follow the reasoning behind the quite different penalties that seems to fall on players in very similar circumstances if the bidding reaches Blackwood after we have agreed Spades and proceeds 4NT Pass 5D Pass 5NT Pass 5H "You can't do that" "Ooops 6H" "We'd better call David Stevenson" If I understand Grattan correctly, the Lawmakers intention is that if 5H is not accepted, the 6H call stands and partner is barred from taking further action. It sits well with me that partner should be forced to pass in this situation - but I do feel that the offender should be allowed to attempt to bid a reasonably sensible contract. If it goes 4NT Pass 5D Pass 5NT 6C 5H "You can't do that" "Ooops Double" "We'd better call David" Now if 5H is not accepted, the offender can bid whatever he thinks appropriate in the knowledge that partner is compelled to pass. The offences are almost identical - but the consequences are not. mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 05:23:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:23:48 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA03898 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 05:23:42 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA21103 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:23:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA03474; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:23:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:23:28 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803131923.OAA03474@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: law 27: premature correction X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: michael amos > The offences are almost identical - but the consequences are not. Good examples. And how do they fit with L25B? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 06:45:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:45:45 +1000 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 GAA04263 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:45:38 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-33-174.s174.tnt8.brd.erols.com [207.172.33.174]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03735 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:45:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980313154553.007ec100@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:45:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: 3 hearts stand or not In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980313085049.006c9a9c@pop.cais.com> References: <199803112224.RAA05048@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> <199803112049.PAA08412@bretweir.total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:50 AM 3/13/98 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 05:24 PM 3/11/98 -0500, David wrote: > >>APion writes: >> >>> At a table, declarer in South opened bids with 2D Flannery forgetting she >>> told her partner they would play 2D weak. Her left opponent asked North >>> what it was; North answered weak. West passed; North bid 3D and East >>> passed. >>> South (recognizing her error by North explanation) bid 3 H. >>> The opponents called the director. The director said that the declarer >>> could not bid 3 H after her partner's explanation so 3D should be played. >> >>> DO you agree with this decision? >> [snip] > >This would make for an interesting "rule of coincidence" case in my area >(Washington DC), where the usual agreements are: > >2D(weak)-P-3D is weak, furthering the preempt. > >2D(Flannery)-P-3D is an artificial slam try, requiring(!) opener to bid 3H >so responder can clarify her intentions. > >So, assuming that the rule of coincidence is applied, is N, upon hearing >S's "impossible" 3H bid, "allowed" (in the sense of not being subject to a >subsequent adjustment if 3H turns out to be the top spot) to diagnose that >S forgot that she wasn't playing Flannery, and pass? > >Does this tell us anything about the validity of the rule of coincidence? > > >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 > > I cannot see how the rule of coincidence would apply here at all. S forgot system, and has UI as a result of N's failure to alert. N made a normal preemptive raise. S then made the call *required* by the system that she originally thought she was playing; in fact the only call that would be allowed in the presence of the UI. It's now N's call, and N's bid is untainted by UI (assuming no table action along with the 3H call by S). It's perfectly legal for N to decide that the 3H call is impossible, partner meant Flannery, and pass. N-S are just lucky that the systemic call for their brand of Flannery after 3D was 3H. It happens sometimes. Hirsch (also a Washington DC player/director, but inactive the last couple of years) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 07:25:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 07:25:31 +1000 Received: from malady.cais.net (malady.cais.net [199.0.216.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA04379 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 07:25:25 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic-dc45.cais.com [207.226.209.45]) by malady.cais.net (8.8.7/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA20881 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:29:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980313162522.006d8448@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:25:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Instruction from Director In-Reply-To: <35091C27.88EAF413@village.uunet.be> References: <002701bd4e40$37f94b40$6216440c@apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 3/13/98 +0100, Herman wrote: >Jay Apfelbaum wrote: > >> A point of information for this thread. ACBL Board of >> Directors in the past couple of years passed a regulation >> that prohibits psyches, responses and rebids for any >> convention that may by agreement promise fewer than ten >> (10) hcp. > >This seems to e a very sound rule, when combined with some rules that >describe minimum ranges to make certain systems allowable. > >Indeed, as in Merv's case, if there is a rule that outlaws systemic >openings below 5HCP, then surely it cannot be wise to allow a player to >(falsely) fill out his CC 5-?? and then claim psyching when he does it >with 2HCP. > >That is why I have in my rulings always applied such a "rule" even if it >does not exist. > >If Bridge Lawyers around the world find that such a rule is inadmissible >because of conflicting with L40 or others, then I for one advocate that >the Laws be changed to allow the possibility of strict application of >system regulations. > >If a system is forbidden, then you should also be forbidden to do it >anyway and claim it's a psyche. Not at all, not if "it" *is* a genuine psych. Of course you should be forbidden, as in the case Marv cites, "to (falsely) fill out [your] CC 5-?? and then claim psyching when [you do] it with 2 HCP". That consitutes a concealed illegal agreement, which is blatantly illegal, but which has nothing whatsoever to do with psychs. What "cannot be wise" isn't allowing a player to psych a call which would otherwise be illegal; it's letting him get away with "claim[ing] psyching" when that's not what he's doing at all. To change the laws to forbid a genuine psych of a call that would be prohibited if systemic would be to effectively outlaw psychs entirely. I have no problem with the ACBL's rule as it's written. The problem with the ACBL's interpretation of their own rule arises when they use the language of L40D to interpret "partnership understandings (even if not conventional)" which can be legally regulated as "conventions". 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 Mar 14 07:49:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 07:49:41 +1000 Received: from malady.cais.net (malady.cais.net [199.0.216.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA04437 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 07:49:35 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic-dc45.cais.com [207.226.209.45]) by malady.cais.net (8.8.7/CJKv1.99-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA24147 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:53:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980313164850.006cb70c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:48:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Instruction from Director In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980313162522.006d8448@pop.cais.com> References: <35091C27.88EAF413@village.uunet.be> <002701bd4e40$37f94b40$6216440c@apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:25 PM 3/13/98 -0500, I wrote: >At 12:44 PM 3/13/98 +0100, Herman wrote: > >>Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >> >>> A point of information for this thread. ACBL Board of >>> Directors in the past couple of years passed a regulation >>> that prohibits psyches, responses and rebids for any >>> convention that may by agreement promise fewer than ten >>> (10) hcp. > >I have no problem with the ACBL's rule as it's written. The problem with >the ACBL's interpretation of their own rule arises when they use the >language of L40D to interpret "partnership understandings (even if not >conventional)" which can be legally regulated as "conventions". Before anyone catches me out, I confess to having read Jay's paragraph rather carelessly. I don't have a problem with my understanding of the ACBL's rule as written, but I would certainly have a problem if it were written as Jay has reproduced it. As stated above, this rule would say that any time a player uses a convention that may by agreement promise fewer than 10 HCP both he and his partner are barred for the remainder of the auction. 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 Mar 14 08:03:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:03:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA04477 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:03:29 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017140; 13 Mar 98 21:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:19:36 +0000 To: Mlfrench Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL & normal or unusual takeout doubles In-Reply-To: <4c2b8b27.35084c6b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <4c2b8b27.35084c6b@aol.com>, Mlfrench writes >B. Kribs writes: > ...............cut............. >The more authoritative (I would think) Encyclopedia has similar language, but >uses the word "suggests" instead of "promises," an important difference. It >also states "a player who doubles a major-suit opening tends to hold four >cards in the unbid major, and this may be a factor in deciding to double." > .............cut........... Labeo: Surely it is neither a promise nor a suggestion; it is information conveyed. I would think 'announces that' would be better than either of the words quoted. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 08:06:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:06:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA04493 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:06:36 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027282; 13 Mar 98 21:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:34:02 +0000 To: Mlfrench Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Instruction from Director In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >." > > >While "natural" is defined on the GCC, neither "artificial" nor "conventional" >are defined there. The last omission is rather strange, since the main subject >of the Convention Charts is conventions. At least they could have referenced >the Laws' definition, if they didn't want to quote it. > Labeo: I do not quite see why, in a regulation authorised by the laws, there should be any necessity to remark upon a word that is already defined in the law book. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 08:25:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:25:03 +1000 Received: from mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04541 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:24:57 +1000 Received: from apfelbaum ([12.68.8.18]) by mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA6862; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 22:24:21 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01bd4ece$8d3481e0$1208440c@apfelbaum> From: "Jay Apfelbaum" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:22:27 -0500 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 confess that I don't see the connection that Eric is making. Prohibiting a psychic bid, response or rebid does not automatically require a pass. To me, it simply means that damage is conclusively presumed. Another point to bring up for discussion. The definition of a psych. The definition is "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." My understanding of current interpretation is that the psycher has to make the bid with a specific intent to misdescribe. In other words, forgetting a bid is a defense to the charge that it is a psych. I would like to propose a different interpretation. A player who deliberately bids 2D (believing they are playing Flannery) is psyching if the partnership is, in fact, playing weak two bids. The deliberate act is the 2D bid. The bid is a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. For most cases, there will be no difference in the ruling. A player is allowed to psych, and whether the bid was made with a specific intent or not will be irrelevant. However, when a bid (strong, artificial and forcing 2C, for example) may not be psyched, the difference can be considerable. The player gets a completely different result by saying they forgot their convention. They thought they were playing weak two bids, or that it just showed an opening hand with a good club suit, for example. In either case, there is no penalty for psyching. YET THE EFFECT AT THE TABLE IS IDENTICAL. I would like to see such actions punished appropriately without having to see just how adept and clever the player might be. What do you think? Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 5:07 PM Subject: Re: Instruction from Director >At 04:25 PM 3/13/98 -0500, I wrote: > >>At 12:44 PM 3/13/98 +0100, Herman wrote: >> >>>Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >>> >>>> A point of information for this thread. ACBL Board of >>>> Directors in the past couple of years passed a regulation >>>> that prohibits psyches, responses and rebids for any >>>> convention that may by agreement promise fewer than ten >>>> (10) hcp. >> >>I have no problem with the ACBL's rule as it's written. The problem with >>the ACBL's interpretation of their own rule arises when they use the >>language of L40D to interpret "partnership understandings (even if not >>conventional)" which can be legally regulated as "conventions". > >Before anyone catches me out, I confess to having read Jay's paragraph >rather carelessly. I don't have a problem with my understanding of the >ACBL's rule as written, but I would certainly have a problem if it were >written as Jay has reproduced it. > >As stated above, this rule would say that any time a player uses a >convention that may by agreement promise fewer than 10 HCP both he and his >partner are barred for the remainder of the auction. > > >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 Mar 14 09:09:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:09:59 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04634 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:09:26 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA29281; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:08:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from 195.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net(12.68.179.195) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029224; Fri Mar 13 17:08:38 1998 Received: by 195.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD4EAA.C1300B00@195.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net>; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:06:32 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD4EAA.C1300B00@195.harrisburg-01.pa.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Jeff Goldsmith'" Subject: RE: Instruction from Director Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:06:26 -0500 Encoding: 77 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Jeff Goldsmith[SMTP:jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 4:58 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Jeff: If TDs around here cared about "good will," they'd behave very differently from how they do. TDs don't get "disinvited" to sectionals. The director selection process is far more arcane than you imagine. Craig: Yes it is arcane...but if you anger those who are the unit powers-that-be, you will indeed be "disinvited" to direct future sectionals in that unit...although this may be done by requesting the services of other directors by name, because of how well they perform. I have seen this happen more than once. The ACBL may have silly bidding rules at times, but they do cater to keeping the paying customers happy...and directors who anger enough of those customers to keep them from laying out $7 plus a session aren't going to work many sectionals. This does not mean a director should (or even would) misinterpret laws and regulations. It does mean he has to be a master of ceremonies and a goodwill ambassador as well as a referee, and that he may be less than happy about players who make it harder for him to leave everyone with a good feeling about their day of bridge. If he has ethics, he will strive to prevent this from affecting his rulings and judgement of course. One reason Maury Braunstein was invited back to so many events (most at higher levels) went beyond his quickness with a pencil or accuracy and effectiveness in applying the laws. Though at times acerbic, he had a way of defusing potentially unpleasant situations so that no one left with a feeling of "next time I'll stay home." Charlie Green's success along the east coast in BOTH ABA and ACBL events made him a drawing card for many of the sectionals he directed. People liked him and knew what to expect. A director who is liked can raise table count. This means he will be requested by more tournament committees. Units do run sectionals in hope of a profit, after all. And moving up in the hierarchy of directors is certainly not hindered by being consistently in demand, and running events that go smoothly and draw well. Jeff: I don't think TDs hate psychs at all. I don't think they care in general. Some players hate them. Craig: I know some TD's who psych themselves at the table...when it is called for. Jerry Machlin once pulled off a beaut against me. The players who hate them...and there are quite a few...are usually too inexperienced to understand what is happening, or also angered by those nasty people who use such innovative new fangled systems like Precision. They used to be angered by weak 2's and Spunik doubles, and probably had forebears who considered preempts, Stayman and Blackwood to be the work of the devil. (Not aimed at Marv :-)) It is good that black magic is no longer tolerated in the game...but innovative bidding, including psychs, and the portion of table presence that depends on AI and skill rightly deserve to flourish even if they do irritate some of the less open-minded. But I'm straying off-topic...sorry...will carry the thought over to rgb at a later date. (snip--including fascinating story of a good psych) Jeff: My experience has been like that in general. Opponents hate psychs. They call the director and accuse us of cheating. They scream and wave their arms. The director seems to get confused sometimes, but never does anything really silly. Mostly, they seem bored. That's at tournaments. At club games, directors come to the table, look vapid, and do nothing. Of course, that's par for the course at club games. I was pleasantly surprised the other day, however, when a club director walked across the room to get a lawbook and checked a ruling. It was even one I didn't know and admitted not knowing at the table. (The bidding went 1C-1NT-pass-Dbl-pass*-director. * Idiot partner was _proud_ of this action, thinking himself clever.) --Jeff Craig: And what DID director rule?? (And do you still play with that partner?) Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 09:23:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:23:54 +1000 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04662 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:23:46 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03815 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id PAA29853; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:26:18 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:26:18 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199803132326.PAA29853@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Instruction from Director Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: |Jeff: | If TDs around here cared about "good will," they'd |behave very differently from how they do. TDs don't get |"disinvited" to sectionals. The director selection process |is far more arcane than you imagine. |Craig: | Yes it is arcane...but if you anger those who are the unit |powers-that-be, you will indeed be "disinvited" to direct future sectionals |in that unit...although this may be done by requesting the services of |other directors by name, because of how well they perform. I have seen this |happen more than once. Really? I've never seen it happen. I've seen directors requested, however, and "unrequested," but never seen the schedulers comply with these requests. The policies about this have changed recently, so it might start happening. I doubt it. Perhaps things are different on the East Coast. |Jeff: |My experience has been like that in general. Opponents hate psychs. |They call the director and accuse us of cheating. They scream |and wave their arms. The director seems to get confused sometimes, |but never does anything really silly. Mostly, they seem bored. |That's at tournaments. At club games, directors come to the |table, look vapid, and do nothing. Of course, that's par for the |course at club games. I was pleasantly surprised the other day, |however, when a club director walked across the room to get a |lawbook and checked a ruling. It was even one I didn't know and |admitted not knowing at the table. |(The bidding went 1C-1NT-pass-Dbl-pass*-director. * Idiot partner |was _proud_ of this action, thinking himself clever.) | --Jeff |Craig: And what DID director rule?? (And do you still play with that |partner?) The director ruled that the double and all subsequent calls were cancelled and bidding reverted to the doubler with no penalty (as it says expressly in L35). (I knew the ruling if partner hadn't passed...I play a 1NT overcall for takeout, and so encounter redoubles of it once in awhile.) I still play with that partner, although since this was just recently, it's not happened yet and won't for a week at least. I shall have something to hold over his head, however, should he argue with me about director calls or other such in the future. --Jeff # Calvin: It says here that "religion is the opiate of # the masses." ...what do you suppose that means? # Television: ...it means Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet. # --Watterson # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 09:37:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:37:14 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04704 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:37:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA29896 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:37:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03908; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:36:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:36:54 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803132336.SAA03908@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Instruction from Director X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jay Apfelbaum" > A player who deliberately bids 2D (believing they are playing > Flannery) is psyching if the partnership is, in fact, > playing weak two bids. The deliberate act is the 2D bid. > The bid is a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit > length. As a matter of definition, I don't think this will do. Perhaps the definition is flawed, but as it stands, it clearly specifies that _the misstatement_ must be deliberate. > For most cases, there will be no difference in the ruling. > A player is allowed to psych, and whether the bid was made > with a specific intent or not will be irrelevant. > However, when a bid (strong, artificial and forcing 2C, for > example) may not be psyched, the difference can be > considerable. The player gets a completely different result > by saying they forgot their convention..... As most BLML readers will know by now, I advocate the idea that a player's intent should be irrelevant to any score adjustment question. So _if_ (and it is a big if) there is a valid regulation forbidding psyching of some call, the excuse "I forgot" should not in any way affect the adjustment. This works the other way in a UI situation. If a player who psyched has UI (e.g. from partner's explanation, which doesn't match his hand), he is under the usual UI restrictions. Saying "But I psyched and knew our agreements all along" is no defense either. I believe we have clear authority to rule this way under L72B1. I was about to write "a clear mandate," but that may be too strong. Forgetting one's methods is arguably not an "irregularity," as required by L72B1. Still, making a seemingly forbidden bid (for whatever reason) is surely a strong candidate to be an irregularity, and deeming it to be one isn't ridiculous. And violating L16A, or seeming to, most certainly is one. I won't comment on the wisdom or legality of forbidding psychic calls. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 09:47:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:47:33 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04763 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:47:22 +1000 Received: from default (cph11.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.11]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA07866 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:47:13 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803132347.AAA07866@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:46:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:59:31 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: David Stevenson > Reply-to: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: Instruction from Director > Jens & Bodil wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> So what should the player do? > > >Comply and appeal. Further appeal to the national authority would be > >reasonable if the original appeal does not convince the director > >that he should change his instructions. The appeal might include a > >claim of damage if a suitable hand came up while the player was > >complying, but many AC's might take that as entertainment. > > > >I would give the TD a lot of leeway if he issues L91 penalties to > >players who refuse to comply with his directives given as > >interpretations of the laws, even if that interpretation is later > >overturned. > > Hoh yes? What are you appealing? I am appealing his ruling that I may not psyche with that partner, I have that right under L92A. > You are appealing against a TD in > his interpretation of the Laws. If he is the TDic he will hear the > appeal himself. Well, yes, but he won't be surprised when I exercise my right under the last sentence of L93B1. And if there is no AC, I shall exercise my rights under L93C directly. > If I was playing in a NABC, and on the first day a TD told me not to > bid 1H, and then he told me that he would hear my appeal himself, I > really do not think that I could play out the rest of the NABC not > opening 1H and take an appeal to the ACBL later. More likely a lawsuit. I may be more phlegmatic than David. Under L81C5, I have no business not accepting the director's interpretation of the Laws, even if I think that he is a bumbling fool, and even if I am convinced that my knowledge of the laws is superior to his. I will be angry if he ruins the event by such a horrible ruling, but I will respect his ruling. By the way, this is how I became a director in the first place: someone ruined a 32-board match for me by not enforcing the HUM rules, and I decided that my district needed more competent directors. > So what is different? Others have suggested that if it is clearly > insupportable ["Murder your partner"] then you do not follow a TD's > instructions. However, where do you draw the line? I think I draw the line where the director is no longer administering the Laws of bridge. I used to play soccer. In that game you quickly learn to accept the referee's rulings, even when they are lousy. Still, you would prefer to stop playing if the referee were to make rulings clearly outside the scope of the game. > I still believe it is a serious problem if Regulations differ in > a marked way from a TD's instruction to the players. I do too, but I think that the appeals process is the way to handle that, not the players' usurping the TD's duty according to L81C5. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 09:47:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:47:36 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04764 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:47:24 +1000 Received: from default (cph11.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.11]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA07861 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:47:10 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803132347.AAA07861@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:46:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC, would like to make known his > view on the Committee's relationship with BLML. He says:- (Ton's gracious extended hand to BLML snipped) (Introduction on the recent changes to L25 also snipped) >> The main idea of L25 is to avoid situations in which a player has >> to play a ridiculous contract. The auction goes 1H - 4C (splinter) >> and opener passes forgetting to convert. In the opinion of WBFLC it >> is ridiculous to force them to play 4 clubs; the player should be >> allowed to play four of the major. Do you agree North should get >> the option to change his call, do you like this idea? No, I don't really like this idea. If, during the play period, declarer takes the wrong card from his hand and plays it, he has no recourse (L45C2). This may be expensive (it was to me when I did so recently, throwing away the tenth trick in a vulnerable 4S contract; as you have guessed, I became aware of my stupid mistake as my card touched the table). There has to be a well-defined limit, after which a play or a call has been made. I would prefer that the same basic principles would apply at all stages of the game. Everyone can understand that not converting 4C is a stupid mistake, and that you pay for stupid mistakes. Thus I would be willing to live with L25B in this version: Except where Section A applies, a legal call may not be changed. If a player attempts to change a call anyway, the change is canceled, L16C applies to the attempted change, and the lead penalties in L26 may apply. I suppose that my opinion boils down often to liking simple, understandable rules better than complicated, ostensibly fairer ones. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 11:59:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 11:59:13 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05078 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 11:59:06 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26f7.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.247]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA17404 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:58:59 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Instruction from Director Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:13:30 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4ee6$666b6200$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 mention of cash always interests me. Is $7 the average table money for ACBL events.Is this per session? How much does the ACBL pay it's directors per session? I would expect the director to rule in accordace with Law 35 as this is of course an inadmissible double not permitted by Law 19. -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ; 'Jeff Goldsmith' Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 12:08 AM Subject: RE: Instruction from Director > > >---------- >From: Jeff Goldsmith[SMTP:jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV] >Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 4:58 PM >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: Instruction from Director >Jeff: > If TDs around here cared about "good will," they'd >behave very differently from how they do. TDs don't get >"disinvited" to sectionals. The director selection process >is far more arcane than you imagine. >Craig: > Yes it is arcane...but if you anger those who are the unit >powers-that-be, you will indeed be "disinvited" to direct future sectionals >in that unit...although this may be done by requesting the services of >other directors by name, because of how well they perform. I have seen this >happen more than once. The ACBL may have silly bidding rules at times, but >they do cater to keeping the paying customers happy...and directors who >anger enough of those customers to keep them from laying out $7 plus a >session aren't going to work many sectionals. > This does not mean a director should (or even would) misinterpret laws >and regulations. It does mean he has to be a master of ceremonies and a >goodwill ambassador as well as a referee, and that he may be less than >happy about players who make it harder for him to leave everyone with a >good feeling about their day of bridge. If he has ethics, he will strive to >prevent this from affecting his rulings and judgement of course. > One reason Maury Braunstein was invited back to so many events (most >at higher levels) went beyond his quickness with a pencil or accuracy and >effectiveness in applying the laws. Though at times acerbic, he had a way >of defusing potentially unpleasant situations so that no one left with a >feeling of "next time I'll stay home." > Charlie Green's success along the east coast in BOTH ABA and ACBL >events made him a drawing card for many of the sectionals he directed. >People liked him and knew what to expect. > A director who is liked can raise table count. This means he will be >requested by more tournament committees. Units do run sectionals in hope of >a profit, after all. And moving up in the hierarchy of directors is >certainly not hindered by being consistently in demand, and running events >that go smoothly and draw well. >Jeff: >I don't think TDs hate psychs at all. I don't think they >care in general. Some players hate them. >Craig: > I know some TD's who psych themselves at the table...when it is called >for. Jerry Machlin once pulled off a beaut against me. > The players who hate them...and there are quite a few...are usually >too inexperienced to understand what is happening, or also angered by those >nasty people who use such innovative new fangled systems like Precision. >They used to be angered by weak 2's and Spunik doubles, and probably had >forebears who considered preempts, Stayman and Blackwood to be the work of >the devil. (Not aimed at Marv :-)) > It is good that black magic is no longer tolerated in the game...but >innovative bidding, including psychs, and the portion of table presence >that depends on AI and skill rightly deserve to flourish even if they do >irritate some of the less open-minded. But I'm straying >off-topic...sorry...will carry the thought over to rgb at a later date. > >(snip--including fascinating story of a good psych) >Jeff: >My experience has been like that in general. Opponents hate psychs. >They call the director and accuse us of cheating. They scream >and wave their arms. The director seems to get confused sometimes, >but never does anything really silly. Mostly, they seem bored. >That's at tournaments. At club games, directors come to the >table, look vapid, and do nothing. Of course, that's par for the >course at club games. I was pleasantly surprised the other day, >however, when a club director walked across the room to get a >lawbook and checked a ruling. It was even one I didn't know and >admitted not knowing at the table. >(The bidding went 1C-1NT-pass-Dbl-pass*-director. * Idiot partner >was _proud_ of this action, thinking himself clever.) > --Jeff >Craig: And what DID director rule?? (And do you still play with that >partner?) > >Craig Senior > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 12:50:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 12:50:05 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA05140 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 12:49:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2022551; 14 Mar 98 2:42 GMT Message-ID: <1Q1eQzBQtcC1EwaM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 00:12:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Instruction from Director In-Reply-To: <002b01bd4ece$8d3481e0$1208440c@apfelbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jay Apfelbaum wrote: >I confess that I don't see the connection that Eric is >making. Prohibiting a psychic bid, response or rebid does >not automatically require a pass. To me, it simply means >that damage is conclusively presumed. > >Another point to bring up for discussion. The definition of >a psych. The definition is "A deliberate and gross >misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > >My understanding of current interpretation is that the >psycher has to make the bid with a specific intent to >misdescribe. In other words, forgetting a bid is a defense >to the charge that it is a psych. > >I would like to propose a different interpretation. A >player who deliberately bids 2D (believing they are playing >Flannery) is psyching if the partnership is, in fact, >playing weak two bids. The deliberate act is the 2D bid. >The bid is a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit >length. > >For most cases, there will be no difference in the ruling. >A player is allowed to psych, and whether the bid was made >with a specific intent or not will be irrelevant. > >However, when a bid (strong, artificial and forcing 2C, for >example) may not be psyched, the difference can be >considerable. The player gets a completely different result >by saying they forgot their convention. They thought they >were playing weak two bids, or that it just showed an >opening hand with a good club suit, for example. In either >case, there is no penalty for psyching. YET THE EFFECT AT >THE TABLE IS IDENTICAL. I would like to see such actions >punished appropriately without having to see just how adept >and clever the player might be. > >What do you think? There is no difficulty in ruling on Misbids without the need to change the meaning of the word Psyche to include a Misbid. I really think it is counter-productive to change the meaning of the word to something it is not. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 14 21:20:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 21:20:35 +1000 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 VAA05914 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 21:20:28 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-205.uunet.be [194.7.13.205]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08796 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 12:20:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <350A5E8A.3AE55751@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 11:40:10 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Instruction from Director X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <002701bd4e40$37f94b40$6216440c@apfelbaum> <3.0.1.32.19980313162522.006d8448@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > I wrote : > >If a system is forbidden, then you should also be forbidden to do it > >anyway and claim it's a psyche. > > Not at all, not if "it" *is* a genuine psych. Of course you should be > forbidden, as in the case Marv cites, "to (falsely) fill out [your] CC 5-?? > and then claim psyching when [you do] it with 2 HCP". That consitutes a > concealed illegal agreement, which is blatantly illegal, but which has > nothing whatsoever to do with psychs. What "cannot be wise" isn't allowing > a player to psych a call which would otherwise be illegal; it's letting him > get away with "claim[ing] psyching" when that's not what he's doing at all. > Don't get me wrong. I never intend to outlaw psyching. I want rules to be created that outlaw the type of action Marv describes. Whether you do that by adapting the definition of a psych, or the wording of L40A, or something else, I don't really know what way to go. > To change the laws to forbid a genuine psych of a call that would be > prohibited if systemic would be to effectively outlaw psychs entirely. > Agreed. That is exactly what some people were having me done when they forbid me to write my psyching "habits" on my CC. However, if a system says 5-9 and you do it with 4, then I do not consider that a psyche, especially not if writing 4-8 would constitute a forbidden system. I do believe most of us agree on the filosofy (spelling?) but just like everyone are uncertain of how to word this. > I have no problem with the ACBL's rule as it's written. The problem with > the ACBL's interpretation of their own rule arises when they use the > language of L40D to interpret "partnership understandings (even if not > conventional)" which can be legally regulated as "conventions". > I was not commenting on any particular rule by the ACBL, of which I know almost nothing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 07:38:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 07:38:54 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA10182 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 07:38:48 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic36.cais.com [207.226.56.36]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA10305 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 21:39:00 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980314163854.006d58e8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:38:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Instruction from Director In-Reply-To: <002b01bd4ece$8d3481e0$1208440c@apfelbaum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:22 PM 3/13/98 -0500, Jay wrote: >Another point to bring up for discussion. The definition of >a psych. The definition is "A deliberate and gross >misstatement of honor strength or suit length." > >My understanding of current interpretation is that the >psycher has to make the bid with a specific intent to >misdescribe. In other words, forgetting a bid is a defense >to the charge that it is a psych. > >I would like to propose a different interpretation. A >player who deliberately bids 2D (believing they are playing >Flannery) is psyching if the partnership is, in fact, >playing weak two bids. The deliberate act is the 2D bid. >The bid is a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit >length. > >For most cases, there will be no difference in the ruling. >A player is allowed to psych, and whether the bid was made >with a specific intent or not will be irrelevant. > >However, when a bid (strong, artificial and forcing 2C, for >example) may not be psyched, the difference can be >considerable. The player gets a completely different result >by saying they forgot their convention. They thought they >were playing weak two bids, or that it just showed an >opening hand with a good club suit, for example. In either >case, there is no penalty for psyching. YET THE EFFECT AT >THE TABLE IS IDENTICAL. I would like to see such actions >punished appropriately without having to see just how adept >and clever the player might be. > >What do you think? I don't think it's ever appropriate to punish a player for forgetting his methods. While it might have the salubrious effect of forcing novices to forgo most conventions, it would certainly discourage them from pursuing the game to higher levels (novices in these late 1990s seem to love those conventions, even when they don't know or remember how to use them). At every level, even among the top experts, it would create a serious disincentive to form casual partnerships. At best, it would not be taken seriously other than at the top level, and would exacerbate the perception that top-level experts play by different rules than do the hoi polloi. As Jay says, most of the time it wouldn't effect rulings, since most gross deviations, whether tactical or inadvertant, are perfectly legal. But the ACBL's ill-advised (for numerous reasons, not the least of which is Jay's concern that clever bridge lawyers know how to obviate it) rule against psyching artificial bids would be used against players whose only offense was convention confusion. Were it not for this rule, Jay's proposal would be quite appealing, as it would further the positive trend towards regulating the game based solely on players' actions without regard to intent. But psychic bidding is by definition a matter of intent, and it wouldn't do to punish the innocent just to avoid making judgments as to who is guilty. The ACBL's attitude is that deliberately attempting to fool one's opponents by making psychic bids is inherently evil (i.e. "bad for the game"). Even those who agree would not, I expect, find anything inherently evil in playing the game without ironclad agreements that are never ill-defined, misunderstood or simply forgotten. 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 Sun Mar 15 08:01:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA10235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:01:50 +1000 Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA10230 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:01:44 +1000 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (dynamic36.cais.com [207.226.56.36]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA10591 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 22:01:57 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980314170152.006d5f84@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 17:01:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Technical note Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When responding to a message sent to BLML, please avoid addressing the reply to both BLML and the person who sent the message. The effect is to send two identical copies of your reply to the person to whose message you are replying. This is not the case when replying to a message in a newsgroup such as r.g.b, which is why, I suspect, there seems to be some confusion on this point. 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 Sun Mar 15 11:24:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:24:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA10740 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:23:55 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1023525; 15 Mar 98 1:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 01:00:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Hijack! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AJxxx xx Qx Kxxx Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was going to play dummy's ace. It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 11:42:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:42:45 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA10817 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:42:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1023528; 15 Mar 98 1:22 GMT Message-ID: <+NEMHHAX7xC1EwLh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 00:20:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Technical note In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980314170152.006d5f84@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >When responding to a message sent to BLML, please avoid addressing the >reply to both BLML and the person who sent the message. The effect is to >send two identical copies of your reply to the person to whose message you >are replying. > >This is not the case when replying to a message in a newsgroup such as >r.g.b, which is why, I suspect, there seems to be some confusion on this >point. While true, the most generally accepted tenets of Netiquette are that even on a Newsgroup you do not email posts as well, unless the person particularly asks. So it would be helpful to get out of the habit of emailing as well as posting both to newsgroups and mailing lists. Steve Willner is an exception: because his newsfeed is terrible he likes email copies of relevant posts to the newsgroups. Even for him, email copies of posts to this mailing list merely provide unnecessary duplicates. It is to be regretted that a minority of authorities on the Internet do recommend email copies of posts: please ignore them! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 12:46:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA10931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:46:10 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA10926 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:46:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014819; 15 Mar 98 2:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 02:38:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo 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 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout 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 Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Grant Sterling Panther David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Ritske, Beer plus, of course Selassie Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 13:10:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:10:24 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA10981 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:10:19 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2526.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.38]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id DAA09605 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 03:10:13 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Hijack! Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 03:09:54 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd4fbf$d3b76000$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 would ask his opponents whether on the previous trick He had said "OK Jack, play a small Spade" I would be sympathetic if there was evidence that he regularly said "OK Jack", but I would rule in favour of E/W if there was any doubt. Law 46,3B., Law 45B.He has named a card, the fact that he has also named his partner is not something that the Laws allow him to do. Anne -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 2:34 AM Subject: Hijack! > > AJxxx > xx Qx > Kxxx > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was >going to play dummy's ace. > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= >Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 14:04:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 14:04:09 +1000 Received: from proxyb2.san.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA11057 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 14:04:01 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by proxyb2.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20261; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 20:03:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199803150403.UAA20261@proxyb2.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Hijack! Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 20:03:06 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > > AJxxx > xx Qx > Kxxx > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and > stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays > his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was > going to play dummy's ace. > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! > And declarer is a knave! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 20:29:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 20:29:13 +1000 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 UAA11481 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 20:29:06 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA04232 (5.65a/NCC-2.41); Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:28:29 +0100 Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:28:29 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Hijack! 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 Mar 1998, David Stevenson wrote: > > AJxxx > xx Qx > Kxxx > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and > stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays > his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was > going to play dummy's ace. > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! How many players do you know that frequently ask dummy to play a card with a phrase like "OK, , the ace please"? Unless the opponents know that this particular declarer has this habit, I'd rule that he played the jack. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 22:27:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 22:27:04 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA11675 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 22:26:59 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015417; 15 Mar 98 12:14 GMT Message-ID: <7iAl9OAdu6C1EwZH@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 10:21:17 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Hijack! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > AJxxx > xx Qx > Kxxx > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was >going to play dummy's ace. > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! > The jack-rabbit coup? -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 23:50:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:50:26 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11803 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:50:21 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24bc.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.188]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA05317 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:50:15 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Hijack! Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:49:58 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd5019$3e429f80$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 Are we really being serious about this one? I think Marvin L French and Henk Uijtgwaald had the right idea. Apart from which I think David only dreamed this one up because I complained about the lack of postings the previous weekend. Thank you David. On a serious note there is provision for dealing with this. Law 731 and Law73B2.In particular Law 73C. I am sure that the fact that his partner's name is Jack is information which is not authorised to him:-) The Jack of Spades is played. -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 2:34 AM Subject: Hijack! > > AJxxx > xx Qx > Kxxx > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was >going to play dummy's ace. > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= >Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 15 23:52:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:52:51 +1000 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 XAA11824 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:52:45 +1000 Received: from erebor.ikos.com (erebor [149.172.67.5]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA27608; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 05:52:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 05:52:09 -0800 (PST) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199803151352.FAA27608@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Flannery 2D-3D Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Someone asked about 2D-3D-3H rolled back to 3D for UI. IIRC the agreement was 2D weak but opener's hand was plainly Flannery. This falls into an area with which I am quite uncomfortable-- what to think of a player's options when given correct but unauthorized information that he has misbid, and in particular how hypothetical non-agreed methods should be extrapolated to arrive at a just ruling. Upon reviewing _The_Flannery_2_Diamond_Opening_ by Bill Flannery, I see that he defines 3D as artificial, asking about high spade honors. Therefore, pass would never be a logical alternative unless opener had been playing some variant of the convention with 3D natural (invitational). (3H shows one of the top 3 honors in spades, 3S would show 2, 3NT 3, 4C none.) But IMHO the Flannery opener ought to have been able to explain that meaning to the director, which IIRC wasn't reported. If the director ruled without hearing from opener, what should happen? If opener had played Flannery but never learned the full convention (e.g. www.okbridge.com gives an abbreviated description not mentioning a 3D response), what should happen? How should the director or AC extrapolate? To what extent might a source such as I cite above be considered authoritative for methods which, not having been agreed, had evidently not been discussed in depth? Should the AC ask, "where did you learn Flannery?" What if opener had had different agreements with different partners regarding 3D? Should the ruling treat all past agreements as logical alternatives in order to require one least suggested by the UI? Under what conditions might opener persuade the director or AC that 3D was itself a wakeup bid, because he knew what he had discussed with whom about 2D-3D, and had to realize that with his present partner he had never had any such discussion? What if opener had always been careful to agree with his Flannery partners that, "we never respond 3D"? Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 16 01:06:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 01:06:07 +1000 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 BAA14236 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 01:06:00 +1000 Received: from jatkinsn.ihug.co.nz (p44-max-tnt-3.auck.ihug.co.nz [207.212.240.171]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA09777 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 02:05:19 +1200 Message-ID: <000f01bd5023$d799cbe0$abf0d4cf@jatkinsn.ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: "bridge laws" Subject: hijack Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 03:05:41 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01BD5088.6780A3A0" 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_000C_01BD5088.6780A3A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > AJxxx > xx Qx > Kxxx > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I = was going to play dummy's ace. > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! > The jack-rabbit coup? -- Labeo =20 In New Zealand perhaps known as RCV Julie ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BD5088.6780A3A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>          &nbs= p;    =20 AJxxx
>          = =20 xx          =20 Qx
>          &nb= sp;    =20 Kxxx
>
>  Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads = towards=20 AJ in dummy, and
>stops to think.  Having thought, he says = "OK,=20 Jack ..."  and RHO plays
>his Queen.  = "Oi," says=20 declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was going to play = dummy's=20 ace.
>
>  It turns out that dummy's name is=20 Jack!
>
The jack-rabbit = coup?
--      =20 Labeo        
 
 
In New Zealand perhaps known as RCV = <G>
 
Julie
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BD5088.6780A3A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 16 10:12:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:12:27 +1000 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 KAA15818 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:12:20 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h18.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id DAA26493; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 03:12:12 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <350D17CA.170F@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 04:15:06 -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_Hijack Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="HIJACK.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="HIJACK.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Well, let it be - Anne was right, David constructed the case. But nevertheless as it was shown by reaction - it is good enough for disputing First point - in 50% such tricks are passing unnoticeable because main card is situated in LHO's hand Second point - there are a lot of expressions that can be used for pressing the opponents: for example while against lady (ladies) playing small to dummy's AQx Declarer may say "OK, lady..." - and so on and so forth,,, That means I (as TD) would like to organise little investigations if that Declarer used to use ANY needless words or expressions, And warn him about possible serious penalty if he continues,,, No doubts - Jack was played:)) The only exclusion - the case is from club (company) where everybody has such habit Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 16 12:07:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:07:23 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA16090 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:07:16 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025476; 16 Mar 98 2:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 01:59:24 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >David Stevenson writes >> 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? Might perhaps? Currently: 4.2.1 You must alert a call if: (b) 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. New Orange book [probable]: 4B1 You must alert a call if: B. it is natural, but you have an agreement by which it is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to anticipate. So might perhaps expect it to be forcing is not sufficient. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 16 12:37:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:37:22 +1000 Received: from krypton.tip.nl (krypton.tip.nl [195.18.64.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16167 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:37:16 +1000 Received: from marian by krypton.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0yEPoR-000qE7C; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 03:39:39 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980316033556.007aa6b0@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t701321@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 03:35:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Hijack! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:00 AM 15-03-98 +0000, you wrote: > > AJxxx > xx Qx > Kxxx > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was >going to play dummy's ace. > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! > >-- About the same thing happened really here in an amsterdam low-level tournament: In dummy was KJ - leader had to find the Q of course - of H and dummy raised to order beer. Leader said, after an asking look from (standing)dummy : 'doe mij maar de koning (give me a koning, a belgean beer)while koning is also the dutch name for K and indeed RHO put up the A. When the TD was called RHO wasnt pleased to hear that the K wasnt played at all regards, anton witzen >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= >Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@tip.nl) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 16 19:57:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 19:57:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA17161 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 19:57:32 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1027392; 16 Mar 98 9:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:33:17 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: Hijack! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > AJxxx > xx Qx > Kxxx > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was >going to play dummy's ace. > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! > Does any one know when Her Royal Highness is free so I can try this coup with the Queen?? -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 02:08:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:08:53 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20668 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:08:47 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027483; 16 Mar 98 15:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:40:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Hijack! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , michael amos writes >In message , David Stevenson > writes >> >> AJxxx >> xx Qx >> Kxxx >> >> Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >>stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >>his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was >>going to play dummy's ace. >> >> It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! >> >Does any one know when Her Royal Highness is free so I can try this coup >with the Queen?? > > We have a large number of Queens at the YC, would one of them do? -- 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 Mar 17 02:29:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:29:53 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA20783 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:29:47 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027487; 16 Mar 98 15:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:36:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Law 27 again UK TDs only MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is for UK TDs only as it's to do with our interpretation of the laws & I am confused. Again. :) One day green point event, Swiss teams The auction has gone: No opposition bidding N S 2N 2H "You cant do that" "OK then 3H" 3H is a transfer. I had understood from Mr Stevenson (who is responsible for a large part of UK EBU TD training and for whom, despite my frequent tongue-in-cheek remarks, I have great respect as a TD) that the 2H bidder, not having had the law explained to him, could make a L25 "delayed and purposeful correction" of his 3H bid. I ruled South could change his call (N is silenced). I think I had understood from Grattan's web (I daren't call it a thread) that this was not the intention of the Law-Makers and that an edict will fall from on high at Lisle that S is stuck with 3H. I understand from John Payne's 1997 thesis that South is stuck with 3H. The chief TD (John Pyner, very senior and very experienced) prefers Grattan's and John Payne's view and asked me to re-rule Director's error which I then did and awarded 3H to EW and the substituted call to NS (a making game) My opinion on this matter is not relevant although I have a view. Can the EBU (even the Welsh & Scots will pass muster) TDs please indicate which way they would have ruled and if we reach a consensus can we agree to adopt a uniform approach. Foreign Nationals are invited to join in with Cheers Boos and Catcalls but I'd *really* like to get the UK TD views here Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |181 980 4947 London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 03:26:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:26:44 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20948 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:26:36 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA23988 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:25:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.196) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023910; Mon Mar 16 11:25:47 1998 Received: by 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD50D6.672F04C0@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:24:02 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD50D6.672F04C0@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Instruction from Director Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:51:26 -0500 Encoding: 33 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Jay Apfelbaum[SMTP:JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 5:22 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List; Eric Landau Subject: Re: Instruction from Director (snip) I would like to propose a different interpretation. A player who deliberately bids 2D (believing they are playing Flannery) is psyching if the partnership is, in fact, playing weak two bids. The deliberate act is the 2D bid. The bid is a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. Jay, do you mean he is psyching by bidding 2D holding: xx xx AKJxxx xxx believing he is playing Flannery? Or do you mean he is psyching holding: Axxx AQxxx x KJx I would contend the first WOULD be a psych, even though it conforms to the partnership agreement, because he THOUGHT he was violating system, and that the second was not a psych. Is that what you meant? Craig Senior Harrisburg, PA From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 03:26:47 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:26:47 +1000 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 DAA20953 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:26:40 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA26927 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:26:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.196) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma026871; Mon Mar 16 11:25:31 1998 Received: by 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD50D6.5AFA04C0@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:23:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD50D6.5AFA04C0@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Instruction from Director Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:51:05 -0500 Encoding: 32 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 03:25:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:25:27 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20926 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:25:17 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA31010 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:25:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05285; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:25:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:25:17 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803161725.MAA05285@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just a quick thought from someone who is not a UK TD but has handy a copy of the FLB. > N S > 2N 2H "You cant do that" "OK then 3H" No matter how you rule under L27, there seems no possibility of a change under L25B. L25B2b (which allows purposeful changes subject to a maximum score of avg-) applies only if the _first_ call was legal. (See L25B2a and L25B2c, though the last won't apply here.) L25B is complicated, and it's easy to forget the details. (I doubt any TD will see this law in action often enough to memorize them.) You definitely want to RTFLB before you attempt to apply this one! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 03:27:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:27:37 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20986 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:27:26 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA03032 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:26:45 -0600 (CST) Received: from 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.196) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma002959; Mon Mar 16 11:25:13 1998 Received: by 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD50D6.511E3700@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:23:25 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD50D6.511E3700@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Instruction from Director Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:49:39 -0500 Encoding: 33 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Jay Apfelbaum[SMTP:JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 5:22 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List; Eric Landau Subject: Re: Instruction from Director (snip) I would like to propose a different interpretation. A player who deliberately bids 2D (believing they are playing Flannery) is psyching if the partnership is, in fact, playing weak two bids. The deliberate act is the 2D bid. The bid is a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. Jay, do you mean he is psyching by bidding 2D holding: xx xx AKJxxx xxx believing he is playing Flannery? Or do you mean he is psyching holding: Axxx AQxxx x KJx I would contend the first WOULD be a psych, even though it conforms to the partnership agreement, because he THOUGHT he was violating system, and that the second was not a psych. Is that what you meant? Craig Senior Harrisburg, PA From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 03:28:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:28:12 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21000 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:28:04 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA08999 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:27:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.196) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma008899; Mon Mar 16 11:26:09 1998 Received: by 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD50D6.6E20AAE0@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:24:13 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD50D6.6E20AAE0@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:51:57 -0500 Encoding: 67 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Grattan Endicott[SMTP:gester@globalnet.co.uk] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 11:12 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC, would like to make known his view on the Committee's relationship with BLML. He says:- (snip of much interesting material) The main idea of L25 is to avoid situations in which a player has to play a ridiculous contract. The auction goes 1H - 4C (splinter) and opener passes forgetting to convert. In the opinion of WBFLC it is ridiculous to force them to play 4 clubs; the player should be allowed to play four of the major. Do you agree North should get the option to change his call, do you like this idea? T.K. Not in the least unless the change is made without pause for thought. One of the important features of all artificial bids is that they create memory burden for those who use them. This, of course, if often more than offset by their utility. But to arrange for a pair to gain from the effective use of splinters but be able to escape the disaster when they forget they are playing them does not offer a level playing field to their opponents. While I fully believe that systems far more arcane than a simple splinter rightfully deserve to be a part of the game (granted full disclosure), I do feel that the better players who use devices must bear the applicable penalty when they misfire. it is not appropriate for the laws to bail them out of their forgetfulness. If misspoken, allow the correction sans pause for thought, else such a bid must stand. (And I'll bet opener never forgets it again!) Craig Senior <> From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 03:42:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:42:07 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA21066 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:41:55 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA28893; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:41:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.att.net(12.68.13.196) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028771; Mon Mar 16 11:40:31 1998 Received: by 196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD50D8.755B07E0@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:38:44 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD50D8.755B07E0@196.new-york-14.ny.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: BLML , "'Anne Jones'" Subject: RE: Instruction from Director Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:38:43 -0500 Encoding: 21 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Anne Jones[SMTP:eajewm@globalnet.co.uk] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 8:13 PM To: BLML Subject: Re: Instruction from Director The mention of cash always interests me. Is $7 the average table money for ACBL events.Is this per session? How much does the ACBL pay it's directors per session? Sectionals (which are run by Units and offer Silver points) have been charging $7 (U.S.) per session recently in Unit168 (Central PA, parts of MD & WV). Ads in the ACBL Bulletin show other areas charging $8 per session. I'm sure rates have risen for directors since the last time I was on a tournament committee, so will hope wiser heads can answer the second question. Per session fees for Regionals ( generally run by Districts and offering Red and Gold points) are higher...most recent one I attended was $9. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 04:17:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:17:30 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA21226 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:17:20 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:17:09 GMT Date: Mon, 16 Mar 98 18:17:07 GMT Message-Id: <613.9803161817@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Exposed cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the weekend, I had a situation where the opening leader put three spades (face up) on the table at the end of the auction. She thought she was dummy and had not intended to lead the cards. I was called and ruled that the cards were played and applied L58B (simultaneous cards from one hand) and allowed defender to chose which card to play.(*) Then, I applied L51 to the remaining two penalty cards and allowed declarer to chose which should be played subsequently - the other defender did not get on lead. (* Should you play suit preference leads in the this position?) Afterwards it seemed odd that the choice of card changed from defender to declarer after the first play. I wondered if L49 applied instead; but decided that L45A ("Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him.") applied, so the three cards were definitely played. Then I wondered if L49 can ever apply to a player on lead. Certainly, if the defender on lead says "I have AQ9 of spades" then they are all penalty cards but this is not L45 or L58. So declarer can chose which card is led. Is it possible to expose a card without L45 applying? Can you expose a card without "detaching from his hand" (L45A), or "held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face" (L45C1)? Presumably if someone else (director/waiter/the wind) accidently dislodges the card instead then L49 applies not L45. Does it matter? Not if only one card is exposed, because it must be played. But if defender exposes (without detaching) more than one card from when on lead, then declarer decides which card is played, not defender. But if defender detaches and exposes more than one card then defender decides which card is played. Or perhaps I should get more sleep. 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 Mar 17 04:20:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:20:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA21253 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:20:50 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012879; 16 Mar 98 17:47 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:46:52 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:44:29 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog writes: > -----Original Message----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst [SMTP:john@probst.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 3:37 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > This is for UK TDs only as it's to do with > our interpretation of the laws & I am confused. Again. :) > One day green point event, Swiss teams > The auction has gone: > No opposition bidding > > N S > 2N 2H "You cant do that" "OK then 3H" > > 3H is a transfer. I had understood from Mr Stevenson (who is > responsible for a large part of UK EBU TD training and for whom, > despite my frequent tongue-in-cheek remarks, I have great > respect as a TD) that the 2H bidder, not having had the law > explained to him, could make a L25 "delayed and purposeful correction" > of his 3H bid. I ruled South could change his call (N is silenced). > > ######### The EBU interpretation of the 1987 Laws allowed Law 25 to be > applied to this situation of an insufficient bid prematurely > corrected. However, the 1997 Law 25 footnote expessly forbids this > and states that Law 27 must be applied instead.############ > > > I think I had understood from Grattan's web (I daren't call it > a thread) that this was not the intention of the Law-Makers and > that an edict will fall from on high at Lisle that S is stuck with > 3H. > > I understand from John Payne's 1997 thesis that South is stuck with > 3H. The chief TD (John Pyner, very senior and very experienced) > prefers Grattan's and John Payne's view and asked me to re-rule > Director's error which I then did and awarded 3H to EW and the > substituted call to NS (a making game) > > ########### John Payne's original paper summarising the changes in the > 1997 Laws did indeed state that a player was stuck with any premature > correction of an insufficient bid on the grounds that the instruction > to cancel it had been removed from Law 27. This view was widely held > but then overturned by various members of the L & E (me included). At > the time, we argued that as the Law 27 instruction to apply Law 10C1 > was only included in part B2 (forgive any errors in the Law references > but I am at work and without my lawbook) it did not apply to part B1. > Hence, a player was stuck with the premature non-conventional > correction of a non-conventional insufficient bid (which is not too > serious as offender's partner is not silenced). However, any > correction that would silence partner, ie. correction of or to a > conventional bid or correction of a non-conventional insufficient bid > to anything other than the minimum sufficient bid in the same > denomination, would be cancelled and the player read his rights before > making his final choice (which also makes sense as offender's partner > is silenced and we do not want people playing in silly contracts). > Premature correction to Double was always cancelled under part B3, > offender's partner silenced and the offender read his rights before > making his final choice. The only area of doubt was the treatment of > one or multiple insufficient premature corrections but the majority > view was that only the original insufficient bid could be accepted by > LHO and that the rest would automatically be cancelled and be subject > to Law 16 (UI) and Law 26 (Lead Penalties). > > If I understand the recent postings correctly then the WBF (via > Gratten) and others have come to a different conclusion, ie. that the > offender is stuck with *any* premature correction of his insufficient > bid except for Double which is still cancelled under Law 27B3 (and > thus the offender could end up playing in a silly contract). I am not > sure if they have expressed any view on the acceptance or otherwise of > one or multiple insufficient premature corrections. ############ > > > My opinion on this matter is not relevant although I have a view. > Can the EBU (even the Welsh & Scots will pass muster) TDs please > indicate which way they would have ruled and if we reach a consensus > can we agree to adopt a uniform approach. > > ########## Given my original position, I would until Gratten's recent > postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his options > and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, following > Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) or any > pronouncement from Lisle, I will rule that offender is stuck with his > 3H bid and his partner silenced.########## > > Foreign Nationals are invited to join in with Cheers Boos and Catcalls > but I'd *really* like to get the UK TD views here > > Cheers John > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |phone before fax to: > 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |181 980 4947 > London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 04:26:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:26:12 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA21283 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:26:05 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1026645; 16 Mar 98 18:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:12:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Removing board MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is normal for a Director to stop anyone playing a board that they have not started when the move is called for the next round. How about removing a board when a table is part way through? I have found a couple of places that do that. How about removing a board in a Swiss Teams or Multiple Teams which has already been played at the other table? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 04:42:37 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:42:37 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA21360 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:42:32 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1029099; 16 Mar 98 18:32 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:32:35 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:32:34 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: SNIP > > John Payne's original paper summarising the changes in the > > ####### Sorry for the typo, I did of course mean John *Pain*. > ######### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 04:58:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:58:16 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA21433 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:58:10 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026577; 16 Mar 98 18:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:53:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Removing board In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > It is normal for a Director to stop anyone playing a board that they >have not started when the move is called for the next round. > > How about removing a board when a table is part way through? I have >found a couple of places that do that. > I don't remove a board once the players have started bidding it. Very occasionally I will remove a board after the opening lead before dummy hits if the players *want* to play it at the end > How about removing a board in a Swiss Teams or Multiple Teams which >has already been played at the other table? > I'm not sure we're allowed to do that. i don't have FLB to hand -- 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 Mar 17 05:05:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:05:21 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA21515 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:05:16 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1001097; 16 Mar 98 18:40 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:40:32 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Removing board Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:40:30 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS writers: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson [SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 5:13 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Removing board > > > It is normal for a Director to stop anyone playing a board that they > have not started when the move is called for the next round. > > How about removing a board when a table is part way through? I have > found a couple of places that do that. > > ####### It is not uncommon for YC players who have completed the > auction to be told to play the board at the end but I have never heard > of the play of a board being stopped mid-way. ########## > > How about removing a board in a Swiss Teams or Multiple Teams which > has already been played at the other table? > > ######### IMO, this is highly undesirable and should be avoided at all > costs. ########### > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + > )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 05:14:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:14:21 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA21580 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:14:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ad1026643; 16 Mar 98 18:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:27:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hijack! In-Reply-To: <01bd5019$3e429f80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >Are we really being serious about this one? I think Marvin L French and >Henk Uijtgwaald had the right idea. Apart from which I think David only >dreamed this one up because I complained about the lack of postings the >previous weekend. Thank you David. Anton Witzen wrote: >About the same thing happened really here in an amsterdam low-level >tournament: I do not think the ruling is obvious at all. I do like the faith being showed in me. Thankyou Anne for "dreamed it up" and Anton for "happened really". This occurred in a club and was told to me by a senior Welsh Panel Director. I cannot imagine him inventing something like this. Anne and Henk appear to say the jack is played unless declarer is known to make a habit of calling for cards this way. Does this mean that he is not allowed, on this occasion, to be more polite than usual? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 05:24:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:24:33 +1000 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 FAA21622 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 05:24:21 +1000 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 OAA20797; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:20:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:24:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803161924.OAA03137@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:12:31 +0000) Subject: Re: Removing board Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > It is normal for a Director to stop anyone playing a board that they > have not started when the move is called for the next round. > How about removing a board when a table is part way through? I have > found a couple of places that do that. This seems unreasonable, particularly because of the potential for abuse; if you're in a bad contract, you can play slowly and hope that the end of the round kills the board. > How about removing a board in a Swiss Teams or Multiple Teams which > has already been played at the other table? This is normal, and is needed to keep the game moving. If the director announces, "Ten minutes left in this match, no board to be started after five minutes from now," and the last board isn't started within those five minutes, it has to be thrown out so that pairings for the following round can be made. This leads to a follow-up problem: how do you score such as match at VP's? Suppose neither side is at fault for the thrown-out board (for example, the match could have been delayed while the players waited for a director's ruling), and a nine-board match is shortened to eight boards. Should the eight-board VP scale be used for that match? (If one side is at fault, that side should score -3 IMPs on the board and then the full-length scale should be used.) -- 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 Mar 17 06:03:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:03:21 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA21863 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:03:10 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1014039; 16 Mar 98 17:51 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:50:11 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:50:09 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve writes: > -----Original Message----- > From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu [SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 5:25 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > Just a quick thought from someone who is not a UK TD but has handy a > copy of the FLB. > > > N S > > 2N 2H "You cant do that" "OK then 3H" > > No matter how you rule under L27, there seems no possibility of a > change under L25B. L25B2b (which allows purposeful changes subject to > a maximum score of avg-) applies only if the _first_ call was legal. > (See L25B2a and L25B2c, though the last won't apply here.) > > L25B is complicated, and it's easy to forget the details. (I doubt > any > TD will see this law in action often enough to memorize them.) You > definitely want to RTFLB before you attempt to apply this one! > > ########## Agreed that part B cannot be used but under the 1987 Law > 25, EBU TDs did allow LHO to condon any premature correction and not > just the original insufficient bid. This is now forbidden of course > by the footnote to the 1997 Law 25. ####### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 06:10:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:10:20 +1000 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 GAA21940 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:10:11 +1000 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 PAA22161 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:06:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:09:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803162009.PAA04120@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:27:40 +0000) Subject: Re: Hijack! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Anne and Henk appear to say the jack is played unless declarer is > known to make a habit of calling for cards this way. Does this mean > that he is not allowed, on this occasion, to be more polite than usual? The problem is that this becomes a gratuitous comment which is likely to mislead the opponents. This would justify an adjustment if it caused damage. The non-gratuitous situation is more of a problem; someone mentioned an order of a drink being treated as a card designation. -- 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 Mar 17 07:00:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:00:07 +1000 Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22093 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:00:00 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17198; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:58:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199803162058.MAA17198@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Craig Senior" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:58:32 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In regard to this thread about inadvertent bids, does anyone recall the instance when, in a high-level IMP team competition, a player (Italian?) made an inadvertent bid at the seven level, and an opponent (a Frenchman?) was sportsman enough to let him off the hook (by reopening with a double?). I thought that was very admirable, although not in keeping with Kaplan's philosophy that one is obliged to do everything legal in order to win. Along these lines, does anyone remember reading a recommendation that, when given a choice of penalties, a player who wants to be sportsmanlike should select the one that most nearly restores equity, not the one that is most advantageous? No one does that these days, I'm sure, but at the time I thought it was a nice idea. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 08:31:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:31:08 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA22369 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:31:01 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019161; 16 Mar 98 22:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:51:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. In-Reply-To: <199803132347.AAA07861@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >Thus I would be willing to live with L25B in this version: > > Except where Section A applies, a legal call may not be changed. > If a player attempts to change a call anyway, the change is > canceled, L16C applies to the attempted change, and the lead > penalties in L26 may apply. I like this. >I suppose that my opinion boils down often to liking simple, >understandable rules better than complicated, ostensibly fairer ones. Why fairer? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 08:30:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:30:59 +1000 Received: from galadriel.otago.ac.nz (galadriel.otago.ac.nz [139.80.64.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22361 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:30:54 +1000 Received: from [139.80.48.84] (ou048084.otago.ac.nz [139.80.48.84]) by galadriel.otago.ac.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA20325 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:30:48 +1200 (NZST) X-Sender: malbert@emmy.otago.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:30:23 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael H. Albert" Subject: UI/LA choices Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's the hand, Teams NV vs NV LHO CHO RHO You 2d* p** 2h ?? AJ4 AKQJ7 A54 A3 (ok I made up the small spots) * Multi -- weak 2M or 20-22 balanced. ** Some hesitation 2h is pass or correct (denies game interest opposite a weak 2 in H, hardly a big surprise!) Depending on your methods here, you may or may not have a choice of bids at this point. For the sake of argument suppose that you have (at least) x and 3n as LA. You can quote "a player may not choose ..." chapter and verse, but the question is to what extent are you constrained to pick the bid which will make slam exploration most difficult (and what if it's unclear -- eg if you bid 3n you think it unlikely partner will move, but if he does then you have enough to blast a slam regardless, on the other hand if you pick x then partner must take some action but the auction will be less clear and you may face repeated choices all tainted by partner's initial hesitation.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Michael H. Albert Hint (n): An obscure indication of the | |malbert@maths.otago.ac.nz most difficult of several possible ways | |64-03-479-7778 (w) 477-8470 (h) to solve a problem. | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 08:37:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:37:09 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA22415 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:37:00 +1000 Received: from mike (ip56.baltimore20.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.134.56]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA18268 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:36:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980316173634.0070111c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:36:34 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <199803151352.FAA27608@d2.ikos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:52 AM 3/15/98 -0800, Everett wrote: > >Someone asked about 2D-3D-3H rolled back to 3D for UI. >IIRC the agreement was 2D weak but opener's hand was plainly Flannery. >This falls into an area with which I am quite uncomfortable-- >what to think of a player's options when given correct but unauthorized >information that he has misbid, and in particular how hypothetical >non-agreed methods should be extrapolated to arrive at a just ruling. > I share your discomfort with this area of the Laws. The notion that a TD or AC might choose to foist upon a misbidder in these situations methods which that player has never even contemplated seems wholly absurd, and yet we have seen several examples of this type, particularly subsequent to forgotten transfers. In the example at hand (Flannery 2D-3D), I'd bet that a large majority do not play 3D a la Mr. Flannery's original specification (in particular, I don't, when I do play Flannery). Many, perhaps most, have no particular agreement about 3D. But if we are to treat the failure to alert in this situation (or the wake-up alert in other situations) as UI to the misbidder, it seems we are forced to invent or assign one or more versions of a convention which isn't even played by the partnership, for the purpose of evaulating various "Logical" Alternatives. Doesn't sound all that logical to me, but what can you do??? I do have a modest proposal. It is that we get out of this business altogether. Although there is a well-established tradition which says otherwise, the Laws do not actually specify that a correct explanation of partnership methods (or proper alert, or proper failure to alert) is necessarily UI to a mis-bidder/psycher. At one time (i.e., at the time of Kaplan's original AC series in TBW), this type of UI was treated more leniently in the Laws. I have never heard an explanation of why this distinction was abolished in the 1987 revision, but I personally would have gone the other way and stipulated that any inference drawn from partner's legal and correct explanation and/or alert/failure to alert is actually AI. My arguments are as follows: 1. Quick-witted players sometimes have a defense by claiming that their alleged mis-bid was actually a psych. There is, in the general case, no way to ascertain the truth of this claim, since it is purely a statement about a player's intentions at the time he made the call. Of course the claim sometimes lands the player in even deeper waters, depending on relevant SO regs about psychs of conventions. But short of judging the player a liar, there really is no legal basis for ruling against him here, since if his mis-bid WAS intentional, partner's actions provided no additional information. The Laws do not require us to assume that a particular bid was a mis-bid rather than a psych, and as always, I am extremely reluctant to ask a TD or AC to indulge in mind-reading. 2. As you have pointed out, it is very strange to construct LA's out of some theoretical version of a convention which the partnership does not play. 3. As a matter of equity, the misbidder's mistake will usually cost him, even when he is alerted by partner's behavior. Sometimes he will be able to scramble to safety, aided by the information that he mis-bid, but such auctions often proceed with a nightmarish quality to serious disasters. 4. Again as a matter of equity, we are too quick to dismiss the possibility that the misbidder would have discovered the mistake on his own (we've all been there) or through the entirely legitimate deductions available from partner's subsequent calls. With the case in hand, the Flannery bidder would very likely figure out his mistake without the benefit of the non-alert. 3D would force him to think about system agreements, and whether he recalled (correctly) at that point that 2D should have been a weak 2, or merely assumed partner had made the mistake, he would usually work out that the partnership was not on the same page. Note that he is still in a helluva bind-- no action at all is a favorite to work out well. But if we decide upon a version of Flannery for this particular player which makes 3S or 3NT or 7D an LA, then we've effectively ruled that he would never have worked this out for himself. 5. One of the points made by Kaplan in this context is that UI arising out of partner's mistaken alert/explanation/non-alert, or from partner's hesitation or whatever, is different from the type of information we are considering here, because it results from either an infraction or at the least behavior specifically deprecated by the Proprieties. Thus it seems reasonable to judge it by a rather harsher standard than information which results from eminently proper and lawful conduct. This is not a perfect solution. After all, sometimes players will be able to avoid the price of their mistakes as a result of alerts, non-alerts, or explanations that remind them about what their bids really meant, and that is not to be endorsed. But in the equity-based approach to the enforcement of the Laws which we have chosen to implement, good things sometimes happen to bad players. On average, such misbids will still reap their just rewards, and we will be out of this troublesome question once and for all. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 08:42:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:42:41 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA22454 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:42:34 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019142; 16 Mar 98 22:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:17:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >Maddog writes: >> ########## Given my original position, I would until Gratten's recent >> postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his options >> and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, following >> Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) or any >> pronouncement from Lisle, I will rule that offender is stuck with his >> 3H bid and his partner silenced.########## The current interpretation promulgated by the EBU to its TDs is as follows. If there has been a premature correction then L25B does not apply [per footnote]. If the next player does not wish to accept the original insufficient bid under L27A then L27B applies. If the premature correction is [a] to the first legal level, and it is natural, and the insufficient bid is natural, then L27B1 applies to this correction, which stands [b] a double or redouble, then L27B3 applies to this correction, which stands until the provisions of L27B3 are applied [c] otherwise, then L27B2 applies to this correction, which may be withdrawn and re-corrected when the player realises all his options, this being the interpretation of the positioning of the words "apply Law 10C1" in this Law. This was promulgated via the Panel TD training course, attended by Messrs Bavin, Endicott, Stevenson, and it stands for EBU TDs until the interpretation is changed for them and that fact told to them. This has not yet occurred. Of course the EBU has taken notice of Grattan's opinion but a statement by him on BLML does not immediately change the EBU's promulgated opinion. It will be considered. Note: how do interpretations get promulgated in the EBU? [1] Via EBU Panel TD weekends [2] Via L&EC minutes [3] By word of mouth from the Chief TD [Max Bavin] >> Foreign Nationals are invited to join in with Cheers Boos and Catcalls >> but I'd *really* like to get the UK TD views here UK? I have given you the EBU approach. The WBU approach is to follow English interpretations unless their CTD or L&EC say otherwise, and they are not doing so at the moment. I cannot answer for the SBU, though they rarely disagree with EBU interpretations. I regret I have no contact with the NIBU. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 08:43:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:43:36 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA22471 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:43:29 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019143; 16 Mar 98 22:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:50:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. In-Reply-To: <01bd4e9a$c9b2a4a0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Ton Kooijman, Chairman, WBFLC. > New Law 25 - new questions > >I don't agree with much of the criticism that concerns the new elements >in Law 25. I might be considered the originator of some of these >changes so you are entitled to be suspicious of my view, but there were >problems that had to be solved. When a player changed a deliberate call >immediately he was given the possibility of changing his call to any >call he wanted, the penalty being that his partner then had to pass. >But if a player realised he had made a stupid call then asked the TD >what could be done, his call had to stand. This was an enormous >disadvantage to the obedient player and it needed to be put right. I have no particular quarrel with the alteration of L25B to make it a clear option for the player rather than one which only applies in a lucky situation. I merely think it should not exist at all. I can see no reason why a player should be permitted to change any call except in L25A cases. >It is true that a player might become aware of his mistake by a gesture >from an opponent and then change his call if LHO has not called, but >this was also possible under the previous laws. As I say, it is not the *change* that worries me! >Let us concentrate on a possible consequence of the change in Law 25 >which we became aware of in Holland in practical play. > >North, dealer, opens 1Spade but South at the same time puts the pass >card down. An opening call out of turn. The pass is 'subsequent' (Law >33) and West does not accept it.Very clever North now asks the TD >whether he can change his call, LHO not having called yet. North knows >his partner will probably have to pass - this being authorised >information for North. No surprise that WBFLC has not discussed any >such circumstances. Frankly spoken I like the idea of offering North >this possibility. The main idea of L25 is to avoid situations in which >a player has to play a ridiculous contract. The auction goes 1H - 4C >(splinter) and opener passes forgetting to convert. In the opinion of >WBFLC it is ridiculous to force them to play 4 clubs; the player should >be allowed to play four of the major. Do you agree North should get >the option to change his call, do you like this idea? If an average player passes his partner's splinter it will never occur to him that he can change it. Thus this player will not call for the TD, and will be at a strong disadvantage to the minority of players who either know the Laws or act as Bridge Lawyers, ie always trying to see whether they can get anything from the TD. It is very sad to me that this Law is actually designed to help experienced players at the expense of less experienced and BL types at the expense of the majority. Furthermore, if I passed my partner's splinter, I should not ask for a ruling under L25B because I have been in breach of L74B1. It would not occur to me as being sporting. A couple of years ago I passed my partner's strong club opening. The opponents were quite prepared to let me change it to 1D but I considered the matter and decided my pass was not inadvertent. I would not be able to live with myself if I then tried to change it anyway - in my view it is not Bridge. What about playing in silly contracts? That is Bridge. My partner played yesterday with a trump suit of K opposite 6xxx: I had got Ghestem wrong! That is what life, sport and Bridge should be about: you make a mistake: you pay for it. Not only is L25B little known but I believe that sporting players would actively dislike it if they knew of it. I heard a quote - it may have been Kaplan, but I am not sure - that the Laws commission wanted to get a "Bridge" result on a hand such as you quote where a splinter is passed. **No they don't**: the "Bridge result" is to play in the splinter because bridge is a game of mistakes: to allow the correction is to replace the Bridge result with an artificial and false one. I hope that as more people learn of Law 25B their disgust for this experienced players' Law will be heard and thought should be given in 2007 to no longer permitting such correction. Of course, whatever I may think of this Law, it applies at the moment. In the case you quote, I cannot see any reason why it should not apply, so a player is allowed to change his call. Nothing in L25B gives any exceptions, so it should apply to any legal call. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 09:06:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:06:59 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA22555 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:06:53 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA05604 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:06:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05526; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:06:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:06:55 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803162306.SAA05526@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Although there is a well-established tradition which says > otherwise, the Laws do not actually specify that a correct explanation of > partnership methods (or proper alert, or proper failure to alert) is > necessarily UI to a mis-bidder/psycher. L16A mentions "a reply to a question" (meaning partner's reply to an opponent's question). A proper and legal explanation is in no way excluded. Alerts and failures to alert are indeed not specifically mentioned, although as Michael says, tradition includes them. > ... [suggests] any inference drawn from partner's > legal and correct explanation and/or alert/failure to alert is actually AI. There is good reason to support this position, as Michael says. My impression is that this change could be accomplished by regulation for alerts/failures to alert but would require new Laws for explanations. > 1. Quick-witted players sometimes have a defense by claiming that their > alleged mis-bid was actually a psych. There is, in the general case, no way > to ascertain the truth of this claim, since it is purely a statement about > a player's intentions at the time he made the call. Of course the claim > sometimes lands the player in even deeper waters, depending on relevant SO > regs about psychs of conventions. But short of judging the player a liar, > there really is no legal basis for ruling against him here, since if his > mis-bid WAS intentional, partner's actions provided no additional > information. Certainly there is a legal basis for ruling against him. The explanation is UI, and it matters not if the original call was a misbid or a psych. Of course we still have to determine LA's in some fantasy bidding system, but we start with a bidding system in which the original call was proper. There is no reason to determine the player's actual intention. The result may be that a player who has psyched will be ruled against on UI grounds (when he knew his methods all along), but that is just one more risk of psyching. If you dislike this approach -- and I do -- then something like Michael's proposal, or at least a return to the pre-1987 rules for partner's explanations, seems the best remedy. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 09:11:01 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:11:01 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA22578 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:10:55 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24a1.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.161]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA25934 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:10:48 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Removing board Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:10:04 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd5130$a779cf60$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 To allow a board which has not been started, or worse a board which has been bid, to be played at the end, is IMO a very dangerous precedent to adopt. At Pairs I will remove a board that has not been started only if the delay was undisputedly the cause of one of the pairs at that table. I will award an adjusted score accordingly. I will never remove a board after the cards have been removed from the pockets. The only reason I will ever allow a board to be played "at the end" is if the cause for the delay was a table ruling on an earlier board in which case I will require the board to be played later.(We don't want to discourage rulings - Do we?) Under the old code L8B , the round did not end for that table until play was completed, and the score had been entered. The players are not so protected by the new L8 which insinuates that I may move the players and declare the round over in the middle of the play of the hand. A while ago I wrote a list of reasons that no board,especially one which had been started, should be played at the end. I'm not sure that I can remember them all, but here are a few. Players who have seen their cards may well discuss the hand, albeit having forgotten that they have not played it. If the board is being discussed elsewhere, maybe in the bar (This pair is known to have played it as it passed tham 10mins ago) there is a greater possibility of UI being accidentally received. The reason that a board does not get played in time is often that the first board of that round was a difficult one. It was difficult at every table and those who played it in the prescribed time and made their mistakes because of it, are at a disadvantage if slower other contestants get extra time. If several tables have difficulty with this first board, there may be several pairs lined up at the end of the session, all waiting to play this board. Some of these pairs may be waiting to play 2 boards, and some may be waiting to play 2 boards and the one the TD has required them to play! If the TD after the end of the auction, for example, permits the board to be played at the end and instructs the progression of players Law 8 says that the round has ended. I cannot find it in the FLB that the round can be reopened. What happens to "before the round has ended" rulings? e.g. attention drawn to a revoke. Can there be a penalty under Law64B5 if the round ended 2hrs ago? I am aware of the fact that the EBU commentary on the Laws states that at teams a board played at one table must be played at the other table. I have in the past -in extremis- interpreted this to mean that a board cancelled at one table for whatever reason must be played at the other table in order to achieve a score which can if necessary be the basis of an appeal. However I have been known to cancel a board because of slow play in a multiple or Swiss teams event, in the knowledge that my authority so to do is dubious! Usually this is because I have failed to notice before the halfway that there is a problem. This will be due to understaffing. Blame the SO! Award +3imps each and call it TD error.:-)) Have you all guessed that this problem is one I have thought about before. Slow Play? - I have very little of it in my movements now. ANNE -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:29 PM Subject: Removing board > > It is normal for a Director to stop anyone playing a board that they >have not started when the move is called for the next round. > > How about removing a board when a table is part way through? I have >found a couple of places that do that. > > How about removing a board in a Swiss Teams or Multiple Teams which >has already been played at the other table? > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= >Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 09:25:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:25:18 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA22602 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:25:12 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA09654 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05557; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:25:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:25:13 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803162325.SAA05557@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Exposed cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > At the weekend, I had a situation where the opening leader > put three spades (face up) on the table at the end of the auction. > She thought she was dummy and had not intended to lead the cards. If your last sentence is your determination of fact (no intention to lead), you first need to look at L17E, which will tell you that the auction period has not ended. Exposed cards at this time are treated by L24. All three cards become penalty cards, and we go to L50 and L51. Declarer gets to choose which card is to be played any time playing a spade is legal for that defender; this includes the opening lead. The above is quite a severe penalty in many cases, but we don't have authority to reduce it (L12B and others). In rare cases, it may turn into an advantage to defenders if the spade lead sets the contract but the normal lead would not. (One can easily imagine a Mollo story involving the Secretary Bird; the lucky leader would, of course, be the Rueful Rabbit.) L58 would apply if the player had intended to lead one of the cards and had exposed the other two in the process. (The act of leading ends the auction period.) Presumably he would then wish to lead the card he had intended to choose in the first place, taking into account his lead agreements. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 09:37:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:37:36 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA22641 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:37:30 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client258b.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.139]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA29635 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:37:18 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Exposed cards Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:36:53 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd5134$665779c0$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 think that Law49 does indeed apply. Offender had not chosen a lead so can hardly be asked which card he intended to lead. I would rule Law50D1, that he had two or more exposed cards and would allow declarer to designate which one is to be played. I think Law 58B is intended to cover the instance where a player makes a concious decision to lead or play a card and accidentally plays more than one. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:04 PM Subject: Exposed cards >At the weekend, I had a situation where the opening leader >put three spades (face up) on the table at the end of the auction. >She thought she was dummy and had not intended to lead the cards. > >I was called and ruled that the cards were played and applied L58B >(simultaneous cards from one hand) and allowed defender to >chose which card to play.(*) Then, I applied L51 to the remaining >two penalty cards and allowed declarer to chose which should be >played subsequently - the other defender did not get on lead. >(* Should you play suit preference leads in the this position?) > >Afterwards it seemed odd that the choice of card changed from defender >to declarer after the first play. I wondered if L49 applied instead; >but decided that L45A ("Each player except dummy plays a card by >detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately >before him.") applied, so the three cards were definitely played. > >Then I wondered if L49 can ever apply to a player on lead. Certainly, >if the defender on lead says "I have AQ9 of spades" then they are all >penalty cards but this is not L45 or L58. So declarer can chose which >card is led. > >Is it possible to expose a card without L45 applying? Can you expose a >card without "detaching from his hand" (L45A), or "held so that it is >possible for his partner to see its face" (L45C1)? Presumably if >someone else (director/waiter/the wind) accidently dislodges the card >instead then L49 applies not L45. > >Does it matter? Not if only one card is exposed, because it must be >played. But if defender exposes (without detaching) more than one card >from when on lead, then declarer decides which card is played, not >defender. But if defender detaches and exposes more than one card then >defender decides which card is played. > >Or perhaps I should get more sleep. > >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 Mar 17 09:41:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:41:24 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA22664 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:41:16 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08631; 16 Mar 98 15:40 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:50:16 PST." Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:40:36 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9803161540.aa08631@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >The main idea of L25 is to avoid situations in which > >a player has to play a ridiculous contract. The auction goes 1H - 4C > >(splinter) and opener passes forgetting to convert. In the opinion of > >WBFLC it is ridiculous to force them to play 4 clubs; the player should > >be allowed to play four of the major. Do you agree North should get > >the option to change his call, do you like this idea? Hmmm . . . let's say White moves his pawn, and after he's done with his move, he looks at the board and notices that the pawn was the only thing standing in the way between Black's bishop and White's queen. Should the opinion of the International Chess Foundation (I don't know the real name) be that it is ridiculous to force White to play down a queen because of a careless mistake; the player should be allowed to keep his queen protected? Do you agree that White should get the option to change his move, do you like this idea? I doubt you would find one tournament chess player who would like this. David Stevenson wrote: > A couple of years ago I passed my > partner's strong club opening. The opponents were quite prepared to let > me change it to 1D but I considered the matter and decided my pass was > not inadvertent. I would not be able to live with myself if I then > tried to change it anyway - in my view it is not Bridge. > > What about playing in silly contracts? That is Bridge. Yup. Paying attention to what you're doing is part of the game. > I hope that as more people learn of Law 25B their disgust for this > experienced players' Law will be heard and thought should be given in > 2007 to no longer permitting such correction. I hope it doesn't take that long. -- Adam =============================================================================== Cat Haiku by Mango I want to go out. I want to come right back in. I want to go out. I want to come in. I want to go right back out. I want to come in. (repeat ad infinitum) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 10:28:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA22766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:28:30 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA22761 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:28:25 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client24fa.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.250]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA02225 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:28:19 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: UI/LA choices Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:27:59 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd513b$89d1f2c0$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 " should not chose....a bid suggested by" The hesitation has suggested values, it may have suggested Ds. The AI that you have is that the opener does not have a balanced 20-22. So we are down to a weak 2M. Style should be ascertained , but it would appear not to be a weak H suit. Thus there will be a 2S bid and you will get another chance to bid. Not my style, but a logical alternative, and probably the only one not suggested by pards hesitation. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Michael H. Albert To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 11:17 PM Subject: UI/LA choices >Here's the hand, > >Teams NV vs NV > >LHO CHO RHO You >2d* p** 2h ?? > >AJ4 >AKQJ7 >A54 >A3 > >(ok I made up the small spots) > >* Multi -- weak 2M or 20-22 balanced. >** Some hesitation > >2h is pass or correct (denies game interest opposite a weak 2 in H, hardly >a big surprise!) > >Depending on your methods here, you may or may not have a choice of bids at >this point. For the sake of argument suppose that you have (at least) x and >3n as LA. > >You can quote "a player may not choose ..." chapter and verse, but the >question is to what extent are you constrained to pick the bid which will >make slam exploration most difficult (and what if it's unclear -- eg if you >bid 3n you think it unlikely partner will move, but if he does then you >have enough to blast a slam regardless, on the other hand if you pick x >then partner must take some action but the auction will be less clear and >you may face repeated choices all tainted by partner's initial hesitation.) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- >|Michael H. Albert Hint (n): An obscure indication of the | >|malbert@maths.otago.ac.nz most difficult of several possible ways >| |64-03-479-7778 (w) 477-8470 (h) to >solve a problem. | > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 11:03:07 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:03:07 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22865 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:02:58 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025247; 17 Mar 98 0:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:32:40 +0000 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. In-Reply-To: <9803161540.aa08631@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >=============================================================================== >Cat Haiku >by Mango > >I want to go out. >I want to come right back in. >I want to go out. > >I want to come in. >I want to go right back out. >I want to come in. > >(repeat ad infinitum) and furthermore I'll stand next to the catflap and mew pitifully so you'll open the door and save me the effort of pushing the flap -- 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 Mar 17 11:04:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:04:49 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22885 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:04:43 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2015232; 17 Mar 98 0:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:22:12 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Martin wrote: >>Maddog writes: snip > UK? I have given you the EBU approach. The WBU approach is to follow >English interpretations unless their CTD or L&EC say otherwise, and they >are not doing so at the moment. I cannot answer for the SBU, though >they rarely disagree with EBU interpretations. I regret I have no >contact with the NIBU. > David, as I understand it then I ruled as we are taught to rule but was over-ridden by the Chief TD. I've no problem with that but will have a word with him in the next couple of days. Thank 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 Tue Mar 17 13:17:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:17:32 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA23236 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:17:25 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2000560; 17 Mar 98 3:06 GMT Message-ID: <5M4AFIA+JeD1Ewy2@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 02:39:58 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Martin wrote: >>Maddog writes: > >>> ########## Given my original position, I would until Gratten's recent >>> postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his options >>> and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, following >>> Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) or any >>> pronouncement from Lisle, I will rule that offender is stuck with his >>> 3H bid and his partner silenced.########## > > The current interpretation promulgated by the EBU to its TDs is as >follows. > > If there has been a premature correction then L25B does not apply [per >footnote]. If the next player does not wish to accept the original >insufficient bid under L27A then L27B applies. If the premature >correction is > >[a] to the first legal level, and it is natural, and the insufficient >bid is natural, then L27B1 applies to this correction, which stands > >[b] a double or redouble, then L27B3 applies to this correction, which >stands until the provisions of L27B3 are applied > >[c] otherwise, then L27B2 applies to this correction, which may be >withdrawn and re-corrected when the player realises all his options, >this being the interpretation of the positioning of the words "apply Law >10C1" in this Law. > What does a director do if he is told to do something illegal by a) The EBU or b) Max Bavin or c) David Stevenson or d) Grattan Endicott or e) his chief TD or f) the majority of subscribers to BLML ??? > This was promulgated via the Panel TD training course, attended by >Messrs Bavin, Endicott, Stevenson, >and it stands for EBU TDs until the >interpretation is changed for them and that fact told to them. This >has not yet occurred. I'm not sure your position is tenable here David - if the Law says what Grattan says it says and I guess he probably knows best, nothing the EBU can promulgate will change that - as I have indicated in an earlier posting I think this Law as Grattan suggests the Lawmakers intended is grossly unfair and I hope they will rethink, meanwhile I can see no honourable course for me as a Director except to rule as Grattan has indicated the Lawmakers intended > > Of course the EBU has taken notice of Grattan's opinion but a >statement by him on BLML does not immediately change the EBU's >promulgated opinion. It will be considered. > > Note: how do interpretations get promulgated in the EBU? >[1] Via EBU Panel TD weekends >[2] Via L&EC minutes >[3] By word of mouth from the Chief TD [Max Bavin] > Snip Mike :) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 14:14:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:14:28 +1000 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 OAA23358 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:14:22 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb121.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.121]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA32323 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:14:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980316231421.006ddfc0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:14:21 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <199803162306.SAA05526@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:06 PM 3/16/98 -0500, Steve wrote: > 1. Quick-witted players sometimes have a defense by claiming that their >> alleged mis-bid was actually a psych. There is, in the general case, no way >> to ascertain the truth of this claim, since it is purely a statement about >> a player's intentions at the time he made the call. Of course the claim >> sometimes lands the player in even deeper waters, depending on relevant SO >> regs about psychs of conventions. But short of judging the player a liar, >> there really is no legal basis for ruling against him here, since if his >> mis-bid WAS intentional, partner's actions provided no additional >> information. > >Certainly there is a legal basis for ruling against him. The >explanation is UI, and it matters not if the original call was a misbid >or a psych. Of course we still have to determine LA's in some fantasy >bidding system, but we start with a bidding system in which the >original call was proper. There is no reason to determine the player's >actual intention. The result may be that a player who has psyched will >be ruled against on UI grounds (when he knew his methods all along), >but that is just one more risk of psyching. > Consider two cases: a) KJTxxx, xx, Qxx, Kx b) xxx, KJTxxx, Qx, xx Partner opens 1NT, RHO passes, and with both holdings you respond 2H. Partner duly advises "Transfer", and bids 2S. It is my position that the Laws provide no basis for distinguishing between these two situations. Suppose, for argument's sake, that you have chosen to psych a transfer with hand b). How are any of your options restricted by the "UI" that partner has accepted your faux transfer? Indeed, what "unauthorized" information do you now have that you lacked before partner's explanation? The only basis on which to find UI here is to (incorrectly) assume that the 2H bid was a mistake, and there is no language in the Laws which requires us to do so. L16 says we may not "choose from among logical alternatives...", but if you have psyched a convention, it would be decidedly illogical to assume that partner has forgotten your methods, and has bid in accordance with your actual hand. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 14:24:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:24:50 +1000 Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA23388 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:24:45 +1000 Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id SXWYa08634 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:24:05 -0500 (EST) From: KRAllison Message-ID: <5abd3d23.350dfae8@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:24:05 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Haiku 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 Mango, I daren't show this poem to Stella, Blanche and Stanley who have been banished from outdoors because of Jersey City's overpopulation of fleas (empirically demonstrated previously) and pugnacious outdoors cats (among whom is, at least, Stanley's daddy). But I appreciate having had the opportunity to relish it :-) Karen .............................................................................. ........................................... << >Cat Haiku >by Mango > >I want to go out. >I want to come right back in. >I want to go out. > >I want to come in. >I want to go right back out. >I want to come in. > >(repeat ad infinitum) and furthermore I'll stand next to the catflap and mew pitifully so you'll open the door and save me the effort of pushing the flap >> From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 16:19:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA23682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:19:45 +1000 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 QAA23677 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:19:41 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p31.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.183]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA05685 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:19:28 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980316113031.006e6740@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:30:31 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Law 27:Premature correction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Accepting that a premature correction of an insufficient bid may not be cancelled by the Director, consider this situation: Spades are the agreed suit. 4NT (Blackwood) - 4H corrected prematurely to 5H. The 5H cannot be cancelled, partner is barred and the side are now committed to playing 5H in their 2-2 fit. Law 25 has not yet been applied. Should we not, in the spirit of Law 25 (as described recently by Ton Kooijman), now advise the offender that he may make a deliberate change of call to a spade contract, but at the price of getting no better than a 40% score (which would certainly be better than his likely 0% score.)? Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 18:41:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:41:09 +1000 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 SAA24195 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:41:02 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id DAA11118; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:43:18 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma011112; Tue, 17 Mar 98 03:43:11 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA03584; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 03:39:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199803170839.DAA03584@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 08:32:29 GMT Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >David Martin wrote: >>Maddog writes: >>> ########## Given my original position, I would until Gratten's recent >>> postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his options >>> and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, following >>> Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) or any >>> pronouncement from Lisle, I will rule that offender is stuck with his >>> 3H bid and his partner silenced.########## No: this would not be the way an EBU TD should rule if he or she wished to follow the guidance which has been provided. > The current interpretation promulgated by the EBU to its TDs is as >follows. > If there has been a premature correction then L25B does not apply [per >footnote]. If the next player does not wish to accept the original >insufficient bid under L27A then L27B applies. If the premature >correction is > >[a] to the first legal level, and it is natural, and the insufficient >bid is natural, then L27B1 applies to this correction, which stands > >[b] a double or redouble, then L27B3 applies to this correction, which >stands until the provisions of L27B3 are applied > >[c] otherwise, then L27B2 applies to this correction, which may be >withdrawn and re-corrected when the player realises all his options, >this being the interpretation of the positioning of the words "apply Law >10C1" in this Law. > > This was promulgated via the Panel TD training course, attended by >Messrs Bavin, Endicott, Stevenson, and it stands for EBU TDs until the >interpretation is changed for them and that fact told to them. This >has not yet occurred. > > Of course the EBU has taken notice of Grattan's opinion but a >statement by him on BLML does not immediately change the EBU's >promulgated opinion. It will be considered. I agree. No doubt the matter will be reconsidered following the next meeting of the WBF Laws Committee, but I think that is not for a few months yet. Can anyone remind me what ACBL TDs have been told? Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 18:53:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:53:35 +1000 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 SAA24253 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:53:29 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h10.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id LAA14944; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:53:22 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <350EE372.437A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:56:18 -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_Removing_board Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) For my opinion TDs have no authority to interfere in game after it starts without calling by player. When player takes his hand from the board - game starts. So - it should be finished. The only possibility for TD to stop playing - to forbid taking cards from the board in advance - and repeat it personally at the table. Nothing is to be done: TD's life is difficult... About boards (in matches) that have been already played at the another table - I think it should be forbid to remove them: it may hurt one of the teams (and it happened a lot of times) because such a board might already be misplayed at that first table. I guess that TD's staff should take decision about temporary removing the board when it is not played yet - when there becomes clear that the table is late before tables changes boards. Then that board should be duplicated (by staff). And before end of match TD may allow to play that board, simultaneously at both table. TD's life does be difficult:)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 20:39:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:39:34 +1000 Received: from nfg.sci-nnov.ru (nfg.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.186.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA24781 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:31:43 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.70.58]) by nfg.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA12934 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:34:15 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199803171034.NAA12934@nfg.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Removing board Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:30:45 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote > Hi all:) > For my opinion TDs have no authority to interfere in game after it > starts without calling by player. When player takes his hand from the > board - game starts. So - it should be finished. The only possibility > for TD to stop playing - to forbid taking cards from the board in > advance - and repeat it personally at the table. Nothing is to be > done: TD's life is difficult... In Russia we do so in pair events. It is not allowed to start the last board of the round if less than 3 minutes left to play in this round. If the last board was started without permission of TD there would be PP. > About boards (in matches) that have been already played at the another > table - I think it should be forbid to remove them: it may hurt > one of the teams (and it happened a lot of times) because such a > board might already be misplayed at that first table. I guess that > TD's staff should take decision about temporary removing the board > when it is not played yet - when there becomes clear that the table > is late before tables changes boards. Then that board should be > duplicated (by staff). And before end of match TD may allow to play > that board, simultaneously at both table. TD's life does be difficult:)) I prefer to remove boards not started at the table at the end of round. Players don't know the result at the the other table. I fonly one team is responsible for delay I will adjust A+/A-. If both - A-/A-. If TD or SO is responsible the result would be A+/A+. In case the result of the first table woukd be very good for NO, I will adjust something probable at the scond table or ask AC to do this job. (In most cases this procedure is written in our Conditions of Contest.) > Vitold Some weeks ago I find out another problem. There was MI when board was played at first table. TD decides to adjust A+/A- in favor of NO. Should this board being played at the second table. (Afterwards AC decides to give the table result back!) Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 20:41:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:41:22 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA24842 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:41:10 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:40:33 GMT Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 10:40:31 GMT Message-Id: <732.9803171040@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Exposed cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve > I wrote: > > At the weekend, I had a situation where the opening leader > > put three spades (face up) on the table at the end of the auction. > > She thought she was dummy and had not intended to lead the cards. > You wrote: > If your last sentence is your determination of fact (no intention to > lead), you first need to look at L17E, which will tell you that the > auction period has not ended. Exposed cards at this time are treated > by L24. All three cards become penalty cards, and we go to L50 and > L51. Declarer gets to choose which card is to be played any time > playing a spade is legal for that defender; this includes the opening > lead. [snip] Thank you for your reply. I looked in to this question of intent and it does not seem to apply to plays (except by dummy). L45 does not mention intent, L45A: "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him."; L45C1 also applies. To me, this says that the card(s) have been played, and hence lead (since the player is to lead), and so the auction period has finished. Now I think about it, I think I may have had an argument with DWS on this subject - and probably lost. 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 Mar 17 21:52:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:52:43 +1000 Received: from nfg.sci-nnov.ru (nfg.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.186.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA25061 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:44:12 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.70.58]) by nfg.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA12934 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:34:15 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199803171034.NAA12934@nfg.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: Re: Removing board Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:30:45 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote > Hi all:) > For my opinion TDs have no authority to interfere in game after it > starts without calling by player. When player takes his hand from the > board - game starts. So - it should be finished. The only possibility > for TD to stop playing - to forbid taking cards from the board in > advance - and repeat it personally at the table. Nothing is to be > done: TD's life is difficult... In Russia we do so in pair events. It is not allowed to start the last board of the round if less than 3 minutes left to play in this round. If the last board was started without permission of TD there would be PP. > About boards (in matches) that have been already played at the another > table - I think it should be forbid to remove them: it may hurt > one of the teams (and it happened a lot of times) because such a > board might already be misplayed at that first table. I guess that > TD's staff should take decision about temporary removing the board > when it is not played yet - when there becomes clear that the table > is late before tables changes boards. Then that board should be > duplicated (by staff). And before end of match TD may allow to play > that board, simultaneously at both table. TD's life does be difficult:)) I prefer to remove boards not started at the table at the end of round. Players don't know the result at the the other table. I fonly one team is responsible for delay I will adjust A+/A-. If both - A-/A-. If TD or SO is responsible the result would be A+/A+. In case the result of the first table woukd be very good for NO, I will adjust something probable at the scond table or ask AC to do this job. (In most cases this procedure is written in our Conditions of Contest.) > Vitold Some weeks ago I find out another problem. There was MI when board was played at first table. TD decides to adjust A+/A- in favor of NO. Should this board being played at the second table. (Afterwards AC decides to give the table result back!) Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 22:03:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:03:03 +1000 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 WAA25112 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:02:56 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-125.uunet.be [194.7.13.125]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05898 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:02:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <350E5B5A.3B89FA0F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:15:38 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Exposed cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199803162325.SAA05557@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Robin Barker > > > At the weekend, I had a situation where the opening leader > > put three spades (face up) on the table at the end of the auction. > > She thought she was dummy and had not intended to lead the cards. > > If your last sentence is your determination of fact (no intention to > lead), you first need to look at L17E, which will tell you that the > auction period has not ended. Exposed cards at this time are treated > by L24. All three cards become penalty cards, and we go to L50 and > L51. Declarer gets to choose which card is to be played any time > playing a spade is legal for that defender; this includes the opening > lead. > The above is only true if we believe that the intention of leading is needed for a card to be considered led. However, L45 has no mention whatsoever of intention, so the simple showing of the cards is in fact the act of leading. And so Steve's analysis of going first to L24 is IMHO incorrect. I stand with Robin's on this one and am also amazed at the switching of decision between leader and declarer as to who decides what to play. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 22:03:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:03:08 +1000 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 WAA25115 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:02:58 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-125.uunet.be [194.7.13.125]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05902 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:02:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <350E5C30.8C61A68@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:19:12 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Exposed cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <01bd5134$665779c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > I think that Law49 does indeed apply. Offender had not chosen a lead so > can hardly be asked which card he intended to lead. I would rule > Law50D1, that he had two or more exposed cards and would allow declarer > to designate which one is to be played. > I think Law 58B is intended to cover the instance where a player makes a > concious decision to lead or play a card and accidentally plays more > than one. Maybe L58B is intended for that, but that does not get away with what it will be used for. If L45 determines this to be a "lead" (as IMHO it does) then L58B shall be applied. Please people, Robin stated the correct question, so direct your comments to the correct problem : Is this case a lead as defined in L48 or not ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 22:03:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:03:10 +1000 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 WAA25121 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:03:01 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-125.uunet.be [194.7.13.125]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05906 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:02:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <350E5CC8.E3A0C3CA@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:21:44 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980316231421.006ddfc0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > > > L16 says we may not "choose from among logical alternatives...", but if you > have psyched a convention, it would be decidedly illogical to assume that > partner has forgotten your methods, and has bid in accordance with your > actual hand. You are in theory correct but you will have a hard time convincing director that you have psyched a convention, rather than forgotten it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 22:03:14 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:03:14 +1000 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 WAA25128 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:03:03 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-125.uunet.be [194.7.13.125]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05910 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:02:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <350E5E44.580D265D@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:28:04 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson finally managed to make some sense in this debate : > > The current interpretation promulgated by the EBU to its TDs is as > follows. > > If there has been a premature correction then L25B does not apply [per > footnote]. If the next player does not wish to accept the original > insufficient bid under L27A then L27B applies. If the premature > correction is > > [a] to the first legal level, and it is natural, and the insufficient > bid is natural, then L27B1 applies to this correction, which stands > > [b] a double or redouble, then L27B3 applies to this correction, which > stands until the provisions of L27B3 are applied > > [c] otherwise, then L27B2 applies to this correction, which may be > withdrawn and re-corrected when the player realises all his options, > this being the interpretation of the positioning of the words "apply Law > 10C1" in this Law. > This seems to me a correct interpretation. Before I wish to state this is THE correct interpretation, I would like to hear a conflicting possibility. I still fail to see why this should be a UK (or EBU) interpretation only. If some other country has made a differing interpretation to it's members, then let them now speak out or remain forever silent. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 17 22:03:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:03:20 +1000 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 WAA25137 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:03:08 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-125.uunet.be [194.7.13.125]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA05914 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:02:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <350E5F59.8CF2D02C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:32:41 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980316113031.006e6740@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: > > Accepting that a premature correction of an insufficient bid may not be > cancelled by the Director, consider this situation: Spades are the agreed > suit. 4NT (Blackwood) - 4H corrected prematurely to 5H. The 5H cannot be > cancelled, partner is barred and the side are now committed to playing 5H > in their 2-2 fit. > > Law 25 has not yet been applied. Should we not, in the spirit of Law 25 (as > described recently by Ton Kooijman), now advise the offender that he may > make a deliberate change of call to a spade contract, but at the price of > getting no better than a 40% score (which would certainly be better than > his likely 0% score.)? > I fail to see why L25 should be used. L25 (now) distictly tells us to go look at L27. In L27B (not accepted) L27B2 is of application. This directs us to L10C1. I conclude that offender may now choose any change. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 00:06:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:06:36 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA25477 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:06:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1011436; 17 Mar 98 13:41 GMT Message-ID: <3qc+ONEwwnD1EwAO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:35:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Exposed cards In-Reply-To: <350E5C30.8C61A68@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> I think that Law49 does indeed apply. Offender had not chosen a lead so >> can hardly be asked which card he intended to lead. I would rule >> Law50D1, that he had two or more exposed cards and would allow declarer >> to designate which one is to be played. >> I think Law 58B is intended to cover the instance where a player makes a >> concious decision to lead or play a card and accidentally plays more >> than one. > >Maybe L58B is intended for that, but that does not get away with what it >will be used for. > >If L45 determines this to be a "lead" (as IMHO it does) then L58B shall >be applied. > >Please people, Robin stated the correct question, so direct your >comments to the correct problem : Is this case a lead as defined in L48 >or not ? > I think a lead has to be a conscious decision. It is defined as the first card played to a trick. Thus a card being exposed with no intention to lead is not a lead: after all it is not *played to a trick*. While L45E does not cover the current situation if you read it I think you see the Laws' approach: the Director has to ascertain whether a card is led, so this shows that a card is not led automatically because it has been exposed. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 00:08:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:08:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA25492 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:08:51 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1011435; 17 Mar 98 13:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:21:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Removing board In-Reply-To: <199803171034.NAA12934@nfg.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: >Some weeks ago I find out another problem. There was MI when board was >played at first table. TD decides to adjust A+/A- in favor of NO. Should >this board being played at the second table. (Afterwards AC decides to give >the table result back!) Yes, I fell for this one a few years ago. I ruled a Red psyche, which means that it has been fielded. The board is cancelled, 3 imps is awarded to the NOs, and the Os are fined 0.5 vp as well. I took the board away from them, which was very embarrassing when the AC decided it was a Green psyche, no fielding, and the result stands! Nowadays I let them play it! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 00:14:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:14:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA27409 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:14:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1011490; 17 Mar 98 13:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:25:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980316113031.006e6740@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >Accepting that a premature correction of an insufficient bid may not be >cancelled by the Director, consider this situation: Spades are the agreed >suit. 4NT (Blackwood) - 4H corrected prematurely to 5H. The 5H cannot be >cancelled, partner is barred and the side are now committed to playing 5H >in their 2-2 fit. > >Law 25 has not yet been applied. Should we not, in the spirit of Law 25 (as >described recently by Ton Kooijman), now advise the offender that he may >make a deliberate change of call to a spade contract, but at the price of >getting no better than a 40% score (which would certainly be better than >his likely 0% score.)? The footnote to L25B steers you away from L25 to L27. I believe that you may not use L25B for an insufficient bid for this reason. Otherwise, what would be the point of the footnote? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 01:28:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:28:39 +1000 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 BAA27923 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:28:31 +1000 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 KAA16036 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:24:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:28:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803171528.KAA24183@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <350E5B5A.3B89FA0F@village.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:15:38 +0100) Subject: Re: Exposed cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: Robin Barker >> >> > At the weekend, I had a situation where the opening leader >> > put three spades (face up) on the table at the end of the auction. >> > She thought she was dummy and had not intended to lead the cards. >> If your last sentence is your determination of fact (no intention to >> lead), you first need to look at L17E, which will tell you that the >> auction period has not ended. Exposed cards at this time are treated >> by L24. All three cards become penalty cards, and we go to L50 and >> L51. Declarer gets to choose which card is to be played any time >> playing a spade is legal for that defender; this includes the opening >> lead. > The above is only true if we believe that the intention of leading is > needed for a card to be considered led. > However, L45 has no mention whatsoever of intention, so the simple > showing of the cards is in fact the act of leading. > And so Steve's analysis of going first to L24 is IMHO incorrect. There must be a distinction, because Law 24 itself makes one in a different situation. There is no penalty other than UI and a minor penalty card if a low card is exposed during the auction, provided that the card was not prematurely led. Likewise, Law 49B distinguishes between a card exposed through deliberate play (always a major penalty card) and a card exposed accidentally (can be minor). Consider the situation in which East, who forgot South's last call and thinks he is dummy, puts down his singleton S9 before anyone can stop him. If West is on lead, it is unlikely that East intended to lead the S9; do you rule this a minor penalty card? East exposed it deliberately, but not in an attempt to play it. (There was a previous discussion on BLML in which it was determined that a low card exposed deliberately but not through play was a minor penalty card.) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 01:35:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:35:16 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA27962 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:35:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA19358 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:35:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06008; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:35:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:35:12 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803171535.KAA06008@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Exposed cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > L45C1 also applies. > To me, this says that the card(s) have been played, Isn't there a difference between "must be played" and an alternative phrase like "has been played" or "is considered played?" L45C1 uses the first. I like your ruling better because it doesn't depend on determining the player's intent, but I don't believe it is consistent with the wording in the Laws. Perhaps this is too fine a reading. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 01:41:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:41:16 +1000 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 BAA27994 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:41:10 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by willow.us.pw.com; id KAA12852; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:43:25 -0500 Received: from fern.us.pw.com(10.9.16.60) by willow.us.pw.com via smap (4.1) id xma012744; Tue, 17 Mar 98 10:42:36 -0500 Received: by fern.us.pw.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17443; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:38:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199803171538.KAA17443@fern.us.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 15:31:25 GMT Subject: Re: Exposed cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >> [Robin Barker] wrote: >> > At the weekend, I had a situation where the opening leader >> > put three spades (face up) on the table at the end of the auction. >> > She thought she was dummy and had not intended to lead the cards. >> >[Steve Willner] wrote: >> If your last sentence is your determination of fact (no intention to >> lead), you first need to look at L17E, which will tell you that the >> auction period has not ended. Exposed cards at this time are treated >> by L24. All three cards become penalty cards, and we go to L50 and >> L51. Declarer gets to choose which card is to be played any time >> playing a spade is legal for that defender; this includes the opening >> lead. > >[snip] > >Thank you for your reply. > >I looked in to this question of intent and it does not seem to apply to >plays (except by dummy). L45 does not mention intent, L45A: "Each >player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and >facing it on the table immediately before him."; L45C1 also applies. >To me, this says that the card(s) have been played, and hence lead >(since the player is to lead), and so the auction period has finished. I agree with Steve Willner. L45 is in ChapterVI (the play). I don't think we have yet got there. L17E says "the auction ends ... after three passes in rotation have followed any call the opening lead is faced...". As I interpreted what Robin wrote, there was no lead. Thus the auction has not ended, and L24 applies. Steve Barnfield Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 02:35:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 02:35:06 +1000 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 CAA28330 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 02:34:59 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h54.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id TAA20934; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:34:52 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <350F4F9C.35E1@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:37:48 -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_WBF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="WBF.DOC" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="WBF.DOC" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Marvin L. French wrote: >In regard to this thread about inadvertent bids, does anyone recall >the instance when, in a high-level IMP team competition, a player >(Italian?) made an inadvertent bid at the seven level, and an >opponent (a Frenchman?) was sportsman enough to let him off the >hook (by reopening with a double?). I thought that was very admirable, >although not in keeping with Kaplan's philosophy that one is obliged >to do everything legal in order to win. 1. Nice example of ethic play - and both sides played extremely ethic bridge: it was not artificial respond for artificial relay:)) So it might be changed by mean of TD - and the Player (after his mistakes) decided not to call the TD - it should be appreciated no less than the Opponent's double:)) 2. As I could understand from E.Kaplan's book ("Appeal Committee" included) - you are not right:) He tried to struggle for reaching the equality and (only if necessary) - for punishment. >Along these lines, does anyone remember reading a recommendation >that, when given a choice of penalties, a player who wants to be >sportsmanlike should select the one that most nearly restores equity, >not the one that is most advantageous? No one does that these days, >I'm sure, but at the time I thought it was a nice idea. Why do not you surprise that the whole world is imperfect?:)) Bridge is no more than game in that imperfect world... That's why we need examples of high standard of ethics - so in life as in bridge. And nowadays are not worse than years before:)) David Stevenson wrote: >I can see no reason why a player should be permitted to change any call >except in L25A cases. >If an average player passes his partner's splinter it will never occur >to him that he can change it. Thus this player will not call for the >TD, and will be at a strong disadvantage to the minority of players who >either know the Laws or act as Bridge Lawyers, ie always trying to see >whether they can get anything from the TD. It is very sad to me that >this Law is actually designed to help experienced players at the expense >of less experienced and BL types at the expense of the majority. Snip >What about playing in silly contracts? That is Bridge. My partner >played yesterday with a trump suit of K opposite 6xxx: I had got Ghestem >wrong! That is what life, sport and Bridge should be about: you make a >mistake: you pay for it. Not only is L25B little known but I believe >that sporting players would actively dislike it if they knew of it. >I heard a quote - it may have been Kaplan, but I am not sure - that >the Laws commission wanted to get a "Bridge" result on a hand such as >you quote where a splinter is passed. **No they don't**: the "Bridge >result" is to play in the splinter because bridge is a game of mistakes: >to allow the correction is to replace the Bridge result with an >artificial and false one. I entirely agree with you, David. Mistakes do be integral part of game, named bridge. And that statement is essential in every stages of bridge: so the bidding, as card-play. The Laws divide all the mistakes onto two groups - remediable and irremediable. Mistakes are remediable only if substitution is made without pause for thought - "thought" is the main word here. By the way, in example, that was reminded by Marvin L. French, there were no pause for "thought"... What remained not so clear for me - why you, David, have rather contrary position in mistakes, made during card-play?:)) Wrongly named card rather should not be substituted if it connects with change of intentions. And one can "act as Bridge Lawyers, ie always trying to see whether they can get anything from the TD" - trying to correct their card- -play-mistake:)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 03:37:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 03:37:25 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28550 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 03:37:17 +1000 Received: from default (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA09239 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:37:08 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803171737.SAA09239@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:37:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael issued this challenge: > I still fail to see why this should be a UK (or EBU) interpretation > only. > > If some other country has made a differing interpretation to it's > members, then let them now speak out or remain forever silent. DBF (Denmark) has not made any attempt at interpreting the new L27 to its directors. We reserve the right to do so whenever and however we please. We do not have a tradition for offering interpretations before there has been a case showing the need for one. By the way, keeping me silent has been tried in vain since I learned to talk in 1952. -- Jens og Bodil, hjemme http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 03:37:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 03:37:27 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28551 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 03:37:20 +1000 Received: from default (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA09242 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:37:10 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803171737.SAA09242@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:37:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson asked > Jens & Bodil wrote: > >I suppose that my opinion boils down often to liking simple, > >understandable rules better than complicated, ostensibly fairer ones. > > Why fairer? I don't equate "fairer" with "ostensibly fairer". Neither, it seems, do my English dictionaries. Shall we step outside, i.e. to alt.usage.english, and fight? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 03:50:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 03:50:18 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA28642 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 03:50:12 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017962; 17 Mar 98 16:49 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:49:38 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:49:38 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson [SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 9:52 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and > BLML. > > Jens & Bodil wrote: > > >Thus I would be willing to live with L25B in this version: > > > > Except where Section A applies, a legal call may not be changed. > > If a player attempts to change a call anyway, the change is > > canceled, L16C applies to the attempted change, and the lead > > penalties in L26 may apply. > > I like this. > > > ####### So do I. ######### > > >I suppose that my opinion boils down often to liking simple, > >understandable rules better than complicated, ostensibly fairer ones. > > Why fairer? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + > )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 04:39:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:39:12 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28900 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 04:39:04 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2733.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.51]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id SAA05235 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:38:56 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:36:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd51d3$a2049300$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 have spent a lot of time reading this thread and trying to come to grips with it. I think I understand.,.but I have not come to terms with the original Leeds Swiss Teams question. 1NT-P-P-1C(2C conv)- P. Does the fact that opener has called make any difference to the current EBU instruction that the 2C correction can be withdrawn after the offender has heard his options under Law 10C1. i.e. LHO can accept the insufficient bid, but he may not the correction? Are we agreed that David was right ( within the terms of the current EBU interpretation) and that having called the opener had accepted the insufficient bid. -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only >David Stevenson finally managed to make some sense in this debate : >> >> The current interpretation promulgated by the EBU to its TDs is as >> follows. >> >> If there has been a premature correction then L25B does not apply [per >> footnote]. If the next player does not wish to accept the original >> insufficient bid under L27A then L27B applies. If the premature >> correction is >> >> [a] to the first legal level, and it is natural, and the insufficient >> bid is natural, then L27B1 applies to this correction, which stands >> >> [b] a double or redouble, then L27B3 applies to this correction, which >> stands until the provisions of L27B3 are applied >> >> [c] otherwise, then L27B2 applies to this correction, which may be >> withdrawn and re-corrected when the player realises all his options, >> this being the interpretation of the positioning of the words "apply Law >> 10C1" in this Law. >> > >This seems to me a correct interpretation. > >Before I wish to state this is THE correct interpretation, I would like >to hear a conflicting possibility. > >I still fail to see why this should be a UK (or EBU) interpretation >only. > >If some other country has made a differing interpretation to it's >members, then let them now speak out or remain forever silent. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 05:07:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:07:57 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA29051 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:07:48 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028290; 17 Mar 98 18:52 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:31:38 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:31:37 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson [SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 9:18 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > David Martin wrote: > >Maddog writes: > > >> ######OLD#### Given my original position, I would until Gratten's > recent > >> postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his > options > >> and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, following > >> Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) or > any > >> pronouncement from Lisle, I will rule that offender is stuck with > his > >> 3H bid and his partner silenced.#####OLD##### > > The current interpretation promulgated by the EBU to its TDs is as > follows. > > If there has been a premature correction then L25B does not apply > [per > footnote]. If the next player does not wish to accept the original > insufficient bid under L27A then L27B applies. If the premature > correction is > > [a] to the first legal level, and it is natural, and the insufficient > bid is natural, then L27B1 applies to this correction, which stands > > [b] a double or redouble, then L27B3 applies to this correction, which > stands until the provisions of L27B3 are applied > > [c] otherwise, then L27B2 applies to this correction, which may be > withdrawn and re-corrected when the player realises all his options, > this being the interpretation of the positioning of the words "apply > Law > 10C1" in this Law. > > > ####### I think that the above is exactly what I indicated in my > previous posting was the official EBU position? It is also what I > *would wish* to be the position as it seems to me to be the most > sensible interpretation of the Law as written. ######### > > This was promulgated via the Panel TD training course, attended by > Messrs Bavin, Endicott, Stevenson, and it stands for EBU TDs until the > interpretation is changed for them and that fact told to them. This > has not yet occurred. > > ####### The panel TD training course was also attended by Steve > Barnfield & myself and was the source for my statement of the EBU's > position as I understood it. However, not all EBU TDs attended that > course and, to the best of my knowledge, no formal position paper was > distributed to the rest of the Panel summarising the official > interpretations that were reached on the course. Therefore, it is > dangerous to use such a course as a vehicle for official promulgation > of interpretations. ######### > > Of course the EBU has taken notice of Grattan's opinion but a > statement by him on BLML does not immediately change the EBU's > promulgated opinion. It will be considered. > > > ######### If Grattan is merely expressing a personal *opinion* then I > would agree with you but if I have understood Grattan's postings > correctly then he is stating the WBF Laws Committee's *official > interpretation* of the Law which must surely carry the *full force of > Law* and be *immediately effective* unless they indicate otherwise, > ie. it *is* the Law. If so, then surly *all* TDs worldwide are duty > bound to accept and implement it immediately once they have become > aware of it? For clarity, I have pasted below the relevant parts of > Grattan's recent postings on this topic that I have in mind. > ######### > > ########## PARAS BELOW INSERTED FROM GRATTAN'S PREVIOUS POSTINGS > ######### > > But where I have knowledge that the drafting body *and* the full WBF > Laws Committee have clearly agreed on a change *and* the effect > it will have, this is not only a change but also an *interpretation* > of the > law. Such is the case with the deletion from Law 27 - it was done to > establish that under the 97 laws the substituted call is *not* > cancelled > and the Laws Committee agreed that position, and that if the LHO does > not wish to accept the insufficient bid under 27A (as is his right) he > can > accept the substitute bid and this purpose was enunciated so clearly > that it cannot reasonably be suggested the Committee has failed to > prescribe the interpretation. #### Grattan #### > > > ####### AND ########## > > > No statement about acceptance is necessary where the player has > decided, > albeit prematurely, his action; as now worded the law makes no > provision for remission of a premature action. (This is the point that > needs to be grasped by those who are failing to see how the law now > hangs together....and what ain't there aren't part of the > game;................. > > ######### END OF INSERT ############## > > Note: how do interpretations get promulgated in the EBU? > [1] Via EBU Panel TD weekends > [2] Via L&EC minutes > [3] By word of mouth from the Chief TD [Max Bavin] > > > ########### Agreed, but the question here is are we talking about > NCBO interpretations of ambiguous parts of the Law or, since the WBF > Laws Commision *has spoken officially* via Grattan, actual Law? Also, > I would venture to suggest that the only legitimate routes for the > promulgation of official EBU interpretations should be (2) above (L&EC > minutes) together with published regulations (eg. in the EBU TDs > Guide) as the L&EC is the National Authority and the other two routes > may not reliably ensure that all panel TDs are informed. > ############# > > >> Foreign Nationals are invited to join in with Cheers Boos and > Catcalls > >> but I'd *really* like to get the UK TD views here > > UK? I have given you the EBU approach. The WBU approach is to > follow > English interpretations unless their CTD or L&EC say otherwise, and > they > are not doing so at the moment. I cannot answer for the SBU, though > they rarely disagree with EBU interpretations. I regret I have no > contact with the NIBU. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + > )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 05:31:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:31:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA29194 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:31:34 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028306; 17 Mar 98 18:52 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:38:38 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:38:36 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > [SMTP:Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 8:32 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > David Stevenson wrote: > > >David Martin wrote: > >>Maddog writes: > > >>> ########## Given my original position, I would until Gratten's > recent > >>> postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his > options > >>> and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, > following > >>> Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) or > any > >>> pronouncement from Lisle, I will rule that offender is stuck with > his > >>> 3H bid and his partner silenced.########## > > No: this would not be the way an EBU TD should rule if he or she > wished to > follow the guidance which has been provided. > > ######## Agreed. But what if the guidance is at variance the WBF Laws > Committee's official interpretation? ########## > > > The current interpretation promulgated by the EBU to its TDs is as > >follows. > > > If there has been a premature correction then L25B does not apply > [per > >footnote]. If the next player does not wish to accept the original > >insufficient bid under L27A then L27B applies. If the premature > >correction is > > > >[a] to the first legal level, and it is natural, and the insufficient > >bid is natural, then L27B1 applies to this correction, which stands > > > >[b] a double or redouble, then L27B3 applies to this correction, > which > >stands until the provisions of L27B3 are applied > > > >[c] otherwise, then L27B2 applies to this correction, which may be > >withdrawn and re-corrected when the player realises all his options, > >this being the interpretation of the positioning of the words "apply > Law > >10C1" in this Law. > > > > This was promulgated via the Panel TD training course, attended by > >Messrs Bavin, Endicott, Stevenson, and it stands for EBU TDs until > the > >interpretation is changed for them and that fact told to them. This > >has not yet occurred. > > > > Of course the EBU has taken notice of Grattan's opinion but a > >statement by him on BLML does not immediately change the EBU's > >promulgated opinion. It will be considered. > > I agree. No doubt the matter will be reconsidered following the next > meeting > of the WBF Laws Committee, but I think that is not for a few months > yet. > > > ######### The issue here is whether this is Grattan's *personal* > opinion or an *official statement of Law* from the WBF. If it is the > latter, then what is there to consider? ######## > > > Can anyone remind me what ACBL TDs have been told? > > Steve Barnfield > Tunbridge Wells, England From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 07:47:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:47:30 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA29691 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:47:23 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA01579 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:47:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06235; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:47:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:47:26 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803172147.QAA06235@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Martin > > ######### If Grattan is merely expressing a personal *opinion* then I > > would agree with you but if I have understood Grattan's postings > > correctly then he is stating the WBF Laws Committee's *official > > interpretation* of the Law which must surely carry the *full force of > > Law* and be *immediately effective* unless they indicate otherwise, > > ie. it *is* the Law. This raises an interesting question. Is an official interpretation to be accepted no matter how it is distributed? Or is it accepted only if distributed by official channels? If the former, do we need some means to authenticate the sender of the interpretation and that it is indeed official? Email headers are reasonably easy to fake. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 08:04:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:04:30 +1000 Received: from nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au (nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au [147.109.36.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29715 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:04:24 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:04:47 +1100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:04:36 +1100 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Introduction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings all, My name is Simon Edler and I live in Hobart, capital city of the state of = Tasmania in Australia. I have been a =22lurker=22 on BLML for quite a few = months now, mainly to pick up a feel for how the new laws were being = applied, since Australia did not adopt them until 1st January 1998. The early part of this year has certainly turned theory into practice - a = week at the Australian Summer Festival of Bridge, one of Tasmania=27s = major Pairs Congress and the first weekend of our State Teams Trials has = kept me busy (I seem to remember my =22real=22 job is a Computer Systems = Analyst with Forestry Tasmania=21). I should probably mention that I, or rather my family, is owned by a cat = named Incy (as in Incy Wincy Spider). She was obtained through fraud and = deception - I came home from work to find this kitten at home to be told = =22She is on loan, you can take her back if you want=22=21=21 Better go and do some work now :) Regards, Simon Edler, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 08:37:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:37:11 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29780 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:37:05 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1017041; 17 Mar 98 21:58 GMT Message-ID: <2zp8AGBa3uD1Ewwz@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:40:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Exposed cards In-Reply-To: <3qc+ONEwwnD1EwAO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3qc+ONEwwnD1EwAO@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote: >>Anne Jones wrote: >>> >>> I think that Law49 does indeed apply. Offender had not chosen a lead so >>> can hardly be asked which card he intended to lead. I would rule >>> Law50D1, that he had two or more exposed cards and would allow declarer >>> to designate which one is to be played. >>> I think Law 58B is intended to cover the instance where a player makes a >>> concious decision to lead or play a card and accidentally plays more >>> than one. >> >>Maybe L58B is intended for that, but that does not get away with what it >>will be used for. >> >>If L45 determines this to be a "lead" (as IMHO it does) then L58B shall >>be applied. >> >>Please people, Robin stated the correct question, so direct your >>comments to the correct problem : Is this case a lead as defined in L48 >>or not ? >> > I think a lead has to be a conscious decision. It is defined as the >first card played to a trick. Thus a card being exposed with no >intention to lead is not a lead: after all it is not *played to a >trick*. > > While L45E does not cover the current situation if you read it I think >you see the Laws' approach: the Director has to ascertain whether a card >is led, so this shows that a card is not led automatically because it >has been exposed. > Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhh! I concur. John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |181 980 4947 London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 10:59:38 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:59:38 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA00300 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:59:33 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2722.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.27.34]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA02991 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:59:27 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:59:25 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd5209$186e3160$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 am not yet sufficiently educated to know how things "netwise" can be fixed, but I understand the Mr Endicott is a subscriber. Surely he would have had something to say if the original posting was not his! Anne -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 10:57 PM Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only >> From: David Martin >> > ######### If Grattan is merely expressing a personal *opinion* then I >> > would agree with you but if I have understood Grattan's postings >> > correctly then he is stating the WBF Laws Committee's *official >> > interpretation* of the Law which must surely carry the *full force of >> > Law* and be *immediately effective* unless they indicate otherwise, >> > ie. it *is* the Law. > >This raises an interesting question. Is an official interpretation >to be accepted no matter how it is distributed? Or is it accepted >only if distributed by official channels? > >If the former, do we need some means to authenticate the sender of the >interpretation and that it is indeed official? Email headers are >reasonably easy to fake. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 13:38:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:38:42 +1000 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 NAA00588 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:38:34 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-121-141.s141.tnt15.brd.erols.com [207.172.121.141]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA02957 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:38:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980317223912.00811300@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:39:12 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: 10 seconds?? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980316113031.006e6740@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the Jan/Feb 1998 issue of the Washington Bridge League Bulletin, Rich Colker analyzed a NABC committee action that he participated in, and concluded that his original ruling was wrong. The original ruling was a common one- a bid was reversed by the AC due to a hesitation. I won't write out the whole situation, but one of his comments has profound implications for hesitation rulings, should his point of view become more widespread: "... By making the ruling it did the Committee, in my opinion, failed to afford North sufficient time to consider West's action. Twenty seconds or so is not too long to allow, given the highly unusual nature of the 6H bid. Players should be afforded an appropriate (varying) amount of time to consider their actions following any highly unusual bid. The allowance must be sufficient for the information processing load imposed by the actual auction. A flat 10 seconds is just too restrictive, especially considering that the usual 10 second interval often turns out to be closer to 3-5 seconds..." Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 14:40:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:40:34 +1000 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 OAA00735 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:40:30 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p50.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.202]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA22661 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:40:24 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318101217.006e56fc@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:12:17 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980316113031.006e6740@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:25 17/03/98 +0000, you wrote: >Reg Busch wrote: >>Accepting that a premature correction of an insufficient bid may not be >>cancelled by the Director, consider this situation: Spades are the agreed >>suit. 4NT (Blackwood) - 4H corrected prematurely to 5H. The 5H cannot be >>cancelled, partner is barred and the side are now committed to playing 5H >>in their 2-2 fit. >> >>Law 25 has not yet been applied. Should we not, in the spirit of Law 25 (as >>described recently by Ton Kooijman), now advise the offender that he may >>make a deliberate change of call to a spade contract, but at the price of >>getting no better than a 40% score (which would certainly be better than >>his likely 0% score.)? > > The footnote to L25B steers you away from L25 to L27. I believe that >you may not use L25B for an insufficient bid for this reason. >Otherwise, what would be the point of the footnote? > We have already eschewed Law 25. We have told the offender that (under Law 27)his 5H bid stands and the consequences of this. The 5H bid is not insufficient, so Law 27 no longer applies. Law 25 now gives a player the right to deliberately change his call, but at a price. As recently described on BLML, the philosophy underlying Law 25B is that a pair should not be committed to playing in a ridiculous contract e.g. where a player passes partner's splinter or cue bid. Whether we agree with this or not, that is the intention of the Law. Are we to deprive the player who, perhaps in ignorance of the laws, prematurely corrects his insufficient bid of the same rights as has a player who passes partner's cue bid? Or, for that matter, a player in any other situation who has made a major error and decides that 40% is better than nothing (provided of course that LHO has not called)? We have ruled under Law 27 on the 4H bid, and offender's bid is now 5H. I can see no reason why we cannot now apply 25B, and give the offender the same rights as all other players enjoy under that Law. Reg Busch. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 15:08:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:08:23 +1000 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 PAA00773 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:08:19 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (port14.ana.hare.net.au [203.55.88.81]) by oznet07.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA14346; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:08:07 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:08:07 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199803180508.QAA14346@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: Reg Busch From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:12 AM 18/03/1998 +1000, you wrote: >At 13:25 17/03/98 +0000, you wrote: >>Reg Busch wrote: >>>Accepting that a premature correction of an insufficient bid may not be >>>cancelled by the Director, consider this situation: Spades are the agreed >>>suit. 4NT (Blackwood) - 4H corrected prematurely to 5H. The 5H cannot be >>>cancelled, partner is barred and the side are now committed to playing 5H >>>in their 2-2 fit. Call me soft, but I would like to give the "offenders" a chance to try to convince me that the 4H bid was inadvertent, and the correction to 5H was made without pause for (bridge) thought. Tony From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 20:29:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:29:18 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA01336 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:29:12 +1000 Received: from default (client82c8.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.200]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA30199; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:29:02 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:30:39 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd5258$e5d9d560$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 March 1998 09:39 Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only >David Stevenson wrote: > >>David Martin wrote: >>>Maddog writes: > >>>> ########## Given my original position, I would until Gratten's recent >>>> postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his options >>>> and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, following >>>> Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) >>>> \x/ \x/-much snipping-\x/ \x/ #### I am disappointed to find anyone using the correspondence on BLML as a source of instruction on the procedure of the TD. This must always come from the NBO or the SO - often one and the same. BLML is not a decision making body; it is an Exchange where there is discussion and the provision of information. What I gave concerning Law 27 was (accurate) information as to the effect of the change as EK had proposed it and the WBFLC had adopted it, giving it in support of the position of the NZ Federation which evidently had sight of papers from Edgar. I did not suggest that any SO should do anything in particular about it, except perhaps to be aware of what was done and to what end. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 21:28:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:28:35 +1000 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 VAA01613 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:28:29 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-76.uunet.be [194.7.13.76]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA11940 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:28:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <350EB4BD.93264063@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:37:01 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Exposed cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199803171528.KAA24183@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > Herman De Wael writes: > > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> > >> > From: Robin Barker > >> > >> > At the weekend, I had a situation where the opening leader > >> > put three spades (face up) on the table at the end of the auction. > >> > She thought she was dummy and had not intended to lead the cards. > > >> If your last sentence is your determination of fact (no intention to > >> lead), you first need to look at L17E, which will tell you that the > >> auction period has not ended. Exposed cards at this time are treated > >> by L24. All three cards become penalty cards, and we go to L50 and > >> L51. Declarer gets to choose which card is to be played any time > >> playing a spade is legal for that defender; this includes the opening > >> lead. > > > The above is only true if we believe that the intention of leading is > > needed for a card to be considered led. > > > However, L45 has no mention whatsoever of intention, so the simple > > showing of the cards is in fact the act of leading. > > > And so Steve's analysis of going first to L24 is IMHO incorrect. > > There must be a distinction, because Law 24 itself makes one in a > different situation. There is no penalty other than UI and a minor > penalty card if a low card is exposed during the auction, provided that > the card was not prematurely led. > This is only another face of the same problem. In L24 also, the word lead (led) is used and when we look at the definition, we find lead = first card played and what is the definition of played : L45A or not ? (other examples snipped : same problem) Where is the deliberateness defined in "played". The definition does not really help : play : 1. the contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead. If we read this "contribution" as being deliberate, then we solve Robin's original problem, but we cannot : every time I drop a card, luckily in the correct suit, I could state it was not deliberate. Wrong you say : see L45A. I want to take a trick with the ace, but the two drops from my hand. You rule minor penalty card, allow me to take the ace. You say that the two is "exposed", but has not been "faced". I say, correct, but now we are talking deliberate "facing". Putting your cards on the table with the intent of becoming dummy is also deliberate facing. Hence "played" as in L45A. I am still not convinced this is the correct ruling (although I don't see why it should not be), but I still don't find anything else. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 21:28:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:28:33 +1000 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 VAA01612 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:28:26 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-76.uunet.be [194.7.13.76]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA11936 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 12:28:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <350EB206.751E8D4F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:25:26 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Exposed cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3qc+ONEwwnD1EwAO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> > >> I think that Law49 does indeed apply. Offender had not chosen a lead so > >> can hardly be asked which card he intended to lead. I would rule > >> Law50D1, that he had two or more exposed cards and would allow declarer > >> to designate which one is to be played. > >> I think Law 58B is intended to cover the instance where a player makes a > >> concious decision to lead or play a card and accidentally plays more > >> than one. > > > >Maybe L58B is intended for that, but that does not get away with what it > >will be used for. > > > >If L45 determines this to be a "lead" (as IMHO it does) then L58B shall > >be applied. > > > >Please people, Robin stated the correct question, so direct your > >comments to the correct problem : Is this case a lead as defined in L48 > >or not ? > > > I think a lead has to be a conscious decision. It is defined as the > first card played to a trick. Thus a card being exposed with no > intention to lead is not a lead: after all it is not *played to a > trick*. > > While L45E does not cover the current situation if you read it I think > you see the Laws' approach: the Director has to ascertain whether a card > is led, so this shows that a card is not led automatically because it > has been exposed. > Come on David, you of all people ! RTFLB Where do you find any other definition of lead than "first card played to a trick". Your argument might hold for a fifth card present open on the table, but after four cards are turned, L45E would not hold, and any card "faced" as in L45A becomes a played card and hence the led card. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 22:58:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:58:31 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01854 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:58:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009592; 18 Mar 98 12:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:45:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: >> This was promulgated via the Panel TD training course, attended by >> Messrs Bavin, Endicott, Stevenson, and it stands for EBU TDs until the >> interpretation is changed for them and that fact told to them. This >> has not yet occurred. >> >> ####### The panel TD training course was also attended by Steve >> Barnfield & myself and was the source for my statement of the EBU's >> position as I understood it. However, not all EBU TDs attended that >> course and, to the best of my knowledge, no formal position paper was >> distributed to the rest of the Panel summarising the official >> interpretations that were reached on the course. Therefore, it is >> dangerous to use such a course as a vehicle for official promulgation >> of interpretations. ######### The English Bridge Union has evolved methods of organising, training and controlling TDs. I am extremely surprised that you think the method dangerous. You are suggesting replacing their training courses with pieces of paper. Since the EBU has relied on training courses, and been prepared to spend a lot of money on them, the knowledge of the individual Directors has leapt forward. Their understanding of the Laws is excellent for such a diverse group of people. In my view the way to teach Directors interpretations is through discussion, seminars and simulated practice and not through sending out pieces of paper. It is a view apparently shared by the powers of the EBU. >> Of course the EBU has taken notice of Grattan's opinion but a >> statement by him on BLML does not immediately change the EBU's >> promulgated opinion. It will be considered. >> >> >> ######### If Grattan is merely expressing a personal *opinion* then I >> would agree with you but if I have understood Grattan's postings >> correctly then he is stating the WBF Laws Committee's *official >> interpretation* of the Law which must surely carry the *full force of >> Law* and be *immediately effective* unless they indicate otherwise, >> ie. it *is* the Law. If so, then surly *all* TDs worldwide are duty >> bound to accept and implement it immediately once they have become >> aware of it? For clarity, I have pasted below the relevant parts of >> Grattan's recent postings on this topic that I have in mind. >> ######### Grattan has not stated an *EBU* interpretation. Furthermore he has not claimed that the WBFLC laid this down as an official interpretation. What he said was that he knows what the Committee's intent was when they drafted the Law, and in his opinion that this should therefore be the interpretation. Possibly at Lille the WBFLC will change this Law, or add a rider and *then* it will become part of the Laws of the game but it has not reached that point yet. Consider a possible case. Suppose that what I call the three-trick penalty was not what the Committee intended. [I mean that where a player asks "having none?" in Europe you now get a Major Penalty card, which is often worth a trick, and a revoke penalty, which will sometimes be worth two tricks.] If that is the case, and Grattan were to say so, would this mean we do not follow the letter of that Law? Of course not. I think you may be confusing the Legislative with the Executive. Law- makers create Laws. They do not interpret them usually [I am told by a correspondent that usually is a "Weasel word", to be ignored: I trust you will not do so]. If they think that something is going wrong in the use of a Law, their main recourse is to change it. Can they force an "official interpretation" on us? Of course, if the WBFLC hands down a ruling and the WBF executive accepts it, then it has the force of Law. They did so at Hammamet over the Definition of Convention and one other item that escapes me for the moment [Concessions perhaps?]. However, they have not yet done so in this Law 27 matter. All we have been told is what they intended. >> Note: how do interpretations get promulgated in the EBU? >> [1] Via EBU Panel TD weekends >> [2] Via L&EC minutes >> [3] By word of mouth from the Chief TD [Max Bavin] >> >> >> ########### Agreed, but the question here is are we talking about >> NCBO interpretations of ambiguous parts of the Law or, since the WBF >> Laws Commision *has spoken officially* via Grattan, actual Law? Also, >> I would venture to suggest that the only legitimate routes for the >> promulgation of official EBU interpretations should be (2) above (L&EC >> minutes) together with published regulations (eg. in the EBU TDs >> Guide) as the L&EC is the National Authority and the other two routes >> may not reliably ensure that all panel TDs are informed. >> ############# Your comments are noted with sadness. The EBU has an excellent record in keeping Directors up to speed, and your mehod would destroy that. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 23:38:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:38:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01976 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:37:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1001858; 18 Mar 98 13:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:15:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Exposed cards In-Reply-To: <350EB206.751E8D4F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Come on David, you of all people ! > >RTFLB > >Where do you find any other definition of lead than "first card played >to a trick". > >Your argument might hold for a fifth card present open on the table, but >after four cards are turned, L45E would not hold, and any card "faced" >as in L45A becomes a played card and hence the led card. > Yes? So? That is what I said: with five cards on the table the TD has to judge whether one of them was led: the Laws say so. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 18 23:38:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:38:52 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA01992 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 23:38:47 +1000 Received: from default (client82e3.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.82.227]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA23432; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:38:36 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:28:08 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd5271$b0b25060$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 17 March 1998 15:25 Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction >Reg Busch wrote: >>Accepting that a premature correction of an insufficient bid may not be >>cancelled by the Director> \x/ \x/ \x/ > The footnote to L25B steers you away from L25 to L27. I believe that >you may not use L25B for an insufficient bid for this reason. >Otherwise, what would be the point of the footnote? > > #### The footnote was born in North America. I do not know the route by which ACBL concluded that the Director ought to go direct to Law 27 (27B as they had it originally, but since amended by the WBFLC to take in the whole of Law 27). However, it is quite right that L25B is not for use in this situation. Reg Busch is probably right about 'the spirit' but the spirit does not always move us. #### Grattan #### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 00:29:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:29:21 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA04447 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:29:16 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb185.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.185]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA09386 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:29:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318092916.006dc530@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:29:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <199803171659.LAA06065@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:59 AM 3/17/98 -0500, you wrote: >I'll have a comment, but I want to be sure what you mean. > >> Consider two cases: >> a) KJTxxx, xx, Qxx, Kx >> b) xxx, KJTxxx, Qx, xx >> >> Partner opens 1NT, RHO passes, and with both holdings you respond 2H. >> Partner duly advises "Transfer", and bids 2S. >> >> It is my position that the Laws provide no basis for distinguishing between >> these two situations. > >Does "these two situations" mean hands a and b? Or does it mean >between a psych and an accidental misbid on hand b? > As between hands a) and b). Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 00:59:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:59:41 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA04553 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:59:36 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1001299; 18 Mar 98 13:18 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:19:44 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:19:42 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu [SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 9:47 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > > From: David Martin > > > ######### If Grattan is merely expressing a personal *opinion* > then I > > > would agree with you but if I have understood Grattan's postings > > > correctly then he is stating the WBF Laws Committee's *official > > > interpretation* of the Law which must surely carry the *full force > of > > > Law* and be *immediately effective* unless they indicate > otherwise, > > > ie. it *is* the Law. > > This raises an interesting question. Is an official interpretation > to be accepted no matter how it is distributed? Or is it accepted > only if distributed by official channels? > > If the former, do we need some means to authenticate the sender of the > interpretation and that it is indeed official? Email headers are > reasonably easy to fake. > > ########### I am sure that the real Grattan would have stepped in > smartish and let us know if some interloper had faked his E-mail > header. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 01:31:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:31:42 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04641 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:31:34 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA18467 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:31:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06748; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:31:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:31:41 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803181531.KAA06748@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Reg Busch > I can see no reason why we cannot now apply 25B, Look at L25B2b, which starts "if the first call was legal...." Whether you think this is fair or logical or not, the language is clear. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 01:38:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:38:35 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04673 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:38:30 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA18558 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:38:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06756; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:38:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:38:36 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803181538.KAA06756@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > To: Reg Busch > Call me soft, but I would like to give the "offenders" a chance to try to > convince me that the 4H bid was inadvertent, and the correction to 5H was > made without pause for (bridge) thought. This is hardly "soft;" it is a mandatory part of the investigation process. In the case cited (four-level response to Blackwood), I'd expect a no-penalty correction under L25A most of the time. (I predict David S. will agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 02:04:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 02:04:35 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04925 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 02:04:29 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA18718 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:04:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06778; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:04:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:04:34 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803181604.LAA06778@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > a) KJTxxx, xx, Qxx, Kx > b) xxx, KJTxxx, Qx, xx > > Partner opens 1NT, RHO passes, and with both holdings you respond 2H. > Partner duly advises "Transfer", and bids 2S. > > It is my position that the Laws provide no basis for distinguishing between > these two situations. Of course the Laws distinguish between them. Logical alternatives and "suggested over another" are completely different in the two cases. This is both because the hands differ and because the imputed bidding system is different in the two cases. (Do I really need to spell it out? The imputed bidding system in each case is one in which the 2H bid was correct.) Michael's underlying argument is sound; there is no need to weaken it with straw man "examples." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 02:25:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 02:25:25 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05057 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 02:25:20 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA19074 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:25:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06796; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:25:21 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:25:21 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803181625.LAA06796@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > I am not yet sufficiently educated to know how things "netwise" can be > fixed, but I understand the Mr Endicott is a subscriber. Surely he would > have had something to say if the original posting was not his! An entity who claims to be Mr. Endicott is a subscriber; there is no simple way for anyone at a distance to verify that it is he or that any specific message really comes from his account at all. It would be reasonably easy to send a message to all BLML subscribers except "Mr. Endicott." Now I don't believe for a second that anything underhanded is going on or is ever likely to, but the technical possibility exists. There are also technical solutions if it is ever worth the trouble of implementing them. All the above may be amusing, but the serious questions are: 1) What happens if the written language of a Law is inconsistent with the known intent of the writers? 2) Are official interpretations promulgated only via official channels or by any medium that happens to exist? BLML? The daily newspaper? A conversation in the bar? How in practice is a working TD expected to learn of an official interpretation? (All the above might have been written by my cat. Or by someone else's cat. If I had a cat. Which I don't. But how could you tell?) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 02:35:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 02:35:19 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA05090 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 02:35:14 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA18636 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:35:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06807; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:35:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:35:20 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803181635.LAA06807@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Exposed cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Where do you find any other definition of lead than "first card played > to a trick". The question hinges on when a card is played. When it "must be played" (e.g. L45C1), is it already played? Of course not. Consider the case where dummy has a singleton in the suit led. Everybody can see that the card must be played eventually, but it is not in fact played until declarer calls for it. So "must be played" (some time in the future) cannot be equated with "has already been played." Accidentally exposing one or more cards (by a defender) incurs penalties and will (eventually) force play of the exposed cards, but it is not the same thing as playing those cards. We have only to consider what happens if declarer does the same thing. Would anyone decide that declarer's cards are played? L45A defines correct procedure for playing a card and has nothing to do with the question of when a card is considered played. The rest of L45 is more relevant. Good grief! Steve agreeing with David! What is the world coming to? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 03:39:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 03:39:00 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA05421 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 03:38:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2011171; 18 Mar 98 16:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:28:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27:Premature correction In-Reply-To: <199803181538.KAA06756@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> To: Reg Busch >> Call me soft, but I would like to give the "offenders" a chance to try to >> convince me that the 4H bid was inadvertent, and the correction to 5H was >> made without pause for (bridge) thought. > >This is hardly "soft;" it is a mandatory part of the investigation >process. In the case cited (four-level response to Blackwood), I'd >expect a no-penalty correction under L25A most of the time. > >(I predict David S. will agree with the first sentence and disagree >with the second.) Wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 04:09:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:09:29 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA05615 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:09:15 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:09:05 GMT Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 18:09:04 GMT Message-Id: <1396.9803181809@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Exposed cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > L45A defines correct procedure for playing a card and has nothing to do > with the question of when a card is considered played. The rest of L45 > is more relevant. > > Good grief! Steve agreeing with David! What is the world coming to? > I think this is the crux of the matter. L45A defines how a card is played, we must look elsewhere to determine that a card has been played. Finding no answer, we fall back on intent (which is used elsewhere). So I have to agree with Steve (x2) and David, that a card can (even deliberately) be exposed at that player's turn to play without being played. Normally: deliberate exposure at turn to play without playing => penalty card => will be played. But in my example, we see two wrinkles: 1) Deliberate exposure at turn to play without playing as opening leader does not end the auction period. 2) Deliberate exposure at turn to play without playing playing more than one card => L49, not L58B => declarer chooses card to be played. 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 Mar 19 04:45:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:45:50 +1000 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 EAA05934 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:45:44 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb213.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.213]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA08058 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:45:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318134537.006ddd04@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:45:37 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <199803181604.LAA06778@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:04 AM 3/18/98 -0500, you wrote: >> From: "Michael S. Dennis" > >> a) KJTxxx, xx, Qxx, Kx >> b) xxx, KJTxxx, Qx, xx >> >> Partner opens 1NT, RHO passes, and with both holdings you respond 2H. >> Partner duly advises "Transfer", and bids 2S. >> >> It is my position that the Laws provide no basis for distinguishing between >> these two situations. > >Of course the Laws distinguish between them. Logical alternatives and >"suggested over another" are completely different in the two cases. >This is both because the hands differ and because the imputed bidding >system is different in the two cases. > >(Do I really need to spell it out? The imputed bidding system in each >case is one in which the 2H bid was correct.) > I don't mean to sound dense, and perhaps this concept ("imputed bidding system") has been defined elsewhere. But what do you mean by this phrase, and what reference either in the Laws or related material can you cite to tie it back to L16? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 04:46:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:46:58 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA05954 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 04:46:47 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1010564; 18 Mar 98 18:41 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:42:23 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:42:20 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson [SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 11:45 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > David Martin wrote: > >DWS wrote: > > >> This was promulgated via the Panel TD training course, attended > by > >> Messrs Bavin, Endicott, Stevenson, and it stands for EBU TDs until > the > >> interpretation is changed for them and that fact told to them. > This > >> has not yet occurred. > >> > >> ####OLD### The panel TD training course was also attended by Steve > >> Barnfield & myself and was the source for my statement of the EBU's > >> position as I understood it. However, not all EBU TDs attended > that > >> course and, to the best of my knowledge, no formal position paper > was > >> distributed to the rest of the Panel summarising the official > >> interpretations that were reached on the course. Therefore, it is > >> dangerous to use such a course as a vehicle for official > promulgation > >> of interpretations. #####OLD#### > > The English Bridge Union has evolved methods of organising, training > and controlling TDs. I am extremely surprised that you think the > method > dangerous. You are suggesting replacing their training courses with > pieces of paper. > > ########## Certainly not! I have not said that this method is > dangerous for *organising, training or controlling TDs*. I think that > all of the EBU training courses that I have attended have been truely > excellent. However, Panel TD courses only occur twice each year and > each TD normally only attends one of them which limits the frequency > with which updates can issued. Also, if everything is verbal and > relies purely on memory then what is a TD expected to do 6 months > later when he can't remember exactly what was agreed in some complex > situation, or even worse, when he is challenged politely by a player > to justify that his interpretation is correct as it is alleged that > the EBU's position has changed? All I am saying is that > interpretations agreed on such courses should be formally promulgated > in some written form, eg. L&EC minutes or EBU regulations, that can be > referred to later by anyone and especially by people who were not > present on the particular Panel course. ######## > > Since the EBU has relied on training courses, and been prepared to > spend a lot of money on them, the knowledge of the individual > Directors > has leapt forward. Their understanding of the Laws is excellent for > such a diverse group of people. In my view the way to teach Directors > interpretations is through discussion, seminars and simulated practice > and not through sending out pieces of paper. It is a view apparently > shared by the powers of the EBU. > > > ######## And I have *not* disagreed in any way whatsoever with your > statements above. ######### > > >> Of course the EBU has taken notice of Grattan's opinion but a > >> statement by him on BLML does not immediately change the EBU's > >> promulgated opinion. It will be considered. > >> > >> > >> #####OLD#### If Grattan is merely expressing a personal *opinion* > then I > >> would agree with you but if I have understood Grattan's postings > >> correctly then he is stating the WBF Laws Committee's *official > >> interpretation* of the Law which must surely carry the *full force > of > >> Law* and be *immediately effective* unless they indicate otherwise, > >> ie. it *is* the Law. If so, then surly *all* TDs worldwide are > duty > >> bound to accept and implement it immediately once they have become > >> aware of it? For clarity, I have pasted below the relevant parts > of > >> Grattan's recent postings on this topic that I have in mind. > >> #####OLD#### > > Grattan has not stated an *EBU* interpretation. > > ####### Agreed. ######## > > Furthermore he has not claimed that the WBFLC laid this down as an > official interpretation. > What he said was that he knows what the Committee's intent was when > they > drafted the Law, and in his opinion that this should therefore be the > interpretation. > > ######## Here we part company. If I quote some more of Grattan's > words below ####### > > > ###GRATTAN'S TEXT####### > > But where I have knowledge that the drafting body *and* the full WBF > Laws Committee have clearly agreed on a change *and* the effect > it will have, this is not only a change but also an *interpretation* > of the > law. Such is the case with the deletion from Law 27 > > ######END OF GRATTEN'S TEXT ######### > > ######### This sounds very much like an *official interpretation* of > Law to me. ############# > > > Possibly at Lille the WBFLC will change this Law, or > add a rider and *then* it will become part of the Laws of the game but > it has not reached that point yet. > > ######### When does an official interpretation come into being? If > word of mouth (eg from the EBU CTD) is good enough for the EBU then > why isn't word of mouth/E-mail good enough for the WBF? ######### > > Consider a possible case. Suppose that what I call the three-trick > penalty was not what the Committee intended. [I mean that where a > player asks "having none?" in Europe you now get a Major Penalty card, > which is often worth a trick, and a revoke penalty, which will > sometimes > be worth two tricks.] If that is the case, and Grattan were to say > so, > would this mean we do not follow the letter of that Law? Of course > not. > > ###### But in this example there is no ambiguity to be interpreted. > AFAIK, everyone agrees what the letter of the Law says even if they > don't like it. ####### > > I think you may be confusing the Legislative with the Executive. > Law- > makers create Laws. They do not interpret them usually [I am told by > a > correspondent that usually is a "Weasel word", to be ignored: I trust > you will not do so]. If they think that something is going wrong in > the > use of a Law, their main recourse is to change it. Can they force an > "official interpretation" on us? Of course, if the WBFLC hands down a > ruling and the WBF executive accepts it, then it has the force of Law. > They did so at Hammamet over the Definition of Convention and one > other > item that escapes me for the moment [Concessions perhaps?]. However, > they have not yet done so in this Law 27 matter. All we have been > told > is what they intended. > > >> Note: how do interpretations get promulgated in the EBU? > >> [1] Via EBU Panel TD weekends > >> [2] Via L&EC minutes > >> [3] By word of mouth from the Chief TD [Max Bavin] > >> > >> > >> ########OLD### Agreed, but the question here is are we talking > about > >> NCBO interpretations of ambiguous parts of the Law or, since the > WBF > >> Laws Commision *has spoken officially* via Grattan, actual Law? > Also, > >> I would venture to suggest that the only legitimate routes for the > >> promulgation of official EBU interpretations should be (2) above > (L&EC > >> minutes) together with published regulations (eg. in the EBU TDs > >> Guide) as the L&EC is the National Authority and the other two > routes > >> may not reliably ensure that all panel TDs are informed. > >> ########OLD##### > > Your comments are noted with sadness. The EBU has an excellent > record > in keeping Directors up to speed, and your mehod would destroy that. > > ######### You have no reason for sadness if you note my comments above > as I agree with you on the EBU's record. However, that does not mean > that there is no room for improvement, especially as it clear that > there is a diversity of opinion amongst EBU Panel TDs on how to rule > in this particulart situation, witness Mike Amos's recent posting and > the view of the CTD in Maddog's original posting. ############# > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + > )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 05:49:50 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 05:49:50 +1000 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 FAA06167 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 05:49:44 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult.n14767) with SMTP id OAA29517 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:49:33 -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-1998Mar19.023200.1189.188652; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:42:10 -0500 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1998Mar19.023200.1189.188652@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, 18 Mar 1998 14:42:10 -0500 Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve raises some interesting points. The first being >2) Are official interpretations promulgated only via official channels >or by any medium that happens to exist? BLML? The daily newspaper? >A conversation in the bar? How in practice is a working TD expected >to learn of an official interpretation? > >(All the above might have been written by my cat. Or by someone else's >cat. If I had a cat. Which I don't. But how could you tell?) In my mind, it is desirable to have a mechanism to propagate Changes in the Laws or important decisions as quickly as possible. Using the Internet is an obvious application of this basic principle. One feature which would seem to be desirable in this effort are some mechanism of authenticating the identity of the sender. A second feature should be a means to avoid inadvertent distortion of the information in transit. There are a number of elegant technical solutions involving digital signatures designed to allow for just these characteristics in information transfer. Sadly, I don't think that it is practical to suggest that everyone on this mailing list adopt these security features. Plain and simple, there are too many mail agents which do not yet support attachments, let alone high level security functions. In my mind, a much better system is to assume that the major Law making authorities have access to a secure web server. Changes in the Laws can be posted on the web server. Notification of the Law changes can simply be mailed out. Interested parties can go straight to the original source and get their information. This is certainly not a completely secure system, but considering I don't think anyone is going to bother to create a fake EBU Web site, I'm not going to loose much sleep over this. >1) What happens if the written language of a Law is inconsistent with the known intent of the writers? This is a much more interesting question than the theoretic existence of pseudo Grattan Endicotts. To this I would add, what happens if the interpretation of a Law by a regulatory body is inconsistent with the known intent of the writers. Living here in the US, I have to grapple with this at every tournament that I chose to attend. Richard All the above may be amusing, but the serious questions are: From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 07:19:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:19:46 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA06440 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:19:27 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1002884; 18 Mar 98 18:12 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:13:34 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:13:31 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott [SMTP:gester@globalnet.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 10:31 AM > To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com; > bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > > gester@globalnet.co.uk > Grattan Endicott > Liverpool L18 8DJ : > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: 17 March 1998 09:39 > Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >>David Martin wrote: > >>>Maddog writes: > > > >>>> ########## Given my original position, I would until Gratten's > recent > >>>> postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his > options > >>>> and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, > following > >>>> Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) > >>>> > \x/ \x/-much snipping-\x/ \x/ > #### > I am disappointed to find anyone using the correspondence on BLML as > a source of instruction on the procedure of the TD. This must always > come > from the NBO or the SO - often one and the same. BLML is not a > decision > making body; it is an Exchange where there is discussion and the > provision > of information. What I gave concerning Law 27 was (accurate) > information > as to the effect of the change as EK had proposed it and the WBFLC had > adopted it, giving it in support of the position of the NZ Federation > which > evidently had sight of papers from Edgar. I did not suggest that any > SO > should do anything in particular about it, except perhaps to be aware > of > what was done and to what end. #### Grattan #### > > Why are you disappointed that a TD who cares deeply about giving > correct rulings has changed his approach to a given situation when, as > a result of reading your clear exposition of the Lawmakers intent, he > now realises that his previous interpretation of a Law was wrong? By > the way, as a TD, I work not just for an NCBO but also for many SOs, > some of whom are not competent to determine an interpretation and > others not sufficiently interested and the latter certainly expect me > as DIC or TD to do it for them. > > Also, I have not suggested that you have made any suggestions to SOs > as to what they should do. Nevertheless, many SOs will wish to > respect the Lawmakers interpretations even if they, like me, wish that > the correct interpretation was different from that which you have > indicated. > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 08:04:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:04:20 +1000 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 IAA06546 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:04:14 +1000 Received: from denali.ikos.com (denali [149.172.200.93]) by d2.ikos.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA02025; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:03:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:03:37 -0800 (PST) From: Everett Boyer Message-Id: <199803182203.OAA02025@d2.ikos.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Wed Mar 18 11:31 PST 1998 > > >(Do I really need to spell it out? The imputed bidding system in each > >case is one in which the 2H bid was correct.) So if we are able to impute a bidding system, how should we extrapolate when there are choices such as with (imputed Flannery)2D-3D when its commonly played in various ways, not played, or even avoided by agreement? Bring opener's Flannery partners before the AC? (Of course the players likely have no agreements regarding how to respond to this raise of Flannery because they actually agreed not to play Flannery at all.) Should part-time Flannery players carry system notes (or write on their cc's) saying "2D-3D must not be advanced (unless opener erred)"? Should that clear them in the presence of prior UI that they forgot? Or would that be an illegal agreement or imply that 2D is really a (likely illegal) convention? Or does this vary per SO? And when playing Flannery should the same parttimers use "3D=weak, relay to 3H (unless opener erred)"? If my questions are outside the charter of BLML, tell me & I'll relurk. But so far I think that rolling 2D-3D-3H back to 3D for UI is an awful ruling. Everett Boyer From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 08:42:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:42:02 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA06637 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:41:56 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA01188 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07073; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:42:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:42:04 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803182242.RAA07073@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > >> a) KJTxxx, xx, Qxx, Kx > >> b) xxx, KJTxxx, Qx, xx > >> > >> Partner opens 1NT, RHO passes, and with both holdings you respond 2H. > >> Partner duly advises "Transfer", and bids 2S. > I don't mean to sound dense, and perhaps this concept ("imputed bidding > system") has been defined elsewhere. But what do you mean by this phrase, > and what reference either in the Laws or related material can you cite to > tie it back to L16? In order to judge LA's (and very often "suggested over another"), we must know the bidding system in use. For example, if partner's bid is forcing, pass will seldom be a LA. If partner's bid is non-forcing, it might very well be one. In hesitation cases and similar UI situations, there is seldom a problem about the bidding system. We ask the players, look at the CC (and system notes if needed and available), and consider the evidence of the hands. In rare cases doubt may remain, but at least there will be evidence on which to base a decision. Michael has rightly pointed out that when the UI is partner's correct explanation (or alert or non-alert), we enter a morass where we do not know what bidding system to assume. In these cases, we have to impute a bidding system of some sort in order to rule. In case a), on the information given, the imputed bidding system is that the pair are playing transfers. We can argue about LA's if we want to, but it is wildly unlikely that the explanation suggests one over another. In case b), on the information given, the imputed bidding system _for the player who holds this hand_ is one in which 2H is a natural bid of some sort. The 2S bid in this system probably shows heart support, perhaps with length or strength in spades or perhaps weak spade doubleton. Whatever it may show, the UI says that partner does not hold it; he was merely completing what he thought was a transfer. Depending on what bidding system you want to make up, you derive a set of logical alternatives, judge "suggested over another," and make your ruling. My claim -- disputed by some -- is that we handle case b) as described even if the player says "I psyched; of course I knew all along that we were playing transfers." This side issue doesn't affect the main argument. I hope it's clear that there is no sound basis for a ruling in case b), with or without an allegation of psyching. Instead, we must invent a bidding system that does not correspond to reality. This was Michael's initial complaint, and I agree with it. I just don't see that the current Laws give us any alternative. I hope it is also clear that the situation in case a) is quite different. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 09:45:44 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:45:44 +1000 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 JAA06805 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:45:38 +1000 Received: from [131.217.5.96] (mg4-96.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.96]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA23487 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:45:35 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:45:35 +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: Flannery 2D-3D Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Of course the Laws distinguish between them. Logical alternatives and >>"suggested over another" are completely different in the two cases. >>This is both because the hands differ and because the imputed bidding >>system is different in the two cases. >> >>(Do I really need to spell it out? The imputed bidding system in each >>case is one in which the 2H bid was correct.) >> >I don't mean to sound dense, and perhaps this concept ("imputed bidding >system") has been defined elsewhere. But what do you mean by this phrase, >and what reference either in the Laws or related material can you cite to >tie it back to L16? It occurs to me that you could invent any system you "thought you were playing" when you make a misbid. Application of some creativity leads to a structure wherein partner's response means your only LA is the one that you chose that happened to be a good result. Aww shucks opps, we didn't use any UI, we never gave MI, we misbid in the first place, didn't psyche so the Ethics Committee people can't get us, got our top, and the bridge lawyers all say, "Yes well, the misbidder had only one LA under the system they *thought* they were playing, so it's ok. Enjoy your bottom." For this kind of reason, I maintain that TD should pay no attention to what misbidder "thought" they were playing, and judge the LAs solely on the hand and the true systemic auction. I think that when we judge the LAs later, that expecting the player to have woken up solves more problems of the above kind than it might create. We can never know whether or when misbidder/psycher "woke up" and the interpretations along the line of "implied bidding systems" require absolute honesty from misbidder, which is often not a brilliant assumption. Expecting them to have woken up already in situations where UI might have woken them up is a better compromise than the apparently current one of reconstructing LAs on tenuous evidence. This approach could be interpreted by some as always assuming a psyche in MB situations, which will doubtless be unpopular. On that interpretation, in the original non-Flannery auction, then passing 3D is not a LA with a 5-card heart suit. Partner will scratch their head and pass mostly. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 10:20:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:20:10 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA06949 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:20:03 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1020753; 19 Mar 98 0:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:54:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only In-Reply-To: <199803181625.LAA06796@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >An entity who claims to be Mr. Endicott is a subscriber; there is no >simple way for anyone at a distance to verify that it is he or that any >specific message really comes from his account at all. Oh come on! ***No-one*** writes like Grattan! I can recognise stuff he has written when written in black ink on black paper at night in a coal cellar! >(All the above might have been written by my cat. Or by someone else's >cat. If I had a cat. Which I don't. But how could you tell?) I would ask Quango. He could tell whether it was written by a cat. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 10:26:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:26:40 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA06989 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:26:34 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client265e.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.94]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA01124 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:26:28 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Royal Appointment Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:26:32 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd52cd$aab98460$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 Congratulations to David Stevenson on his appointment to the post of CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the Principality of WALES. This is a new post and I am sure David will make his presence felt to the advantage of Bridge in Wales. Previously we have allowed ourselves to be advised by the EBU, but now we'll have to listen to David. Oh Dear!!:-)) I'll have to get a cat, that's all there is to it. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 11:42:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:42:25 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07467 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:42:19 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2025999; 19 Mar 98 1:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:16:26 +0000 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only In-Reply-To: <199803172147.QAA06235@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803172147.QAA06235@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Martin >> > ######### If Grattan is merely expressing a personal *opinion* then I >> > would agree with you but if I have understood Grattan's postings >> > correctly then he is stating the WBF Laws Committee's *official >> > interpretation* of the Law which must surely carry the *full force of >> > Law* and be *immediately effective* unless they indicate otherwise, >> > ie. it *is* the Law. > >This raises an interesting question. Is an official interpretation >to be accepted no matter how it is distributed? Or is it accepted >only if distributed by official channels? > >If the former, do we need some means to authenticate the sender of the >interpretation and that it is indeed official? Email headers are >reasonably easy to fake. But Grattan's immortal prose is not :) I'm waiting till my boss tells me and that's Max, or I go to a Training weekend, or I get a letter from the EBU. 2N 2H subs 3H can be corrected. Thanks all for your contributions. -- 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 Mar 19 12:01:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:01:48 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07595 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:01:42 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2027662; 19 Mar 98 1:56 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:55:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: BLML From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Royal Appointment In-Reply-To: <01bd52cd$aab98460$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bd52cd$aab98460$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes >Congratulations to David Stevenson on his appointment to the post of >CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the Principality of WALES. > >This is a new post and I am sure David will make his presence felt to >the advantage of Bridge in Wales. Previously we have allowed ourselves >to be advised by the EBU, but now we'll have to listen to David. Oh >Dear!!:-)) I'll have to get a cat, that's all there is to it. > Random thoughts based on the above announcement Does that mean you get to keep him? ... please ... nicely ... I didn't know there were any whisky distilleries in Wales. Presumably this honorific has the same implication as applying to take up the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. Congratulations David. Well deserved and IMO an excellent choice. -- 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 Mar 19 12:49:24 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:49:24 +1000 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 MAA07832 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:49:12 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb55.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.55]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA27966 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:48:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980318214903.006e1924@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:49:03 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <199803182242.RAA07073@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:42 PM 3/18/98 -0500, Steve wrote: >>> Consider two cases: >> a) KJTxxx, xx, Qxx, Kx >> b) xxx, KJTxxx, Qx, xx >> >In order to judge LA's (and very often "suggested over another"), we >must know the bidding system in use. For example, if partner's bid is >forcing, pass will seldom be a LA. If partner's bid is non-forcing, it >might very well be one. > >In hesitation cases and similar UI situations, there is seldom a >problem about the bidding system. We ask the players, look at the CC >(and system notes if needed and available), and consider the evidence >of the hands. In rare cases doubt may remain, but at least there will >be evidence on which to base a decision. > >Michael has rightly pointed out that when the UI is partner's correct >explanation (or alert or non-alert), we enter a morass where we do not >know what bidding system to assume. In these cases, we have to impute >a bidding system of some sort in order to rule. > No, we don't "have to impute a bidding system". We _know_ (by assumption) what bidding system is in use. >In case a), on the information given, the imputed bidding system is >that the pair are playing transfers. We can argue about LA's if we >want to, but it is wildly unlikely that the explanation suggests one >over another. > >In case b), on the information given, the imputed bidding system _for >the player who holds this hand_ is one in which 2H is a natural bid of >some sort. The 2S bid in this system probably shows heart support, >perhaps with length or strength in spades or perhaps weak spade >doubleton. But the players are not playing this system. Quite possibly they have never even heard of this system, and the odds are good that nobody in the given event actually plays the method you describe. How can it be reasonable to base a so-called "logical alternative" on methods that nobody actually plays? More to the point, by what legal authority may a TD or AC constuct such fictitious methods and impute them to the nominal offenders? >My claim -- disputed by some -- is that we handle case b) as described >even if the player says "I psyched; of course I knew all along that we >were playing transfers." This side issue doesn't affect the main >argument. > The psyching type of argument really is quite weak, mostly because of its general implausibility. But the problem remains for a related (and far more believable) scenario. I've played transfers with all my partners for at least 15 years, and would not forget that I was doing so without the aid of a lot more liquor than I am likely to drink in one sitting. Nor would I ever dream of psyching one. But it is entirely within my capability to either mis-speak or pull the wrong bid from the box, as the case may be. I've done it, and I bet you have, too. In fact, I would imagine that this is a somewhat more likely explanation for the 2H bid with hand b) than a forgotten systemic agreement about anything so basic as a Jacoby transfer. Are we then also obliged to "impute" an alien bidding system on a player who is guilty only of a mechanical error, and is already very likely in a deep hole as a result? At the risk of repeating myself, no language in the Laws requires us to assume that a player whose hand is strongly at odds with his partner's correct explanation/alert/non-alert has forgotten the methods, and likewise, no law authorizes us to conjure up a "system" from which we can infer suitably unfavorable LA's. In both hands a) and b), the system is Jacoby transfers, and whatever use the 2H bidder can make of that knowledge is fair game, as far as I'm concerned, even in the unlikely case that his knowledge comes from partner's explanation. >I hope it's clear that there is no sound basis for a ruling in case b), >with or without an allegation of psyching. Instead, we must invent a >bidding system that does not correspond to reality. This was Michael's >initial complaint, and I agree with it. I just don't see that the >current Laws give us any alternative. > >I hope it is also clear that the situation in case a) is quite >different. > Of course it is rather silly for the two of us to be nattering on at each other over this case, since we are fundmentally in agreement about the underlying philosophical issue. I think we basically agree about what we would like the Law to be in these cases, and are simply disputing whether the conventional wisdom (i.e., imputing and all that jazz) is or is not supported by the Laws as written. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 13:03:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:03:06 +1000 Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA07894 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:03:00 +1000 Received: from KRAllison@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id SFLGa09327 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:02:09 -0500 (EST) From: KRAllison Message-ID: <576bcf25.35108ab3@aol.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:02:09 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Royal Appointment 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 Let me echo John Probst: << Congratulations David. Well deserved and IMO an excellent choice. >> Hear!! Hear!! Karen Stanley, Stella and Blanche wish to be noted in concurrence :-)< From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 13:22:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:22:57 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08034 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:22:51 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client26b8.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.26.184]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id DAA07161 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 03:22:45 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Royal Appointment Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 03:22:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd52e6$4b3d34a0$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 Haven't you heard of Welsh Whisky? Anne -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: BLML Date: Thursday, March 19, 1998 3:01 AM Subject: Re: Royal Appointment >In message <01bd52cd$aab98460$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes >>Congratulations to David Stevenson on his appointment to the post of >>CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the Principality of WALES. >> >>This is a new post and I am sure David will make his presence felt to >>the advantage of Bridge in Wales. Previously we have allowed ourselves >>to be advised by the EBU, but now we'll have to listen to David. Oh >>Dear!!:-)) I'll have to get a cat, that's all there is to it. >> >Random thoughts based on the above announcement > >Does that mean you get to keep him? ... please ... nicely ... > >I didn't know there were any whisky distilleries in Wales. > >Presumably this honorific has the same implication as applying to take >up the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. > >Congratulations David. Well deserved and IMO an excellent choice. > >-- >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 Mar 19 20:22:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:22:40 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA09066 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:22:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012967; 19 Mar 98 9:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:54:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >For this kind of reason, I maintain that TD should pay no attention to what >misbidder "thought" they were playing, and judge the LAs solely on the hand >and the true systemic auction. I think that when we judge the LAs later, >that expecting the player to have woken up solves more problems of the >above kind than it might create. We can never know whether or when >misbidder/psycher "woke up" and the interpretations along the line of >"implied bidding systems" require absolute honesty from misbidder, which is >often not a brilliant assumption. Expecting them to have woken up already >in situations where UI might have woken them up is a better compromise than >the apparently current one of reconstructing LAs on tenuous evidence. I have completely lost this thread. Would someone like to explain to me what the difficulty is that you are talking about? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 20:23:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:23:06 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA09073 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:22:45 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:22:24 GMT Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 10:22:23 GMT Message-Id: <1480.9803191022@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L58B2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just for fun: I'm afraid I made this one up. At his turn to play, North (who has been eating sticky sweats) detaches a card from his hand and two others come with it. All three cards are put face up on the table, but only two are visible (SA, S9), the third (SQ) is covered by the other two. RTFLB: "LAW 58 - SIMULTANEOUS LEADS OR PLAYS [A. snipped] B. Simultaneous Cards from One Hand If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: [1. snipped] 2. More Cards Visible If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)." I have some questions: 1. Can North designate a card still in his hand as the card he proposed to play? 2. Can North designate SQ (not visible) as the card he proposes to play? 3. If North designates SA as the card he proposes to play, is SQ a penalty card? (is there a difference between "visible" and "exposed"?) 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 Mar 19 21:23:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:23:26 +1000 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 VAA09370 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:23:20 +1000 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 MAA18139 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:23:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3510F750.CF3932F4@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:45:36 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Exposed cards X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1396.9803181809@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > L45A defines correct procedure for playing a card and has nothing to do > > with the question of when a card is considered played. The rest of L45 > > is more relevant. > > > > Good grief! Steve agreeing with David! What is the world coming to? > > > I think this is the crux of the matter. > > L45A defines how a card is played, we must look elsewhere to determine > that a card has been played. Finding no answer, we fall back on intent > (which is used elsewhere). > > So I have to agree with Steve (x2) and David, that a card can (even > deliberately) be exposed at that player's turn to play without being > played. Normally: > deliberate exposure at turn to play without playing > => penalty card => will be played. > > But in my example, we see two wrinkles: > 1) Deliberate exposure at turn to play without playing > as opening leader does not end the auction period. > > 2) Deliberate exposure at turn to play without playing > playing more than one card => L49, not L58B > => declarer chooses card to be played. > OK, I give in. In order for a card to be played, the player facing it must show the intent of doing so in order to play it. Which in fact fits in with showing it for purposes of claiming, for stating a particular trick will be won (such as when holding AQ behind KJ in declarer). Sometimes someone must play the role of devil's advocate just in order to see where it leads. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 21:23:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:23:31 +1000 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 VAA09371 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:23:20 +1000 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 MAA18143 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:23:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3510F909.E650C246@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:52:57 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Hijack! X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.2.32.19980316033556.007aa6b0@pop1.tip.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > > At 01:00 AM 15-03-98 +0000, you wrote: > > > > AJxxx > > xx Qx > > Kxxx > > > > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and > >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays > >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was > >going to play dummy's ace. > > > > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! > > > >-- > About the same thing happened really here in an amsterdam low-level > tournament: > In dummy was KJ - leader had to find the Q of course - of H and dummy > raised to order beer. Leader said, after an asking look from > (standing)dummy : 'doe mij maar de koning (give me a koning, a belgean > beer)while koning is also the dutch name for K and indeed RHO put up the A. > When the TD was called RHO wasnt pleased to hear that the K wasnt played at > all > regards, > anton witzen > As a citizen of the wonderful hometown of de Koninck beer, I can safely say we have no problem whatsoever on this count. In Antwerpen, the beer is called "keuning" (or more often "bolleke") and the card "heer". Yesterday however, Norbert (also known to blml) walked in and admired my dummy play. He joked "Hi Jack" and I retorted, "No I'll have the Koning". RHO duly played the King, and Norbert bought me a beer. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 22:02:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:02:10 +1000 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 WAA09551 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:02:06 +1000 Received: from pentium (cc.southcom.com.au [203.60.16.155]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA07740 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:01:57 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980319225522.0092e150@postoffice.utas.edu.au> X-Sender: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:55:22 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:54 AM 19-03-98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Mark Abraham wrote: > >>For this kind of reason, I maintain that TD should pay no attention to what >>misbidder "thought" they were playing, and judge the LAs solely on the hand >>and the true systemic auction. I think that when we judge the LAs later, >>that expecting the player to have woken up solves more problems of the >>above kind than it might create. We can never know whether or when >>misbidder/psycher "woke up" and the interpretations along the line of >>"implied bidding systems" require absolute honesty from misbidder, which is >>often not a brilliant assumption. Expecting them to have woken up already >>in situations where UI might have woken them up is a better compromise than >>the apparently current one of reconstructing LAs on tenuous evidence. > > I have completely lost this thread. Would someone like to explain to >me what the difficulty is that you are talking about? The idea that because an apparent misbidder says they thought they were planning Flannery, that we reconstruct their LAs after any UI on the assumption that they have not, and cannot be, woken up to their misbid. "Imputing" a system onto such a system is a flawed process, IMHO - we can't construct a system where there is complete absence of agreement between the players. In the original thread, it was contended that 3D was some kind of forcing ask in Flannery, and so passing is not an LA for the opening misbidder. While I agree with the ruling that pass is not an LA, I cannot reconcile the artificial imposition of a system based only on a player's claim to what they thought they were playing when they misbid. Justification in previous message. The only systemic agreements available suggest that 2D-3D is a D raise. I think it releases a smaller can of worms to ignore whatever opener said they were doing, and judge the LAs on the hand and auction alone. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 19 22:05:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:05:32 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA09581 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:05:16 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:04:40 GMT Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 12:04:39 GMT Message-Id: <1598.9803191204@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D Cc: bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Mark Abraham wrote: > > >For this kind of reason, I maintain that TD should pay no attention to what > >misbidder "thought" they were playing, and judge the LAs solely on the hand > >and the true systemic auction. I think that when we judge the LAs later, > >that expecting the player to have woken up solves more problems of the > >above kind than it might create. We can never know whether or when > >misbidder/psycher "woke up" and the interpretations along the line of > >"implied bidding systems" require absolute honesty from misbidder, which is > >often not a brilliant assumption. Expecting them to have woken up already > >in situations where UI might have woken them up is a better compromise than > >the apparently current one of reconstructing LAs on tenuous evidence. > > I have completely lost this thread. Would someone like to explain to > me what the difficulty is that you are talking about? > David Imagine... We sit down to play bridge and agree 2D is natual weak, and that's what it says on our cards. I open 2D, you alert and explain it as "natural, weak". I have a problem because I have a 4-5-1-3 13 count, which I opened 2D thinking we were playing Flannery. The auction stumbles into 3NT and when my hand goes down as dummy oppo call the TD. The TD records the auction, checks our CC and says there has been no misinformation, and asks us to call him back at the end of the hand. 3NT makes (you were declarer) and oppo recall the TD because they think my actions were suggested by the UI (your explanation) which told me that I had forgotten the system. How does the TD/AC decide what are my LA in a Flannery auction when we are not playing Flannery? The version of Flannery I might be supposed (by the TD/AC) to be using is the "implied bidding system" refered to above. Hope this helps. For me this is not a particularly difficult law problem. In principle, we imagine a 100 of my peers who play Flannery (possibly with different continuation) and determine what each of them would bid on the hand with their understanding of Flannery. If 30%/25%/20%/>0% (depending on NCBO) would make a given bid, then it is an LA. Actually performing this thought experiment is harder, but what is required follows from the laws and regional interpretation of "LA". Robin P.S. Cc'ed to David: Would you rather I didn't, and just left you to get it from anu.edu.au? 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 Mar 20 00:13:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:13:34 +1000 Received: from mailhost.math.auc.dk (root@mailhost.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11540 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:13:21 +1000 Received: from bohr.math.auc.dk (nwp@bohr.math.auc.dk [130.225.48.5]) by mailhost.math.auc.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21462 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:13:09 +0100 (MET) Received: (from nwp@localhost) by bohr.math.auc.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA17545; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:13:08 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:13:08 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199803191413.PAA17545@bohr.math.auc.dk> From: Niels Wendell Pedersen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: American version of the '97 Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A test version of the American version of the '97 Laws is now on WWW: http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97na/ There are two editions: One using JavaScript (easier to navigate) and one without JavaScript - the former being the default edition. Using the text bases browser Lynx will automatically bring you to the edition without JavaScript (I hope! ;-)). Please send comments to nwp@math.auc.dk - and not to the ACBL! Both editions will later be published at the ACBL Web-site - probably after the NABC in Reno. Niels From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 00:25:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:25:54 +1000 Received: from mgw1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (mgw1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.1.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA12325 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:25:46 +1000 Received: from colorlab.brain.uni-freiburg.de ([132.230.63.114]) [132.230.63.114] by mgw1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yFgFe-0000yI-00; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:24:58 +0100 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:29:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ralf Teichmann Subject: is "STOP" a bid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear BLML - Readers, after some moths of lurking, I want to itroduce myself and start with a few questions, as you see below. I'm a graduate student of biologie, working on my dissertation in psychophysics. Playing bridge since I was 14, I never managed to get any national title. I am 33 now and still trying. I have a licence to teach bridge lessons and to direct low level tournaments. I play bridge at the third level of the German Bridge Liga (Regionalliga). I have neither cats nor dogs but a baby of 3 months named Peter. My wonderfull wife Christa learned to play bridge, too, but after that she insisted to become pregnant. Now here comes my story about what happened last week at our lokal bridge club: Dealer passed. While LHO still thinking RHO decided to make a skip bid and pulled the STOP card out of her box. At this moment she realized that it was her partner to bid and stopped any further action. TD was called. She decided following L31B that LHO had to pass. NO became declarer, L26 was not applied. My questions are: Is it right to treat a STOP like a bid, although it is not mentioned in the definitions? Is it a call at all? Or should it be treated just as UI? 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 Fri Mar 20 01:14:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:14:31 +1000 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 BAA12450 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:14:22 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb133.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.133]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA22932 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:14:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980319101413.006e53f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:14:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: "Review, Please" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At some point during a convoluted auction, the opponents request a review, and my partner obliges. As he reviews the auction, I realize that I misheard his second bid, and that what had seemed an obscure and difficult sequence is now completely clear. I also realize that the bids I have made based on my original mis-hearing have painted a substantially false picture of my actual hand, and I now have inferences available about partner's holding based on what he thought I was doing. Is any of this UI to me? Does it matter if it was partner that requested the review and the opponents who provided it? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 02:26:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:26:23 +1000 Received: from mx3.usuhs.mil (mx3.usuhs.mil [131.158.20.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12890 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:26:08 +1000 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil by mx3.usuhs.mil (Unoverica 2.90g) id 00001803; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:19:31 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980319100058.00799290@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:00:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: is "STOP" a bid? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:29 PM 3/19/98 +0100, Ralf Teichmann wrote: [snip] >Dealer passed. While LHO still thinking RHO decided to make a skip bid and >pulled the STOP card out of her box. At this moment she realized that it >was her partner to bid and stopped any further action. > >TD was called. She decided following L31B that LHO had to pass. NO became >declarer, L26 was not applied. > >My questions are: > >Is it right to treat a STOP like a bid, although it is not mentioned in the >definitions? > >Is it a call at all? > >Or should it be treated just as UI? > >Ralf > > "Stop" is not a bid. This is strictly a UI situation. The enforced pass was incorrect. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 02:59:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:59:03 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12999 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:58:57 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id KAA29378 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:58:47 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FIEX00U Thu, 19 Mar 98 11:02:29 Message-ID: <9803191102.0FIEX00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 11:02:29 Subject: ROYAL APPOINT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Congratulations David. Roger Pewick O>Congratulations to David Stevenson on his appointment to the post of O>CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the Principality of WALES. O>This is a new post and I am sure David will make his presence felt to O>the advantage of Bridge in Wales. Previously we have allowed ourselves O>to be advised by the EBU, but now we'll have to listen to David. Oh O>Dear!!:-)) I'll have to get a cat, that's all there is to it. R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 03:39:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 03:39:41 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA13081 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 03:39:34 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA20011 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:39:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA07526; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:39:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:39:44 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803191739.MAA07526@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > No, we don't "have to impute a bidding system". We _know_ (by assumption) > what bidding system is in use. Perhaps "impute" wasn't the best word. I meant something like deem, assume, ascribe, or make an assumption about. "Know" is the one word that is certainly wrong; we are (in the controversial case) making up a fantasy bidding system that is consistent with the hand held but about which we otherwise know nothing except general practice among other players. If Michael or anyone else could convince me that the Laws do not require doing this, I would be delighted. I would be just as delighted to see the Laws changed. His additional example (information from a legal review of the auction) is another good reason for a change. (To answer Michael's new question, I think information from a review is AI because AI includes "legal calls and plays." However, something Kaplan wrote made me suspect he may have thought otherwise. I think there is room for argument on either side, and I'd much rather bypass the question by declaring everything in this category AI or at least not the sort of invidious UI that invokes severe restrictions.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 03:46:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 03:46:58 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA13126 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 03:46:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010711; 19 Mar 98 17:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:37:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: is "STOP" a bid? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ralf Teichmann wrote: >I'm a graduate student of biologie, working on my dissertation in >psychophysics. Playing bridge since I was 14, I never managed to get any >national title. I am 33 now and still trying. I have a licence to teach >bridge lessons and to direct low level tournaments. I play bridge at the >third level of the German Bridge Liga (Regionalliga). Nice to hear from you. >I have neither cats nor dogs but a baby of 3 months named Peter. My >wonderfull wife Christa learned to play bridge, too, but after that she >insisted to become pregnant. Hmmmm - no cat! >Now here comes my story about what happened last week at our lokal bridge club: > >Dealer passed. While LHO still thinking RHO decided to make a skip bid and >pulled the STOP card out of her box. At this moment she realized that it >was her partner to bid and stopped any further action. > >TD was called. She decided following L31B that LHO had to pass. NO became >declarer, L26 was not applied. > >My questions are: > >Is it right to treat a STOP like a bid, although it is not mentioned in the >definitions? No. >Is it a call at all? No. >Or should it be treated just as UI? Yes. A call is not made until it is completed. If using spoken calls someone says "One ..." that is not a call and he cannot be forced to complete it. So it is just UI when someone waves a Stop card and then realises it is not his turn. Note that the same reasoning applies if he decides not to make a jump bid. The Stop can be withdrawn but it is UI. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 04:07:58 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:07:58 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA13241 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:07:52 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1010750; 19 Mar 98 17:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:32:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <1598.9803191204@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: >> Mark Abraham wrote: >> >> >For this kind of reason, I maintain that TD should pay no attention to what >> >misbidder "thought" they were playing, and judge the LAs solely on the hand >> >and the true systemic auction. I think that when we judge the LAs later, >> >that expecting the player to have woken up solves more problems of the >> >above kind than it might create. We can never know whether or when >> >misbidder/psycher "woke up" and the interpretations along the line of >> >"implied bidding systems" require absolute honesty from misbidder, which is >> >often not a brilliant assumption. Expecting them to have woken up already >> >in situations where UI might have woken them up is a better compromise than >> >the apparently current one of reconstructing LAs on tenuous evidence. >> >> I have completely lost this thread. Would someone like to explain to >> me what the difficulty is that you are talking about? >> >David > >Imagine... > >We sit down to play bridge and agree 2D is natual weak, and that's what >it says on our cards. I open 2D, you alert and explain it as "natural, >weak". I have a problem because I have a 4-5-1-3 13 count, which I >opened 2D thinking we were playing Flannery. The auction >stumbles into 3NT and when my hand goes down as dummy oppo call the TD. >The TD records the auction, checks our CC and says there has been no >misinformation, and asks us to call him back at the end of the hand. >3NT makes (you were declarer) and oppo recall the TD because they think >my actions were suggested by the UI (your explanation) which told me >that I had forgotten the system. > >How does the TD/AC decide what are my LA in a Flannery auction when we >are not playing Flannery? The version of Flannery I might be supposed >(by the TD/AC) to be using is the "implied bidding system" refered to >above. > >Hope this helps. > >For me this is not a particularly difficult law problem. In principle, >we imagine a 100 of my peers who play Flannery (possibly with different >continuation) and determine what each of them would bid on the hand >with their understanding of Flannery. If 30%/25%/20%/>0% (depending on >NCBO) would make a given bid, then it is an LA. Actually performing this >thought experiment is harder, but what is required follows from the laws >and regional interpretation of "LA". Thanks. I do not really see why it is difficult but at least I see what you are talking about. >P.S. >Cc'ed to David: >Would you rather I didn't, and just left you to get it from anu.edu.au? [a] In principle I would rather you didn't since email copies of posts are an annoyance. [b] In practice it does not matter on BLML because my software is intelligent enough to delete the cc! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 04:13:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:13:08 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA13309 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:13:02 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1025945; 19 Mar 98 16:58 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:59:14 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Royal Appointment Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:59:13 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: > In message <01bd52cd$aab98460$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones > writes > >Congratulations to David Stevenson on his appointment to the post of > >CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the Principality of WALES. > > > >This is a new post and I am sure David will make his presence felt to > >the advantage of Bridge in Wales. Previously we have allowed > ourselves > >to be advised by the EBU, but now we'll have to listen to David. Oh > >Dear!!:-)) I'll have to get a cat, that's all there is to it. > > > Random thoughts based on the above announcement > > Does that mean you get to keep him? ... please ... nicely ... > > I didn't know there were any whisky distilleries in Wales. > > Presumably this honorific has the same implication as applying to take > up the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. > > Congratulations David. Well deserved and IMO an excellent choice. > > > ######### But can he speak Welsh and when will the Welsh translation > of the Law book be available? ########## > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 06:02:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:02:26 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13872 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:02:20 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb167.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.167]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA03830 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:02:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980319150215.006eece4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:02:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: References: <1598.9803191204@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:32 PM 3/19/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Robin Barker wrote: >Imagine... >> >>We sit down to play bridge and agree 2D is natual weak, and that's what >>it says on our cards. I open 2D, you alert and explain it as "natural, >>weak". I have a problem because I have a 4-5-1-3 13 count, which I >>opened 2D thinking we were playing Flannery. The auction >>stumbles into 3NT and when my hand goes down as dummy oppo call the TD. >>The TD records the auction, checks our CC and says there has been no >>misinformation, and asks us to call him back at the end of the hand. >>3NT makes (you were declarer) and oppo recall the TD because they think >>my actions were suggested by the UI (your explanation) which told me >>that I had forgotten the system. >> >>How does the TD/AC decide what are my LA in a Flannery auction when we >>are not playing Flannery? The version of Flannery I might be supposed >>(by the TD/AC) to be using is the "implied bidding system" refered to >>above. >> >>Hope this helps. >> >>For me this is not a particularly difficult law problem. In principle, >>we imagine a 100 of my peers who play Flannery (possibly with different >>continuation) and determine what each of them would bid on the hand >>with their understanding of Flannery. If 30%/25%/20%/>0% (depending on >>NCBO) would make a given bid, then it is an LA. Actually performing this >>thought experiment is harder, but what is required follows from the laws >>and regional interpretation of "LA". > > Thanks. I do not really see why it is difficult but at least I see >what you are talking about. > Here's why it is difficult (at least for Everett, who began the discussion, Steve Willner, Mark Abraham, and myself). The procedure endorsed by Robin, which I admit is the conventional approach, requires that we judge LA's and "could be suggested by" (CBSB for your abbreviation list?) according to a system, or perhaps various versions of a system, which are not used by the partnership, perhaps even completely unfamiliar to either partner. Although the Laws do not spell out the details of determining LA's, I think it is fair to say that the implementing regs in force in most venues require that we evaluate possible continuations in the context of the partnership style, system and ability. That seems like a reasonable standard to me, and is squarely at odds with the above practice. In some cases, in order to determine possible LA's, we are forced to "impute" methods to the bidder which are not only alien to the partnership, but are in fact extremely rare. An example is the faux transfer bid of 2H in response to 1NT, holding 6 hearts and 2 spades. The ususal wisdom in this case is to impute the following method to the 2H bidder: 2H is natural and 2S is "therefore" a maximal heart raise of some sort, perhaps with short spades. Nobody I know bids this way. The rare parterships who eschew Jacoby transfers treat 2H or 2S over 1NT as shutout bids. For them, the sequence 1NT-P-2H-P-2S simply does not exist. Party bridge players who have never heard of transfers or Stayman are likely to regard 2S as a natural bid. In any case, it seems highly illogical to "impute" to the 2H bidder a method which is not only unfamiliar to the partnership but one which is rarly, if ever, actually employed. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 06:14:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:14:48 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA13907 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:14:41 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1026146; 19 Mar 98 18:30 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:31:45 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: L58B2 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:31:43 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin wrote: > Just for fun: I'm afraid I made this one up. > > At his turn to play, North (who has been eating sticky sweats) > detaches a card from his hand and two others come with it. All > three cards are put face up on the table, but only two are > visible (SA, S9), the third (SQ) is covered by the other two. > > RTFLB: > "LAW 58 - SIMULTANEOUS LEADS OR PLAYS > [A. snipped] > B. Simultaneous Cards from One Hand > If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: > [1. snipped] > 2. More Cards Visible > If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he > proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed > becomes a > penalty card (see Law 50)." > > I have some questions: > 1. Can North designate a card still in his hand as the card he > proposed to play? > > ######## IMO no, but only because of the inference of the words "each > *other* card exposed" in Law 58 which implies that the set of exposed > cards on the table is the set from which the player must choose. > ######## > > 2. Can North designate SQ (not visible) as the card he proposes to > play? > > ######## I would argue no for the same reason as above. ######### > > 3. If North designates SA as the card he proposes to play, is SQ a > penalty card? > (is there a difference between "visible" and "exposed"?) > > ######### IMO the SQ is not a penalty card provided it is returned to > hand without being exposed. IMO there is no difference between > "visible" and "exposed". At great personal risk, [ given the most > recent postings! :-))< ], I seem to recall that the definition of > visible was agreed amongst EBU TDs at the last Panel training course > before Christmas and was as follows. A card is visible if [ iff??? > :-)) ] a casual observer at the table could tell precisely which card > it was, ie. fully name it, but it was not deemed to be visible if the > observer could only tell the colour or the just the denomination or > just the rank or just that it was/wasn't a court card, etc. ######### > > 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 Mar 20 06:45:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:45:39 +1000 Received: from minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA13995 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:45:32 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yFlaU-0007NHC; Thu, 19 Mar 98 15:06 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:08:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980319101413.006e53f8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:14 AM 3/19/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At some point during a convoluted auction, the opponents request a review, >and my partner obliges. As he reviews the auction, I realize that I >misheard his second bid, and that what had seemed an obscure and difficult >sequence is now completely clear. I also realize that the bids I have made >based on my original mis-hearing have painted a substantially false picture >of my actual hand, and I now have inferences available about partner's >holding based on what he thought I was doing. > >Is any of this UI to me? Does it matter if it was partner that requested >the review and the opponents who provided it? >Mike Dennis _ >msd@mindspring.com o\ /o >Pikesville, MD o|_|o >USA |-| Drawing inferences from bids actually made at the table does not create UI. Realizing on your own that you have mis-bid and thus painted a false picture of your hand does not create UI. So, if the situation is as simple as you relate, you have no problem. However, some questions: Did you say anything or react in some other way to your partner's review of the auction when you realized that you misheard? If so, you may have created UI for your partner. Were there any alerts or missed alerts invloved, based either on the actual bid or on the bid you thought you heard? If so, there could be UI created by the alert(s). What if your partner, or even you, had asked for the review? Should not be a problem, unless the reason for the review was (or perhaps, "could have been") that you or your partner suspected that a bid was misunderstood. Sometimes I think I should go back to chess-- John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 08:21:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:21:13 +1000 Received: from rhenium (cerium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA14367 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:20:59 +1000 Received: from david-burn [195.99.45.79] by rhenium with smtp (Exim 1.70 #1) id 0yFnfy-0000ou-00; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:20:39 +0000 Message-ID: <000801bd5385$270d9800$4f2d63c3@david-burn> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:19:57 -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 >>>We sit down to play bridge and agree 2D is natual weak, and that's what >>>it says on our cards. I open 2D, you alert and explain it as "natural, >>>weak". I have a problem because I have a 4-5-1-3 13 count, which I >>>opened 2D thinking we were playing Flannery. The auction >>>stumbles into 3NT and when my hand goes down as dummy oppo call the TD. >>>The TD records the auction, checks our CC and says there has been no >>>misinformation, and asks us to call him back at the end of the hand. >>>3NT makes (you were declarer) and oppo recall the TD because they think >>>my actions were suggested by the UI (your explanation) which told me >>>that I had forgotten the system. >>> >>>How does the TD/AC decide what are my LA in a Flannery auction when we >>>are not playing Flannery? The version of Flannery I might be supposed >>>(by the TD/AC) to be using is the "implied bidding system" refered to >>>above. Somewhat late to this thread, so apologies if what I say has been covered before. But, like DWS, I'm not sure that I understand the problem that was being posed (though there is a much deeper problem, which I will shortly discuss). If you opened 2D because you thought at the time you were playing Flannery, then presumably you had in your mind some system of responses to Flannery which you would use in other partnerships where Flannery is indeed the agreed method. After all, if neither of you had ever played Flannery, then it would never have occurred to you to open 2D in the first place. You are obliged, as I understand it, to proceed in accordance with some such method, even though you know full well that your partner has never heard of Flannery and won't have a clue what's going on. This begs the deeper question: am I allowed to select from various systems of responses to Flannery which I play in other partnerships the most advantageous in the context of the current mess? In my view, the answer is "no", but we'll take things a step at a time. If partner responds 2H to 2D, then you know that he actually has a natural 2H response to a weak 2D. You also know that you're about to play a slam in a part score, because you're going to have to put the dummy down in 2H. You must treat his 2H response as a sign-off, as it would be in whatever version of Flannery you play with others. The argument is identical if you get a 2S response. Holding a 4-5-1-3 13 count, this is obvious enough. But even if you had a hand such as: AKxx AQJ10xx x xx with which you might (with a regular partner) open 2D intending to raise 2H to 3H, I still believe that in the present context, you should pass 2H. That, in my view, would be the "actively ethical" thing to do. Suppose partner responds 2NT to Flannery. He is asking for clarification of your "weak 2D", of course, but you are obliged to respond as if to a 2NT response to Flannery. If with regular partners you play a 2NT response to Flannery as natural, then with a 4-3-1-5 13 count, you are (again, in an "actively ethical" context) obliged to pass. With a 16-count, you would raise to 3NT, and if that made when a diamond lead would have beaten it, this would simply be hard luck on the opponents. Now, suppose partner responds 2NT to Flannery and you play this as natural with X but a relay with Y. In my view, you should not be permitted to "respond to the relay", for this is more likely than a pass to lead to an escape from the mess. Similarly, if partner responds 3D to Flannery (because he has a pre-emptive diamond raise) and you play this as constructive with X but forcing with Y, you are in my view obliged to pass (and when LHO doubles with his diamond stack, you should pass again). In brief, since you don't know which version of Flannery you are playing (for obvious reasons!), you are not allowed to select from among logical alternative versions of Flannery that which is likely to benefit your side. So much for your responsibilities as an ethical player. The trouble is, of course, that it is going to be very difficult (in some cases) for a TD or an AC to determine whether you have actually discharged those responsibilities. If the actual bidding turned out to be: 2D-3D-3H-3NT, one might imagine the following dialogue: AC: "Why did you bid 3H over 3D?" You: "Because when I play Flannery, 3D is natural and forcing. Since my hand was: Axxx AKQ10x x xxx it seemed obvious to stress the heart quality." AC (to partner): "What did you make of the sequence 2D-3D-3H?" Partner: "I'd never heard of it before; I certainly wasn't expecting it. Eventually, I decided that he must have a super-strong 2D opening with a heart card, something like: xx Kxx AKxxxx xx and wanted to try for 3NT once I'd raised diamonds." AC: "Thank you, gentlemen, result stands." The fact that when you actually play Flannery, 3D is natural but non-forcing, inviting opener to proceed only with club shortage, is never going to become apparent to even the most penetrative of ACs. The fact that before the event, your system discussion actually went: "Weak 2D?" "Well, I normally play Flannery, but OK", so when the bidding went 2D-3D-3H it was completely obvious to partner what had happened, will also remain your secret. That is why, for all its flaws, "active ethics" is an idea for which there is certainly a place in the modern game. David Burn When the coster's finished jumping on his mother, He loves to lie a-basking in the sun. Ah, take one consideration with another - A policeman's lot is not a happy one. W.S.Gilbert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 08:29:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:29:53 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA14390 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:29:47 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA01663; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:29:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from 212.middletown-05.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.17.212) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001603; Thu Mar 19 16:28:56 1998 Received: by 212.middletown-05.va.dial-access.ATT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01BD535C.3B78A1A0@212.middletown-05.va.dial-access.ATT.NET>; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:27:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD535C.3B78A1A0@212.middletown-05.va.dial-access.ATT.NET> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Mark Abraham'" Subject: RE: Flannery 2D-3D Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:27:00 -0500 Encoding: 77 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk But it walks like a duck (5H,4S, 11-16 HCP) It quacks like a duck (Open 2D) It sheds water like a duck (I was bidding Flannery) So why would you want to insist it is a weak 2D goose? And 3D IS a systemic force in Flannery. Passing it is not even remotely an LA. Unless the failure to alert's UI wakes opening bidder up he could never pass. In fact, any good result that might come out of such a pass should surely be adjusted away, as it could only follow from the UI. We are talking about a well-known, commonly played convention even among better C flight players. While I agree with much of the comment on this thread, I cannot see why the ethical misbidder should be penalised in those rare cases where he lucks out, while the unethical UI-user is rewarded. I'm sure none of you intended that either. This is not only a case of the misbidder SAYING he thought he was bidding Flannery. There is clear bridge evidence that makes that (or a psyche) the only sane explanations for the actual bid at the table. We are not imputing some artificial construct onto the auction...we are just expecting that misbidder was not awakened by the failure to alert and is continuing to play as though partner had interpreted his bid as he had intended it. Yes, the wheels have fallen off...but he MUST NOT know that because of the UI. Craig Senior ---------- From: Mark Abraham[SMTP:mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 6:55 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D At 09:54 AM 19-03-98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Mark Abraham wrote: > >>For this kind of reason, I maintain that TD should pay no attention to what >>misbidder "thought" they were playing, and judge the LAs solely on the hand >>and the true systemic auction. I think that when we judge the LAs later, >>that expecting the player to have woken up solves more problems of the >>above kind than it might create. We can never know whether or when >>misbidder/psycher "woke up" and the interpretations along the line of >>"implied bidding systems" require absolute honesty from misbidder, which is >>often not a brilliant assumption. Expecting them to have woken up already >>in situations where UI might have woken them up is a better compromise than >>the apparently current one of reconstructing LAs on tenuous evidence. > > I have completely lost this thread. Would someone like to explain to >me what the difficulty is that you are talking about? The idea that because an apparent misbidder says they thought they were planning Flannery, that we reconstruct their LAs after any UI on the assumption that they have not, and cannot be, woken up to their misbid. "Imputing" a system onto such a system is a flawed process, IMHO - we can't construct a system where there is complete absence of agreement between the players. In the original thread, it was contended that 3D was some kind of forcing ask in Flannery, and so passing is not an LA for the opening misbidder. While I agree with the ruling that pass is not an LA, I cannot reconcile the artificial imposition of a system based only on a player's claim to what they thought they were playing when they misbid. Justification in previous message. The only systemic agreements available suggest that 2D-3D is a D raise. I think it releases a smaller can of worms to ignore whatever opener said they were doing, and judge the LAs on the hand and auction alone. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 10:38:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:38:23 +1000 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 KAA14745 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:38:17 +1000 Received: from [131.217.5.95] (mg4-95.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.95]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA06358 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:38:13 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:38:14 +1000 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: RE: Flannery 2D-3D Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:27 PM 3/19/98, Craig Senior wrote: >But it walks like a duck (5H,4S, 11-16 HCP) >It quacks like a duck (Open 2D) >It sheds water like a duck (I was bidding Flannery) > >So why would you want to insist it is a weak 2D goose? Because legally it could still be a cow. There is no basis in law for assessing LAs on assumed methods. It may have happened to look like a duck. It may have made the right noise, and may have clucked later on that it really was a duck. But that doesn't make it a duck. Fundamentally we *do not know* what went on in opener's head. [Possibly we do not want to!] The following is not an exhaustive list : a) What if opener has never heard of Flannery (very possible in Australia) and has a novel taste in psyches, but a bridge lawyer friend told them afterwards that claiming a Flannery misbid would get them off any possible hooks? b) What if opener missed an ace in there and thought they were opening an Ekrens 2D (weak 4+H 4+S). OK, poor example - there would be little need for a natural NF 3D bid after an Ekrens - responder could swish the 2D. [Enter gadgetsmiths to tell me 101 uses for the Ekrens sequence 2D-3D] Now we have to require pass to be a very likely LA. But opener would never admit to misbidding a weak 2D when they actually thought they were bidding an Ekrens 2D when they actually held too many values for it. Apart from being the subject of public ridicule, the psyche-monitoring people would probably be interested. Opener would claim they thought they were opening a Flannery 2D, and they're off the hook on both counts. c) What if opener decided they thought they were playing a Myxo 2D showing weak with hearts, or weak with spades & clubs, or strong balanced? If they admit to this, then they will be required to pass the 3D bid - responder must have a D suit and is preferring that to any of the weak options. d) What if they meant to open some systemic bid of 2H with that hand and pulled the wrong card/mis-spoke/wrote the wrong thing? That'd go down as a psyche unless you claimed you thought you were playing Flannery. e) What if.... My creativity has run out. There are plenty of mutant cows that behave like ducks. [I could have chosen to talk about cats instead of cows, but I thought that would really be one among the pigeons. Foul play on words huh?] >And 3D IS a systemic force in Flannery. But it is not the system being played. These players may never have played or heard of Flannery. Or they may once have played a different version. There is no legal justification for assuming some other system. The ruling must be the same in any of these events, else we are relying on a potential offender's word that they were really being a good little boy/girl. Opener's stated intentions have no legal standing. >We are talking about a well-known, commonly played convention even among >better C flight players. I'll take your word for that point. But I do not see its relevance in assessing the LAs. >While I agree with much of the comment on this thread, I cannot see why the >ethical misbidder should be penalised in those rare cases where he lucks >out, while the unethical UI-user is rewarded. >I'm sure none of you intended that either. As I understood the thread consensus, based on both the "let's-invent-them-a-Flannery system-they-don't-play" argument, and the "let's-not-go-assuming-things" position, 3H is a 75% LA (insert other NCBO requirement here) and so the ethics of the misbidder who bids 3H are not questioned. >This is not only a case of the misbidder SAYING he thought he was bidding >Flannery. There is clear bridge evidence that makes that (or a psyche) the >only sane explanations for the actual bid at the table. We are not imputing >some artificial construct onto the auction...we are just expecting that >misbidder was not awakened by the failure to alert and is continuing to >play as though partner had interpreted his bid as he had intended it. Yes, >the wheels have fallen off...but he MUST NOT know that because of the UI. Yes opener has UI from the failure to alert. Yes the subsequent inference that partner raised a weak 2D is UI. But we are playing bridge - the only LA is 3H. We are not playing Flannery. Mark Abraham P.S. Harking back a month or more to the alertable negative doubles thread, readers may recall that in the ABF all skip bids are deemed self-alerting. Thus unless the opponents enquire about the bidding, a simple 2D-3D-3H-(tank)-P will result if opener thought they were playing Flannery. No UI, no nothing. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 10:40:51 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:40:51 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14769 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:40:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2016335; 20 Mar 98 0:34 GMT Message-ID: <$aR8SqBYhWE1EwKU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:47:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980319101413.006e53f8@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 some point during a convoluted auction, the opponents request a review, >and my partner obliges. As he reviews the auction, I realize that I >misheard his second bid, and that what had seemed an obscure and difficult >sequence is now completely clear. I also realize that the bids I have made >based on my original mis-hearing have painted a substantially false picture >of my actual hand, and I now have inferences available about partner's >holding based on what he thought I was doing. > >Is any of this UI to me? Does it matter if it was partner that requested >the review and the opponents who provided it? This sounds a bit like the arguments raging on RGB. If your opponents ask for a review then that review is surely AI. Even if you gave the review someone would correct you [as required] and that is surely AI. If your partner asked for the review, it is still AI. Where is the problem? If your partner asked for the review not for himself but to wake you up then he is communicating with you and *that* is illegal. But the calls themselves are AI. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 10:55:35 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:55:35 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14827 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:55:28 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2016341; 20 Mar 98 0:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:08:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980319225522.0092e150@postoffice.utas.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >At 09:54 AM 19-03-98 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>Mark Abraham wrote: >> >>>For this kind of reason, I maintain that TD should pay no attention to what >>>misbidder "thought" they were playing, and judge the LAs solely on the hand >>>and the true systemic auction. I think that when we judge the LAs later, >>>that expecting the player to have woken up solves more problems of the >>>above kind than it might create. We can never know whether or when >>>misbidder/psycher "woke up" and the interpretations along the line of >>>"implied bidding systems" require absolute honesty from misbidder, which is >>>often not a brilliant assumption. Expecting them to have woken up already >>>in situations where UI might have woken them up is a better compromise than >>>the apparently current one of reconstructing LAs on tenuous evidence. >> >> I have completely lost this thread. Would someone like to explain to >>me what the difficulty is that you are talking about? > >The idea that because an apparent misbidder says they thought they were >planning Flannery, that we reconstruct their LAs after any UI on the >assumption that they have not, and cannot be, woken up to their misbid. >"Imputing" a system onto such a system is a flawed process, IMHO - we can't >construct a system where there is complete absence of agreement between the >players. Why not? They might have read one and only one book on Flannery. >In the original thread, it was contended that 3D was some kind of forcing >ask in Flannery, and so passing is not an LA for the opening misbidder. >While I agree with the ruling that pass is not an LA, I cannot reconcile >the artificial imposition of a system based only on a player's claim to >what they thought they were playing when they misbid. Justification in >previous message. Well, you should take all the evidence and reach a conclusion. >The only systemic agreements available suggest that 2D-3D is a D raise. I >think it releases a smaller can of worms to ignore whatever opener said >they were doing, and judge the LAs on the hand and auction alone. It is very bad practice as a TD or an AC. The correct approach is to get *all* the evidence and then make a judgement based on it. To be honest, I still don't see how you get a problem. If 3D is forcing when anyone plays Flannery then Pass is not an LA. If it is not forcing pass might be an LA depending on circumstance. I do not mean that the ruling will be easy but it depends on the answers to several questions and the approach seems as ever to ask the questions and listen to the answers. If I had to rule in NAmerica one of the questions I would be asking of my fellow Directors and/or some uninvolved good players is "Is there a standard way to play 2D - 3D in Flannery?" "What alternative ways are there to play it?" Of the player himself I would ask "Do you play Flannery normally with anyone?" "How do you play it?" "Why did you bid 3NT [or whatever]?" Now I rule. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 12:15:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:15:45 +1000 Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA15021 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:15:37 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb212.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.212]) by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA10522 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:15:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980319211532.006f0c54@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:15:32 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <$aR8SqBYhWE1EwKU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19980319101413.006e53f8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:47 PM 3/19/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At some point during a convoluted auction, the opponents request a review, >>and my partner obliges. As he reviews the auction, I realize that I >>misheard his second bid, and that what had seemed an obscure and difficult >>sequence is now completely clear. I also realize that the bids I have made >>based on my original mis-hearing have painted a substantially false picture >>of my actual hand, and I now have inferences available about partner's >>holding based on what he thought I was doing. >> >>Is any of this UI to me? Does it matter if it was partner that requested >>the review and the opponents who provided it? > > This sounds a bit like the arguments raging on RGB. If your opponents >ask for a review then that review is surely AI. Even if you gave the >review someone would correct you [as required] and that is surely AI. >If your partner asked for the review, it is still AI. > > Where is the problem? If your partner asked for the review not for >himself but to wake you up then he is communicating with you and *that* >is illegal. > > But the calls themselves are AI. > I agree without reservation. But the actual point of this question is to tie it back to the "Flannery 2D-3D" thread. In the latter case, we are in disagreement about the correct procedure for handling the general problem of a player who was or might have been alerted to his earlier misunderstanding by partner's lawful explanation/alert/non-alert. Consider the structural similarities between the two situations: 1. In both cases, one player is at least momentarily confused about what is actually going on. In one case, the misunderstanding concerns partnership agreements and in the other the misunderstanding is based on a mis-heard bid. 2. In both cases the confused player's partner properly provides information (inferentially, in the case of a proper non-alert) which alerts the player to his confusion, and provides insight into partner's actions which would otherwise remain concealed. 3. In both cases, the information is "authorized", in the precise sense of information which the player is not merely entitled to know, but actually expected to know (you're expected to know your agreements, and you're expected to listen to and hear the bidding). The only possible way to declare the information unauthorized is because the source (comments or actions by partner) is inappropriate. But the source is essentially the same in both cases. And yet, despite these close parallels, you and what I suspect is a clear majority of BLML participants, are prepared to declare one of these situations to be clear UI and the other clear AI. So my question is, what legal principal are we relying upon in making this distinction? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 12:39:42 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:39:42 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA15118 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:39:36 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2026588; 20 Mar 98 2:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:49:51 +0000 To: Ralf Teichmann Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: is "STOP" a bid? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Ralf Teichmann writes >Dear BLML - Readers, > >after some moths of lurking, I want to itroduce myself and start with a few >questions, as you see below. > snip >Is it right to treat a STOP like a bid, although it is not mentioned in the >definitions? > >Is it a call at all? > >Or should it be treated just as UI? > In the UK at least it's just UI, no call has been made. > 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 > > -- 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 Mar 20 14:12:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:12:46 +1000 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 OAA15407 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:12:42 +1000 Received: from [131.217.5.75] (mg4-75.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.5.75]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA27462 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:12:39 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:12:40 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: mabraham@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:08 AM 3/20/98, David Stevenson wrote: >Mark Abraham wrote: >>The idea that because an apparent misbidder says they thought they were >>planning Flannery, that we reconstruct their LAs after any UI on the >>assumption that they have not, and cannot be, woken up to their misbid. >>"Imputing" a system onto such an auction is a flawed process, IMHO - we can't >>construct a system where there is complete absence of agreement between the >>players. > > Why not? They might have read one and only one book on Flannery. They may have not made the effort to remember any of the Flannery system. They might have remembered it wrongly. They may never have discussed it with anyone, let alone this particular partner. They might also be expected to have remembered their agreements. >>In the original thread, it was contended that 3D was some kind of forcing >>ask in Flannery, and so passing is not an LA for the opening misbidder. >>While I agree with the ruling that pass is not an LA, I cannot reconcile >>the artificial imposition of a system based only on a player's claim to >>what they thought they were playing when they misbid. Justification in >>previous message. > > Well, you should take all the evidence and reach a conclusion. OK. When does law permit us to take a player's statement of their intentions at an earlier time as evidence? Two occasions for accepting a player's statement are a) A statement of claim is viewed at face value and an assessment made as to its validity. Here the law requires us to take as evidence the statement of claim. b) In the absence of a comprehensive CC, we may have to accept a player's statement as to their agreements in complex situations, or a player's assessment of their partnership experience in such situations. It has been said that the actual hand provides corroborating evidence (quacks like a duck) for the claim that opener thought they were playing a Flannery 2D but this is mere coincidence. If a player opened 2D on AKxxx Kxxx Qx Jx and later claimed they thought they were opening a Flannery 2D, do you believe them? Should you believe them? Should you even be listening? > To be honest, I still don't see how you get a problem. If 3D is >forcing when anyone plays Flannery then Pass is not an LA. If it is not >forcing pass might be an LA depending on circumstance. This situation suffers from an unfortunate coincidence of ruling. As I suggested in an earlier post, the LAs (whether or not you assume Flannery) most likely exclude pass, and the most likely LA in either case is 3H. In the faux transfer case of Michael Dennis, we have a different story to consider. With a hand that might wish to transfer to hearts, you might accidentally bid 2H when the partnership agreements include transfers to the majors. Partner duly alerts 2H and responds 2S. Mostly the 2H bidder will have a hand such that passing is not an LA. However any further bid by the 2H hand will be viewed as at least a game try (according to partnership style). The auction struggles on and probably terminates in 4S. Later on, when the opponents have failed to defeat 4SX, TD is called and opener claims to have thought they played 2H natural over 1NT. But hang on. To be consistent in the two cases, we have to impute a system onto this 2H bid. Hmmm. Was 2H forcing or not? If it wasn't, then 2S could either be a game try or a suit, or showing shortness, or fit-showing. If it was, then 2S could be showing shortness, showing a suit or a relay asking for further description. Any creative people want to make up the rest of the continuations and then roll the AC dice to see which one we impose on the 2H bidder? But oh no! 2H bidder didn't stick to our made-up system. They must have used UI to choose a different LA. Better wind them back to average minus. How much more simple it is to base our assessment of LAs on the systemic agreement, the auction, and the hand. Anything else is a figment of someone's imagination. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 23:05:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:05:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA16671 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:04:55 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2011825; 20 Mar 98 12:48 GMT Message-ID: <3QfewNCgQcE1EwLc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:19:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >a) What if opener has never heard of Flannery (very possible in Australia) >and has a novel taste in psyches, but a bridge lawyer friend told them >afterwards that claiming a Flannery misbid would get them off any possible >hooks? Cheats get short term success - but this player will not last long in bridge. [s] >But it is not the system being played. These players may never have played >or heard of Flannery. A player who opens a Flannery 2D has heard of Flannery. Michael S. Dennis wrote: >In some cases, in order to determine possible LA's, we are forced to >"impute" methods to the bidder which are not only alien to the partnership, >but are in fact extremely rare. An example is the faux transfer bid of 2H >in response to 1NT, holding 6 hearts and 2 spades. The ususal wisdom in >this case is to impute the following method to the 2H bidder: 2H is natural >and 2S is "therefore" a maximal heart raise of some sort, perhaps with >short spades. > >Nobody I know bids this way. The rare parterships who eschew Jacoby >transfers treat 2H or 2S over 1NT as shutout bids. For them, the sequence >1NT-P-2H-P-2S simply does not exist. Party bridge players who have never >heard of transfers or Stayman are likely to regard 2S as a natural bid. In >any case, it seems highly illogical to "impute" to the 2H bidder a method >which is not only unfamiliar to the partnership but one which is rarly, if >ever, actually employed. The trouble with this analogy is that I do see difficulties with this sequence but do not see much difficulty with the original one. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 20 23:11:08 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:11:08 +1000 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 XAA16689 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:10:31 +1000 Received: from uunet.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-187.uunet.be [194.7.13.187]) by carbon.uunet.be (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA24631 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:10:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <35125B68.C73859DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:04:56 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "Review, Please" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <3.0.1.32.19980319101413.006e53f8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980319211532.006f0c54@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis says the two cases are similar, so let's attack his statement : > > > 3. In both cases, the information is "authorized", in the precise sense of > information which the player is not merely entitled to know, but actually > expected to know (you're expected to know your agreements, and you're > expected to listen to and hear the bidding). The only possible way to > declare the information unauthorized is because the source (comments or > actions by partner) is inappropriate. But the source is essentially the > same in both cases. > In both cases, the player is expected to know "the information". In the mistaken bid one however, there is no "second chance". In the misheard bid one, a second chance is not only possible, but even provided for in the rules. But both cases are even more similar than you might expect. In both, a player has made some calls which his partner has explained (or not) in a different way than what he actually holds. In both cases the player will try and claim "misbid" rather than "misinformation" and he has to prove this. Perhaps the second case "I misheard a bid" will make it more easy to prove. In both cases there can be UI to the player at wrong, when he hears partners explanations. In the case Michael presents he says there is no such UI. If there is, it will be dealt with in exactly the same way. Turn the case around somewhat : partner misexplains and this is the reason why the player asks for a review himself. Now it turns out he misheard. Does he have UI ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 00:12:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:12:40 +1000 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 AAA17763 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:12:25 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb240.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.240]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA23961 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:12:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980320091215.006f4ca0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:12:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <$aR8SqBYhWE1EwKU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19980319101413.006e53f8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:47 PM 3/19/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At some point during a convoluted auction, the opponents request a review, >>and my partner obliges. As he reviews the auction, I realize that I >>misheard his second bid, and that what had seemed an obscure and difficult >>sequence is now completely clear. I also realize that the bids I have made >>based on my original mis-hearing have painted a substantially false picture >>of my actual hand, and I now have inferences available about partner's >>holding based on what he thought I was doing. >> >>Is any of this UI to me? Does it matter if it was partner that requested >>the review and the opponents who provided it? > > This sounds a bit like the arguments raging on RGB. If your opponents >ask for a review then that review is surely AI. Even if you gave the >review someone would correct you [as required] and that is surely AI. >If your partner asked for the review, it is still AI. > As a side note, without any hidden agendas or relationships to previous threads, suppose you give the review, in response to the opponents' request, and your mis-statement of partner's second bid is corrected. Is the fact of your apparent mis-hearing of that bid AI to partner? Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 01:43:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 01:43:46 +1000 Received: from minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA19346 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 01:43:34 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yG3vC-0007NsC; Fri, 20 Mar 98 10:41 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:43:18 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <35125B68.C73859DD@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.19980319101413.006e53f8@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19980319211532.006f0c54@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:04 PM 3/20/98 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Turn the case around somewhat : partner misexplains and this is the >reason why the player asks for a review himself. Now it turns out he >misheard. Does he have UI ? Who misheard? The partner or the player. Situation 1. Partner mishears my bid, alerts and gives an explaination of what he thought I said. I (immedeately) ask for a review and thus we discover that partner did, in fact, mishear. If partner then (immedeately) corrects (or withdraws?) the alert and explaination, the only information I have is that I should, perhaps, speak a little louder. I don't see any unauthorized information to me or my partner, nor do I see any misinformation to the oponents. Situation 2. The review/correction does not occur until after my LHO has called. Now we must deal with the misinformation that has been given to the opponents. Situation 3. It turns out that partner correctly heard my bid, but his alert/explaination were not what I meant. Now, I have the UI from the alert/explaination (same as always), but he quite likely now also has the UI (as a result of my asking for a review) that his alert/explaination were not what I had in mind for my bid. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 02:11:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:11:45 +1000 Received: from minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA19626 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:11:38 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yG4MN-0007NHC; Fri, 20 Mar 98 11:09 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:11:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980320091215.006f4ca0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <$aR8SqBYhWE1EwKU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.19980319101413.006e53f8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:12 AM 3/20/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >As a side note, without any hidden agendas or relationships to previous >threads, suppose you give the review, in response to the opponents' >request, and your mis-statement of partner's second bid is corrected. Is >the fact of your apparent mis-hearing of that bid AI to partner? If you have called after mis-hearing partners bid but before the review then the fact that your calls were based on some bid not actually made at the table (i.e. what you thought you heard) is UI to your partner. Partner must continue as though you had responded to what was actually bid. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 03:20:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 03:20:27 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA19860 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 03:20:16 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2013865; 20 Mar 98 17:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 17:03:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Reply-To: michael amos Subject: Defective players MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From Law 67 After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), **the Director establishes which trick was defective** Trick 10 was complete - Dummy had 4 cards - the other 3 had one less Just how as TD am I supposed to go about discovering which was the defective trick? (Of course, if I let them the players would be very helpful and quite prepared to turn up all previous ten tricks, but somehow I don't think this is quite right) Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 04:24:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:24:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA20541 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:23:57 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1018216; 20 Mar 98 18:19 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:14:01 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Defective players Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:13:58 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike wrote: > From Law 67 > > After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is > drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there > had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few > or > too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of > played cards), > **the Director establishes which trick was defective** > > Trick 10 was complete - Dummy had 4 cards - the other 3 had one less > Just how as TD am I supposed to go about discovering which was the > defective trick? (Of course, if I let them the players would be very > helpful and quite prepared to turn up all previous ten tricks, but > somehow I don't think this is quite right) > > > ######### Quite often you can tell approximately where the mistake > has occurred from the direction that the players' played cards are > pointing. Otherwise, although tedious, it is possible for the TD to > replay the hand to himself by carefully viewing each played card in > turn although I have never ever seen this done. ############## > > Mike > -- > michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 04:35:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:35:30 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA20620 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:35:19 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:35:00 GMT Date: Fri, 20 Mar 98 18:34:59 GMT Message-Id: <2126.9803201834@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Defective players Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > **the Director establishes which trick was defective** > > Trick 10 was complete - Dummy had 4 cards - the other 3 had one less > Just how as TD am I supposed to go about discovering which was the > defective trick? (Of course, if I let them the players would be very > helpful and quite prepared to turn up all previous ten tricks, but > somehow I don't think this is quite right) > > Mike > -- > michael amos [Posting based on knowledge of EBU training/jargon, etc.] Mike, This came up in discussion at Winchester last week end and previously at Brighton. The answer I gave at Winchester was the answer a club TD course instructor gave me at Brighton: go on the club TD course! Obviously there are things taught at the club TD level which are not known to panel TDs. The sensible answer, I think, is to narrow down the defective trick by comparing which way cards are pointing, then look at (without exposing) the relevant cards. So if the quitted cards are arranged (with East as dummy): ---|--|--- ---|--|--- ---|-|--- ---|--|--- (^ card missing card from here) you only have to inspect 7 cards. (If the defense have not won a trick this is not much help.) 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 Mar 21 04:43:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:43:03 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA20705 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:42:57 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1018242; 20 Mar 98 18:19 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:09:16 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: "Review, Please" Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:09:15 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John wrote: > At 01:04 PM 3/20/98 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Turn the case around somewhat : partner misexplains and this is the > >reason why the player asks for a review himself. Now it turns out he > >misheard. Does he have UI ? > > Who misheard? The partner or the player. > > Situation 1. > Partner mishears my bid, alerts and gives an explaination of what he > thought I said. I (immedeately) ask for a review and thus we discover > that > partner did, in fact, mishear. If partner then (immedeately) corrects > (or > withdraws?) the alert and explaination, the only information I have is > that > I should, perhaps, speak a little louder. I don't see any > unauthorized > information to me or my partner, nor do I see any misinformation to > the > oponents. > > > ####### You can only ask for a review of the auction when it is your > turn to call. Once you have called it is now your LHO's turn and you > cannot ask for a review at this time. If the sole purpose of your > illegal request for a review was to alert partner to the fact that he > has misheard the auction then this is doubly illegal as it contravenes > Law 73 in that it is an illegal form of partnership communication. > ########### > > Situation 2. > The review/correction does not occur until after my LHO has called. > Now we > must deal with the misinformation that has been given to the > opponents. > > > Situation 3. > It turns out that partner correctly heard my bid, but his > alert/explaination were not what I meant. Now, I have the UI from the > alert/explaination (same as always), but he quite likely now also has > the > UI (as a result of my asking for a review) that his alert/explaination > were > not what I had in mind for my bid. > > > John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 08:48:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:48:45 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21628 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:48:37 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2005384; 20 Mar 98 22:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:13:14 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Jens & Bodil wrote: > >>Thus I would be willing to live with L25B in this version: >> >> Except where Section A applies, a legal call may not be changed. >> If a player attempts to change a call anyway, the change is >> canceled, L16C applies to the attempted change, and the lead >> penalties in L26 may apply. > > I like this. > >>I suppose that my opinion boils down often to liking simple, >>understandable rules better than complicated, ostensibly fairer ones. > > Why fairer? > Labeo: I suppose Jens really means "that the proposers of the law have argued to be fairer". -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 08:55:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:55:16 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21652 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:55:10 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1005924; 20 Mar 98 22:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 06:11:08 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >>Ton Kooijman, Chairman, WBFLC. > >> New Law 25 - new questions >> .............................cut..................................... > > I hope that as more people learn of Law 25B their disgust for this >experienced players' Law will be heard and thought should be given in >2007 to no longer permitting such correction. > > Of course, whatever I may think of this Law, it applies at the moment. >In the case you quote, I cannot see any reason why it should not apply, >so a player is allowed to change his call. Nothing in L25B gives any >exceptions, so it should apply to any legal call. > Labeo: I have much sympathy for David's view. Although it may be unavoidable to have a time limit, I am also not really happy that the words "Until LHO calls" place the control of that time limit in the hands of an opponent. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 10:24:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:24:20 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA21795 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:24:13 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA22353 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA08529; Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:24:29 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:24:29 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803210024.TAA08529@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: World Bridge Federation Laws Committee (WBFLC) and BLML. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > Labeo: I have much sympathy for David's view. Although it may be > unavoidable to have a time limit, I am also not really happy that the > words "Until LHO calls" place the control of that time limit in the > hands of an opponent. This is "The Race." We have discussed it before; I think David S. was the first to draw our attention to it. Very entertaining, but not bridge as we have known it. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 10:45:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA21878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:45:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21873 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:44:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab1021401; 21 Mar 98 0:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:56:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Review, Please" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980320091215.006f4ca0@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >As a side note, without any hidden agendas or relationships to previous >threads, suppose you give the review, in response to the opponents' >request, and your mis-statement of partner's second bid is corrected. Is >the fact of your apparent mis-hearing of that bid AI to partner? No. It has not come to him through a call or play or mannerism of opponents: in fact there are other forms of AI [such as opponents' CCs] but it has not come through any form of AI. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 12:54:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:54:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA22082 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:54:32 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002030; 21 Mar 98 2:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:28:02 +0000 To: michael amos Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Defective players In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , michael amos writes >From Law 67 > >After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is >drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there >had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or >too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of >played cards), > **the Director establishes which trick was defective** > >Trick 10 was complete - Dummy had 4 cards - the other 3 had one less >Just how as TD am I supposed to go about discovering which was the >defective trick? (Of course, if I let them the players would be very >helpful and quite prepared to turn up all previous ten tricks, but >somehow I don't think this is quite right) > >Mike Hmmm... practically I'd go backwards through the tricks from the current point rather than forwards from the beginning. I'd tell the players that i may have to award an adjusted score too, because the review of the cards played may make the defence (or dummy play) too easy. Generally I find that players go along with an approach which a) is within the scope of the law b) makes sense. Generally I feel one should make keeping players happy the priority when there are ruling rather than judgement decisions to be made. You'll never keep them happy over judgement problems :) -- 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 Mar 21 13:16:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:16:34 +1000 Received: from krypton.tip.nl (krypton.tip.nl [195.18.64.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA22138 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:16:28 +1000 Received: from marian by krypton.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0yGEoA-000qduC; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:18:54 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980321041502.00811a00@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t701321@pop1.tip.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:15:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Hijack! In-Reply-To: <3510F909.E650C246@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.2.32.19980316033556.007aa6b0@pop1.tip.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 19-03-98 +0100, you wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: >> >> At 01:00 AM 15-03-98 +0000, you wrote: >> > >> > AJxxx >> > xx Qx >> > Kxxx >> > >> > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >> >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >> >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was >> >going to play dummy's ace. >> > >> > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! >> > >> >-- >> About the same thing happened really here in an amsterdam low-level >> tournament: >> In dummy was KJ - leader had to find the Q of course - of H and dummy >> raised to order beer. Leader said, after an asking look from >> (standing)dummy : 'doe mij maar de koning (give me a koning, a belgean >> beer)while koning is also the dutch name for K and indeed RHO put up the A. >> When the TD was called RHO wasnt pleased to hear that the K wasnt played at >> all >> regards, >> anton witzen >> > >As a citizen of the wonderful hometown of de Koninck beer, I can safely >say we have no problem whatsoever on this count. In Antwerpen, the beer >is called "keuning" (or more often "bolleke") and the card "heer". > >Yesterday however, Norbert (also known to blml) walked in and admired my >dummy play. He joked "Hi Jack" and I retorted, "No I'll have the >Koning". RHO duly played the King, and Norbert bought me a beer. > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > >i still think all these actions fall under art. 21A, and 48 which, i my opinion should be interpreted to be the same meaning. So if in dummy appear 2 jacks leader still has a choice. I think art 70 isnt appropriate here. as last axample (we are in a jolly mood sometimes) i may ask this problem: You open 2... and see in a split secon that it isnt you turn. Clever as you are you say: oh sorry, four beer i suppose, and you run off to the bar (of course, you intended to open 2S out of turn). when you come back the TD is at your table to check what realle happened (and takes on of your beers out of your hand). regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@tip.nl) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 21 13:28:05 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:28:05 +1000 Received: from krypton.tip.nl (krypton.tip.nl [195.18.64.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA22171 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 13:27:58 +1000 Received: from marian by krypton.tip.nl with smtp (Smail3.2 #23) id m0yGEzH-000qduC; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:30:23 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19980321042626.0080fc50@pop1.tip.nl> X-Sender: t701321@pop1.tip.nl (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:26:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Hijack! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 19-03-98 +0100, you wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: >> >> At 01:00 AM 15-03-98 +0000, you wrote: >> > >> > AJxxx >> > xx Qx >> > Kxxx >> > >> > Declarer plays a spade to the K, then leads towards AJ in dummy, and >> >stops to think. Having thought, he says "OK, Jack ..." and RHO plays >> >his Queen. "Oi," says declarer, "I haven't played from dummy yet, I was >> >going to play dummy's ace. >> > >> > It turns out that dummy's name is Jack! >> > >> >-- >> About the same thing happened really here in an amsterdam low-level >> tournament: >> In dummy was KJ - leader had to find the Q of course - of H and dummy >> raised to order beer. Leader said, after an asking look from >> (standing)dummy : 'doe mij maar de koning (give me a koning, a belgean >> beer)while koning is also the dutch name for K and indeed RHO put up the A. >> When the TD was called RHO wasnt pleased to hear that the K wasnt played at >> all >> regards, >> anton witzen >> > >As a citizen of the wonderful hometown of de Koninck beer, I can safely >say we have no problem whatsoever on this count. In Antwerpen, the beer >is called "keuning" (or more often "bolleke") and the card "heer". > >Yesterday however, Norbert (also known to blml) walked in and admired my >dummy play. He joked "Hi Jack" and I retorted, "No I'll have the >Koning". RHO duly played the King, and Norbert bought me a beer. > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > >i still think all these actions fall under art. 21A, and 48 which, i my opinion should be interpreted to be the same meaning. So if in dummy appear 2 jacks leader still has a choice. I think art 70 isnt appropriate here. ++++++++ sorry, i wanted to refer to 46A really +++++++++++ as last axample (we are in a jolly mood sometimes) i may ask this problem: You open 2... and see in a split secon that it isnt you turn. Clever as you are you say: oh sorry, four beer i suppose, and you run off to the bar (of course, you intended to open 2S out of turn). when you come back the TD is at your table to check what realle happened (and takes on of your beers out of your hand). regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@tip.nl) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 22 08:01:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:01:12 +1000 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 IAA27027 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 08:01:06 +1000 Received: from renepion (ppp-annex-0310.que.total.net [207.139.25.20]) by bretweir.total.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA24399 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:00:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803212200.RAA24399@bretweir.total.net> From: "APion" To: "Bridge List" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:49:45 -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 To put things back into perspective, the original question was: N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D should stand. Is 3H illegal? A. Pion From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 22 11:48:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:48:39 +1000 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 LAA27519 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:48:33 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb30.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.30]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA04408 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 1998 20:48:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980321204827.006e0af4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 20:48:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: <199803212200.RAA24399@bretweir.total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:49 AM 3/20/98 -0500, you wrote: > > >To put things back into perspective, the original question was: > >N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D >Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W >asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E >passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect >the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D >should stand. Is 3H illegal? > Yes. Since N correctly explained the agreement, there is no unauthorized information. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 22 12:43:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:43:13 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA27691 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:43:08 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2006933; 22 Mar 98 2:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 01:27:50 +0000 To: APion Cc: Bridge List From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: <199803212200.RAA24399@bretweir.total.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803212200.RAA24399@bretweir.total.net>, APion writes > > >To put things back into perspective, the original question was: > >N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D >Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W >asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E >passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect >the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D >should stand. Is 3H illegal? > > >A. Pion S has opened a 2D she thinks is Flannery and hears pard bid 3D. Figuring that 3D won't normally be NF S will call again. What they call is irrelevant to your question, another call *will* be made, so I don't see how your TD can rule back to 3D (although plenty would). IMO S should make the book bid she makes with her normal partner (or failing that, which doesn't apply here, the recognised call made by her peer group) as being the least unethical course of action. She could well be dead in the water, though. -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_??? NO! _}\ |phone before fax to: 451 Mile End Road | / @\__. __/# \ |181 980 4947 London E3 4PA | /\ __) {-- \ |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 | /\:\ .--' ~~\ /\ |Dealing is my best game From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 22 13:55:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA27847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:55:10 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA27842 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:55:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ab2011046; 22 Mar 98 3:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 02:40:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980321204827.006e0af4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>To put things back into perspective, the original question was: >> >>N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D >>Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W >>asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E >>passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect >>the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D >>should stand. Is 3H illegal? >Yes. Since N correctly explained the agreement, there is no unauthorized >information. After several quick whiskies, I am not at my best - BUT - that is not a very helpful answer! Why is 3H illegal *IF* there is no UI? PWD. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 22 16:57:55 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 16:57:55 +1000 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 QAA28235 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 16:57:48 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-44-244.s244.tnt3.brd.erols.com [207.172.44.244]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA09728 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 01:57:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980322015844.007e9490@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 01:58:44 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980321204827.006e0af4@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199803212200.RAA24399@bretweir.total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:48 PM 3/21/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 11:49 AM 3/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >>To put things back into perspective, the original question was: >> >>N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D >>Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W >>asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E >>passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect >>the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D >>should stand. Is 3H illegal? >> >Yes. Since N correctly explained the agreement, there is no unauthorized >information. > >Mike Dennis _ >msd@mindspring.com o\ /o >Pikesville, MD o|_|o >USA |-| > o|-| > |-| > |_| > / \ > ( _ ) > \ _ / > > It's late, I know, but I can't for the life of me figure out how you're making *any* call illegal in the absence of UI. If there is no UI, there are no restrictions at all on what S can bid. IMO, N's explanation *is* UI to S, which leads back to the question of exactly how we figure out S' LA's... Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 22 19:51:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA28821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:51:03 +1000 Received: from boober.lineone.net (boober-be.lineone.net [194.75.152.84]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA28816 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:50:56 +1000 Received: from george (host5-171-246-224.btinternet.com [195.171.246.224]) by boober.lineone.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id JAA12205 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:50:20 GMT Message-Id: <199803220950.JAA12205@boober.lineone.net> Reply-To: From: "ERIC FAVAGER" To: Subject: Mottley Crew's Mothering Sunday Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:41:27 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a recent observer of your erudite group and discovered that there quite a few cat lovers amongst you, please allow me to introduce myself with news about Mottley Crew who has recently adopted us. This morning she gave birth to - I think - six very pretty kittens. The other two cats , Poppy (aka Poodle aka Popsy Poodle) and Daisy May (aka Mini) are very interested if a little confused. Mottley's adopted grandparents are doing as well as can be expected ! Whilst I am here my interest in bridge laws began in an amusing way at my first ever congress.I had made up a pivot team with three people I had never met before and played with Naty Gable for the first 12 boards. This was the time of no bidding boxes and he was very deaf. Playing KISS , on the third board I was sitting West and the bidding went ; Dealer N 1NT Pass Pass 2H Pass Ace of clubs hit the table as partner's opening lead!! DIRECTOR ! Duly arrived the T.D. who ruled the auction was not yet finished. My partner now passed and so did S Partner's hand now hit the table with AKQxx clubs and a 17 count. DIRECTOR North complained bitterly that E had not Doubled, and the director explained just because you hold !7 points you do not HAVE to double. I made 2H + 1 +140 to the good guys. On opening the sheet the world and his wife are 4H -1. A totally exasperated N calls DIRECTOR and shows the score sheet to the T.D. Director rules result stands and N appeals. AC confirms T.D. ruling. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 22 23:28:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:28:33 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29154 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:28:27 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2028044; 22 Mar 98 13:18 GMT Message-ID: <2k9G9IAF1IF1EwhW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 04:02:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original 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: >S has opened a 2D she thinks is Flannery and hears pard bid 3D. Figuring >that 3D won't normally be NF S will call again. What they call is >irrelevant to your question, another call *will* be made, so I don't see >how your TD can rule back to 3D (although plenty would). > >IMO S should make the book bid she makes with her normal partner (or >failing that, which doesn't apply here, the recognised call made by her >peer group) as being the least unethical course of action. She could >well be dead in the water, though. Sense from Probst: it is like the monkeys typing the works of Shakespeare [about as likely, anyway]. After 2D - 3D the ethical player bids as per Flannery. If they now get a top, then they deserve it! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 23 00:38:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:38:04 +1000 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 AAA01702 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:37:58 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb245.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.245]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA03249 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:37:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980322093753.006e0dec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 09:37:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980321204827.006e0af4@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:40 AM 3/22/98 +0000, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >>>To put things back into perspective, the original question was: >>> >>>N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D >>>Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W >>>asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E >>>passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect >>>the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D >>>should stand. Is 3H illegal? > >>Yes. Since N correctly explained the agreement, there is no unauthorized >>information. > > After several quick whiskies, I am not at my best - BUT - that is not >a very helpful answer! Why is 3H illegal *IF* there is no UI? > Sorry, I don't even have the excuse of any whiskies at all to justify my mis-reading of the question. I meant that yes, 3H is legal, for the reason cited. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 23 01:09:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:09:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA01790 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:08:58 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id ac2018350; 22 Mar 98 14:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 14:57:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: <2k9G9IAF1IF1EwhW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Sense from Probst: it is like the monkeys typing the works of >Shakespeare [about as likely, anyway]. Having read this during daylight it looks over-the-top and rude: sorry John. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 23 01:20:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:20:57 +1000 Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA01829 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:20:51 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 15:20:46 +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 PAA02598 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 15:17:59 GMT From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: <2k9G9IAF1IF1EwhW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 15:16:15 +0000 (GMT) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1.1 Build (16) X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 04:02:13 +0000 David Stevenson wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: [snipped] > > Sense from Probst: it is like the monkeys typing the works of > Shakespeare [about as likely, anyway]. Shouldn't that be "Mr. Probst"? ------------------------- Jeremy Rickard email: J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk tel: 0117 928 7989 fax: 0117 928 7999 ------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 23 09:56:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:56:11 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA04119 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:56:05 +1000 Received: from default (client950f.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.95.15]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA21298; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:55:57 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:54:34 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd55ed$dd6c14e0$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: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: 17 March 1998 20:05 Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only >I have spent a lot of time reading this thread and trying to come to >grips with it. I think I understand.,.? >Are we agreed that David was right ( within the terms of the current EBU >interpretation) and that having called the opener had accepted the >insufficient bid #### From Grattan ##### I find there are a number of creases to be ironed out. To begin with, there are numerous ways of checking up that I am me - home address 14 Elmswood Court, Liverpool L18 8DJ, England; Home phone/fax (44)(0)151 724 1484, but preferably use office fax on (0)151 230 0664. Secondly, my role is to communicate for the WBFLC; as I have already stated information provided as to committee positions is not to be taken anywhere as guidance to the TD, who should wait for his zonal or national authority or SO to tell him how to act. Thirdly, the committee always has a *current position* based on the last decision reached which holds good until the Committee changes it. Some of the time at least, I will know what this is. In the case of Law 27 the present position of the committee must support what it did in implementing the proposal put by Kaplan and the effect agreed of removing the cancellation of the substitute call, as Kaplan put it "to avoid the confusion whether, the call being cancelled, it may be accepted by LHO". (I am not saying this may not be looked at again). Fourth, it should be recognised that we are in quite a difficult situation; we have a newly revised Code of Laws in which everyone will be reluctant to make early major alterations. With a new Chairman in the seat, it is inevitable there will be a number of things he will wish to take another look at. BLML has produced a variety of questions, some of which merit our attention. There is a need to establish priorities and discuss timing: it is likely that the most that can be done for the moment, in Lille, is to produce a few 'explanatory' footnotes to the laws; on the other hand I shall be surprised if we will want to wait until 2007 to put in place some of the more significant moves that are in the air and may be agreed. I anticipate things will happen before then. Fifth, we have the problem of internal communications of the widely dispersed committee, not all with e-mail or even fax; consultation may prove to be a slow process. Sixth, BLML undoubtedly presents WBFLC with a new kind of problem in responding to the pressures of modern, rapid electronic communication. We will have to think how we are going to achieve a response before the dog has run away with the Sunday dinner. Some kind of process for producing an interim position statement seems called for, and we will have to look at it. ##Enough.## G#### From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 23 10:02:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:02:20 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04164 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:02:11 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client2511.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.17]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA21751 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 00:01:59 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Mottley Crew's Mothering Sunday Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:55:02 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd55ed$ee0d48a0$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 wonder how long Naty took to pass I bet he took 5 mins to count those 17 points. Even if he didn't, I doubt that any TD in the country would have believed his "I didn't hesitate". Penny sends "Congratulations" to Mottley Crew. Anne -----Original Message----- From: ERIC FAVAGER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 10:36 AM Subject: Mottley Crew's Mothering Sunday >As a recent observer of your erudite group and discovered that there quite >a few cat lovers amongst you, please allow me to introduce myself with news >about Mottley Crew who has recently adopted us. This morning she gave birth >to - I think - six very pretty kittens. The other two cats , Poppy (aka >Poodle aka Popsy Poodle) and Daisy May (aka Mini) are very interested if a >little confused. >Mottley's adopted grandparents are doing as well as can be expected ! > >Whilst I am here my interest in bridge laws began in an amusing way at my >first ever congress.I had made up a pivot team with three people I had >never met before and played with Naty Gable for the first 12 boards. This >was the time of no bidding boxes and he was very deaf. >Playing KISS , on the third board I was sitting West and the bidding went >; >Dealer N 1NT Pass Pass 2H > Pass Ace of clubs hit the table as partner's opening >lead!! >DIRECTOR ! Duly arrived the T.D. who ruled the auction was not yet >finished. My partner now passed and so did S > >Partner's hand now hit the table with AKQxx clubs and a 17 count. > >DIRECTOR North complained bitterly that E had not Doubled, and the >director explained just because you hold !7 points you do not HAVE to >double. > >I made 2H + 1 +140 to the good guys. On opening the sheet the world and >his wife are 4H -1. >A totally exasperated N calls DIRECTOR and shows the score sheet to the >T.D. Director rules result stands and N appeals. >AC confirms T.D. ruling. > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 23 10:05:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:05:48 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA04202 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:05:41 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012449; 23 Mar 98 0:03 GMT Message-ID: <5lXflJC5LIF1Ewhl@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 03:18:17 +0000 To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980321204827.006e0af4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980321204827.006e0af4@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 11:49 AM 3/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >>To put things back into perspective, the original question was: >> >>N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D >>Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W >>asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E >>passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect >>the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D >>should stand. Is 3H illegal? >> >Yes. Since N correctly explained the agreement, there is no unauthorized >information. > IMO The explanation is correct, yes, but S has got UI and without it would not have passed, so pass is not a logical alternative. She's misbid 2D and is rescuing or she is playing Flannery and will call again. -- 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 Mar 23 12:14:33 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:14:33 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA04774 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:14:26 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1022547; 23 Mar 98 2:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 02:09:37 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original 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 > >> Sense from Probst: it is like the monkeys typing the works of >>Shakespeare [about as likely, anyway]. > > Having read this during daylight it looks over-the-top and rude: sorry >John. > about par for the course David, i really don't mind and frequently deserve 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 Mar 23 18:23:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:23:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA06308 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:23:11 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1012130; 23 Mar 98 8:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 10:15:47 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only In-Reply-To: <01bd5258$e5d9d560$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01bd5258$e5d9d560$LocalHost@default>, Grattan Endicott writes > >gester@globalnet.co.uk >Grattan Endicott >Liverpool L18 8DJ : > >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 17 March 1998 09:39 >Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only > > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>David Martin wrote: >>>>Maddog writes: >> >>>>> ########## Given my original position, I would until Gratten's recent >>>>> postings have cancelled the 3H, informed the offender of his options >>>>> and allowed him to make any sufficient bid or pass. Now, following >>>>> Gratten's posting and until the next L & E meeting (25th March) >>>> > \x/ \x/-much snipping-\x/ \x/ >#### >I am disappointed to find anyone using the correspondence on BLML as >a source of instruction on the procedure of the TD. This must always come >from the NBO or the SO - often one and the same. BLML is not a decision >making body; it is an Exchange where there is discussion and the provision >of information. What I gave concerning Law 27 was (accurate) information >as to the effect of the change as EK had proposed it and the WBFLC had >adopted it, giving it in support of the position of the NZ Federation which >evidently had sight of papers from Edgar. I did not suggest that any SO >should do anything in particular about it, except perhaps to be aware of >what was done and to what end. #### Grattan #### > Passing information and experience. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 23 19:24:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 19:24:13 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA06537 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 19:24:06 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client259d.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.25.157]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA07659 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:24:01 GMT From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re Motley Crew's Mothering Sunday Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:24:56 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd563d$8b69c340$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 From: postmaster@aamta.compuserve.net To: "blml" Subject: Re: Mottley Crew's Mothering Sunday Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 1:48 AM Delivery Failure Report Your Re: Mottley Crew's Mothering Sunday document: was not Christian Farwig@AC_Telekom delivered to : because: No route found to domain AC_Telekom from server FRALH1002. Check Server, Connection and Domain documents in Name & Address Book. CSERVE-AAIN01/SERVER/CSERVE, CSERVE-92/SERVER/CSERVE, ISSHX5003/Andersen NET, AMRHX0001/Andersen NET, ISSHM5006, ISSHM5005, ISSHM5005, ISSHM5005, FRALH1002, FRALH1002, ISSHM5003, ISSHX5005/Andersen IMAIL, ISSHX5005/Andersen IMAIL, ISSHX5004/Andersen IMAIL, CSERVE-94/SERVER/CSERVE ________________________ To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ("blml") @aasmtp @ cserve cc: From: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk ("Anne Jones") @ internet Date: 03/22/98 11:55:02 PM Subject: Re: Mottley Crew's Mothering Sunday I wonder how long Naty took to pass I bet he took 5 mins to count those 17 points. Even if he didn't, I doubt that any TD in the country would have believed his "I didn't hesitate". Penny sends "Congratulations" to Mottley Crew. Anne -----Original Message----- From: ERIC FAVAGER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 10:36 AM Subject: Mottley Crew's Mothering Sunday >As a recent observer of your erudite group and discovered that there quite >a few cat lovers amongst you, please allow me to introduce myself with news >about Mottley Crew who has recently adopted us. This morning she gave birth >to - I think - six very pretty kittens. The other two cats , Poppy (aka >Poodle aka Popsy Poodle) and Daisy May (aka Mini) are very interested if a >little confused. >Mottley's adopted grandparents are doing as well as can be expected ! > >Whilst I am here my interest in bridge laws began in an amusing way at my >first ever congress.I had made up a pivot team with three people I had >never met before and played with Naty Gable for the first 12 boards. This >was the time of no bidding boxes and he was very deaf. >Playing KISS , on the third board I was sitting West and the bidding went >; >Dealer N 1NT Pass Pass 2H > Pass Ace of clubs hit the table as partner's opening >lead!! >DIRECTOR ! Duly arrived the T.D. who ruled the auction was not yet >finished. My partner now passed and so did S > >Partner's hand now hit the table with AKQxx clubs and a 17 count. > >DIRECTOR North complained bitterly that E had not Doubled, and the >director explained just because you hold !7 points you do not HAVE to >double. > >I made 2H + 1 +140 to the good guys. On opening the sheet the world and >his wife are 4H -1. >A totally exasperated N calls DIRECTOR and shows the score sheet to the >T.D. Director rules result stands and N appeals. >AC confirms T.D. ruling. > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 24 03:44:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:44:02 +1000 Received: from minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA10653 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 03:43:55 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yHBEI-0007NtC; Mon, 23 Mar 98 12:41 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:43:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980321204827.006e0af4@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199803212200.RAA24399@bretweir.total.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:48 PM 3/21/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 11:49 AM 3/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >>To put things back into perspective, the original question was: >> >>N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D >>Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W >>asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E >>passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect >>the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D >>should stand. Is 3H illegal? >> >Yes. Since N correctly explained the agreement, there is no unauthorized >information. > >Mike Dennis _ >msd@mindspring.com o\ /o >Pikesville, MD o|_|o >USA |-| The information that N misunderstood the 2D bid is unauthorized to S. S must act based on a 3D response to a Flannery 2D. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 24 05:18:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:18:18 +1000 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 FAA10999 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:18:10 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA09483; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:17:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.41) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009470; Mon Mar 23 13:16:50 1998 Received: by har-pa1-09.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5666.073AF840@har-pa1-09.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:14:44 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5666.073AF840@har-pa1-09.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'John S. Nichols'" Subject: RE: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:14:41 -0500 Encoding: 77 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What is so hard about this question? South falls asleep and forgets his agreement. Thinking he is playing Flannery 2D, he bids it. In ACBL partner does not alert the bid. He is not allowed to let that wake him up when partner bids 3D. Instead he must give the Flannery response to that forcing enquiry. Pass is not an LA. What IS an LA depends upon what his hand should rebid in a 2D-3D Flannery auction. He has only one ethically proper action: bid as he would believing partner IS playing the convention. In parts of the world where a weak 2D is alertable and opponents don't ask the meaning of the alert, he does not know that partner has misinterpreted the bid as weak, and of course bids on within the dictates of Flannery. (He would of course do the same hearing an alert, unquestioned, from a partner who unbeknownst to him was thinking the system was Multi, or Mini-Roman or whatever. The only think he is allowed to hear from partner is the 3D call and he must base his next call solely upon that, his hand, and his bridge judgement.) The poster of the original thread was more concerned about how a TD would know just WHAT action was lawful by South, given that UI was present. How would he "impute" a system that this partnership did not play onto the bidding to determine what S reasonably should have believed was the proper rebid in this auction playing Flannery. Perhaps the convention is not so widespread that some in other parts of the world encounter it infrequently...else I cannot understand the repeated assertions that PASS could ever be an LA. In the absence of documentation (and it is hard to produce system notes for a system the pair in NOT playing :-)) the bridge evidence of an 11-16 high card point four spade five heart hand does seem to strongly back the claim that South was bidding Flannery. (Give him xxxx x xxxx xxxx for distribution and I'm extremely skeptical) It appears logical to presume that he is playing the whole convention, and in the absence of strong evidence to show that he regularly and consistenly plays this bid in some other manner, the normal conventional response can be accepted as the only LA. The more general question by the original poster would have been better served by an alternative example where there is no "textbook" bid for opener to make. There are situations in which the legal and ethical bid is not clear. This however does not appear to be one of them. You might say the example is not all it was quacked up to be. :-) -- Craig Senior ---------- From: John S. Nichols[SMTP:jnichols@minfod.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 1998 7:43 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D - the original question At 08:48 PM 3/21/98 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 11:49 AM 3/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >>To put things back into perspective, the original question was: >> >>N & S agreed to play 2D weak but in a bid that afternoon, S opened 2D >>Flannery forgetting that she agreed previously to play 2D weak. When W >>asked N what it was N explained it was 2D weak; W passed. N said 3D. E >>passed. Then S having realized her error said 3H in an attempt to redirect >>the bidding . E called the TD. TD said that 3H was illegal and that 3D >>should stand. Is 3H illegal? >> >Yes. Since N correctly explained the agreement, there is no unauthorized >information. > >Mike Dennis _ >msd@mindspring.com o\ /o >Pikesville, MD o|_|o >USA |-| The information that N misunderstood the 2D bid is unauthorized to S. S must act based on a 3D response to a Flannery 2D. John S. Nichols Exactly :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 24 05:28:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:28:41 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA11062 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:28:35 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA27767; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:27:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa1-09.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.41) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027741; Mon Mar 23 13:27:25 1998 Received: by har-pa1-09.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5667.886543C0@har-pa1-09.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:25:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5667.886543C0@har-pa1-09.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Steve Willner'" Subject: RE: Law 27 again UK TDs only Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 14:25:29 -0500 Encoding: 11 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: Steve Willner[SMTP:willner@cfa183.harvard.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 11:25 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only (All the above might have been written by my cat. Or by someone else's cat. If I had a cat. Which I don't. But how could you tell?) Clearly the ravings of a man frustrated by having no cat to stroke and no purr to soothe him. :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 24 05:56:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:56:06 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA11139 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:56:00 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1018986; 23 Mar 98 19:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:07:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Reply-To: Paul Barden Subject: Re: Flannery 2D-3D In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980319150215.006eece4@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3.0.1.32.19980319150215.006eece4@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes [] >In some cases, in order to determine possible LA's, we are forced to >"impute" methods to the bidder which are not only alien to the partnership, >but are in fact extremely rare. An example is the faux transfer bid of 2H >in response to 1NT, holding 6 hearts and 2 spades. The ususal wisdom in >this case is to impute the following method to the 2H bidder: 2H is natural >and 2S is "therefore" a maximal heart raise of some sort, perhaps with >short spades. > >Nobody I know bids this way. The rare parterships who eschew Jacoby >transfers treat 2H or 2S over 1NT as shutout bids. For them, the sequence >1NT-P-2H-P-2S simply does not exist. Party bridge players who have never >heard of transfers or Stayman are likely to regard 2S as a natural bid. In >any case, it seems highly illogical to "impute" to the 2H bidder a method >which is not only unfamiliar to the partnership but one which is rarly, if >ever, actually employed. I do play 1NT-2H-2S as a heart raise. Logically, there is no reason to break transfers but not natural takeouts. It is quite true that many players who eschew transfers do so because they like to keep things simple, and these players would probably continue opposite a natural 2H takeout with 3H if at all. But some players prefer natural takeouts because we think them a superior method to transfers (opposite a mini or even a weak NT opener). So I think it quite reasonable for a TD to judge that for some partnerships 1NT-2H-2S is an impossible sequence if 2H is natural, and reveals that someone has forgotten the system. But the TD should judge by looking at the sophistication of the partnership, not the sophistication of the method. -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 24 13:51:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:51:28 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13244 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:51:21 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2014175; 24 Mar 98 3:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 08:46:47 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Law 27 again UK TDs only In-Reply-To: <199803181625.LAA06796@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803181625.LAA06796@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> ..................................cut......................... > >All the above may be amusing, but the serious questions are: >1) What happens if the written language of a Law is inconsistent with >the known intent of the writers? .................................cut.......................... What we have seen in the past, the Kaplan method, is the addition of a footnote to say that white is grey. -- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 26 06:58:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:58:46 +1000 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 GAA26298 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 06:58:37 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h45.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id XAA12501; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 23:58:26 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <351A19B9.4CFB@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:02:50 -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: test Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Am I still here? Is anybody on line? There were no posters several days... Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 26 11:48:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:48:39 +1000 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 LAA28130 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:48:33 +1000 Received: from jatkinsn.ihug.co.nz (p7-max8.auck.ihug.co.nz [209.76.149.199]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA14689; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:46:57 +1200 Message-ID: <000401bd5859$38186b60$c7954cd1@jatkinsn.ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: , Subject: Re: test Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:47:27 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" 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 -----Original Message----- From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, March 26, 1998 9:21 AM Subject: test >Hi all:) >Am I still here? >Is anybody on line? >There were no posters several days... >Vitold > Nice to hear from you. Was wondering as well :)) Julie From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 26 19:36:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA29914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:36:43 +1000 Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA29909 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:36:35 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id KAA12638 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:36:30 +0100 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via smap (V1.3+ESMTP) with ESMTP id sma009542; Thu Mar 26 10:28:36 1998 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.8.5/8.6.10-1.2.2m-970826) with ESMTP id KAA25532 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:28:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from saigon.ehv.sc.philips.com (saigon [130.144.63.218]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with SMTP id KAA07206 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:28:35 +0100 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by saigon.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/) id EAA29882 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 04:28:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199803260928.EAA29882@saigon.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Not a test To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:28:32 MET X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold & Julie Atkinson wrote: > There were no posters several days... > Was wondering as well :)) So, I will post a case for you to discuss (test-mails get boring after the fisrt five or so). S/No AK65 Q K976 Kt82 Q3 7 AJ984 K7653 Jt64 A3 J4 Q7653 Jt9842 t2 Q82 A9 The Bidding: S: 2 D, W: 3 D, Pass, Pass, Pass The meaning of 2 D (supported by convention card and extensive system notes): a. Weak 2 in H or Sp b. Strong 4-4-4-1 c. Strong Balanced West bid 3 D, showing (he thought) 5+ hearts, but taken by his partner as natural, so no alert. North now saw no reason to assume that partner had spades, ans passed. The result was down three (-150), but as all other NS pairs had bid and made 4 spades (mostly with an overtrick), NS were not happy. DIRECTOR! EW explained that they play 3D as showing hearts only against a 'multi' that contains strong one-suited hands. Against other multi's, like in the present case, 3D is natural, so West erred and there was no infraction. EW could not prove their statement with their convention card and/or system notes. Director's decision: W erred, no infraction, no adjustment. APPEAL! Arguments NS: The argument of a different defense against different types of multi's came up rather late in the discussion. We think it was a 'creative' idea thought up to be able to keep the good score. The special defense against multi (including transfer-overcalls) that is widely used in the Netherlands, has been created to handle the uncertainty of opener's suit. There is no reason at all to act differently depending on whether the strong hands contained in the multi can or can't contain one- suited hands. Arguments EW: There case against us. Unless you think we are liars, there has been no infraction. Question 1: Do you agree with director's decision? Question 2: What should the AC do? Question 3: If West claims that he neglected looking at NS's Convention Card before bidding 3 D (otherwise he would have seen the definition of 2D and not gone astray); do you think he can/should/might be punished under Law 74B1? [As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from paying insufficient attention to the game.] -- Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 26 21:45:16 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA00463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:45:16 +1000 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 VAA00458 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:45:09 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h47.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id OAA13575; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:44:51 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <351AE97D.734E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:49:17 -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: Active_Directorship Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_CASE.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_CASE.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) As nobody introduces their topics on modern style of TD's ruling - I'll try to interrupt the break:) While being TD (it happens rather rare) I tried to save as many boards as possible, even crossing the limits of TD's authority. And even in cases where adjust score should be given - I try to continue playing to receive at the table the result that may be used as the basis for future AC's decision (where Parties proved what were their real possibility in real compete at the table). F.Mercury said "Show must go". Yeah - and board should be played. But in every such case I know my potential responsibility if AC takes another decision... For doing so I always continuously walk around the playing room, trying to see and hear everything that happens in playing area, to be inside current events. We name it as "Active Directorship". And now 2 cases. 1. Pair, bidding was over, both EW made first leads and both NS opened their hands... At that very moment I was at the table and saw that all four players were seeing at their partners , None of them was cheater, it was an ordinary, common human reaction, and usually it is partner's responsibility not to react... At that moment I ordered: "Shut eyes!". After that I re-established the position before 1-st lead, allowed them to open eyes - and game continued. Result stood. No complaints. 2. Match, players were rather confused - and I was at the table. It happened that in long artificial one-side-bidding after rather long hesitation of the bidder Party - all four players forgot the bidding... And they could not to continue... As there were 3 boards to the end of match and about 20 minutes - I ordered them to start the bidding from the beginning... Result stood. No complaints. I guess such rulings rather contradict with nowadays TD's customs... Or not?:)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 26 22:13:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:13:23 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA00556 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:13:11 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:13:03 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Mar 98 12:13:01 GMT Message-Id: <3059.9803261213@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: multi muddle; was [Not a test] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > S/No AK65 > Q > K976 > Kt82 > Q3 7 > AJ984 K7653 > Jt64 A3 > J4 Q7653 > Jt9842 > t2 > Q82 > A9 > > > The Bidding: S: 2 D, W: 3 D, Pass, Pass, Pass > > The meaning of 2 D (supported by convention card and > extensive system notes): a. Weak 2 in H or Sp > b. Strong 4-4-4-1 > c. Strong Balanced > > West bid 3 D, showing (he thought) 5+ hearts, but > taken by his partner as natural, so no alert. > > North now saw no reason to assume that partner had spades, > ans passed. The result was down three (-150), but as all > other NS pairs had bid and made 4 spades (mostly with an > overtrick), NS were not happy. DIRECTOR! > > EW explained that they play 3D as showing hearts only > against a 'multi' that contains strong one-suited hands. > Against other multi's, like in the present case, 3D is > natural, so West erred and there was no infraction. > EW could not prove their statement with their convention > card and/or system notes. > > Director's decision: W erred, no infraction, no adjustment. > [snip] > > Question 1: Do you agree with director's decision? Reading this, I feel EW are trying something on. I would hide behind L75 (TD is to presume Mistaken Explanation) and rule MI, and adjust to NS making 4S. However, the director at the time might have had a different impression of what was going on, and a better feel for how different defences to a multi are played locally. > > Question 2: What should the AC do? The AC should question EW to see if their claim of different defences to different multis in really what they play. In particular, I would ask West how he discovered and when he discovered that it was his mistake rather than East's mistake. The AC might (in the end) fall back on L75, and agree with me. > > Question 3: If West claims that he neglected looking at NS's > Convention Card before bidding 3 D (otherwise > he would have seen the definition of 2D and not > gone astray); do you think he can/should/might be > punished under Law 74B1? [As a matter of courtesy > a player should refrain from paying insufficient > attention to the game.] I do not think a DP fine (rather than a warning) under L74B would be appropriate for a first offence. 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 Mar 26 23:41:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:41:48 +1000 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 XAA00747 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:41:43 +1000 Received: from jatkinsn.ihug.co.nz (p55-max11.auck.ihug.co.nz [209.76.150.183]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA06376 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:41:38 +1200 Message-ID: <000f01bd58bc$e3315940$b7964cd1@jatkinsn.ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: "bridge laws" Subject: misbid ?? Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:39:53 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD5921.3DDC9120" 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_000A_01BD5921.3DDC9120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable S/No AK65 Q K976 Kt82 Q3 7 AJ984 K7653 Jt64 A3 J4 Q7653 Jt9842 t2 Q82 A9 The Bidding: S: 2 D, W: 3 D, Pass, Pass, Pass The meaning of 2 D (supported by convention card and extensive system notes): a. Weak 2 in H or Sp b. Strong 4-4-4-1 c. Strong Balanced West bid 3 D, showing (he thought) 5+ hearts, but taken by his partner as natural, so no alert. North now saw no reason to assume that partner had spades, ans passed. The result was down three (-150), but as all other NS pairs had bid and made 4 spades (mostly with an=20 overtrick), NS were not happy. DIRECTOR! EW explained that they play 3D as showing hearts only against a 'multi' that contains strong one-suited hands. Against other multi's, like in the present case, 3D is natural, so West erred and there was no infraction. EW could not prove their statement with their convention card and/or system notes. Director's decision: W erred, no infraction, no adjustment. APPEAL! Arguments NS: The argument of a different defense against different types of multi's came up rather late in the=20 discussion. We think it was a 'creative' idea thought up to be able to keep the good score. The special defense=20 against multi (including transfer-overcalls) that is widely used in the Netherlands, has been created to handle the uncertainty of opener's suit. There is no reason at=20 all to act differently depending on whether the strong=20 hands contained in the multi can or can't contain one- suited hands. Arguments EW: There case against us. Unless you think we are liars, there has been no infraction. Question 1: Do you agree with director's decision? Question 2: What should the AC do? Question 3: If West claims that he neglected looking at NS's Convention Card before bidding 3 D (otherwise he would have seen the definition of 2D and not gone astray); do you think he can/should/might be=20 punished under Law 74B1? [As a matter of courtesy=20 a player should refrain from paying insufficient=20 attention to the game.] =20 It seems that the discussion re meaning has arisen after the end of = play.=20 Under Law 75D2, I would think that West should have called the Director = and explained his/her idea of the system and failure to alert, although = in fairness the failure to alert may have caused W to realise they had = misbid and therefore need take no further action. Secondly. in footnote 22 re misbid and misexplanation the Director (and = of course the AC) is to assume misexplanation in absence of evidence to = the contrary. I would rule misexplanation and adjust accordingly as Director. In = absence of a system card, I have one person whom obviously thought the = agreement was conventional. That is enough for me to rule = misexplanation. In these situations as well as hesitations, no-one is calling anyone a = liar or a cheat. There are clear guidelines on how to rule in Law without there being any = comment on ethics etc. The Bridge Laws tend to find parties guilty until = proven innocent allowing TDs to make these rulings without having to = comment on players character As a member of the AC I am unsure of my final decision. The advantage of = the AC is that it has time to question and be satisfied as to actual = agreements etc. I do know, however, that I would have to be positive = about their agreements to alter the TDs ruling. Whether W looked at the opponents system card or not is irrelevant. The = only relevant issue is their agreements over this type of bid. Julie =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD5921.3DDC9120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
S/No    =20 AK65
        =20 Q
        =20 K976
        =20 Kt82
Q3          &nb= sp;     =20 7
AJ984          &nb= sp;  =20 K7653
Jt64          =     =20 A3
J4           = ;     =20 Q7653
        =20 Jt9842
        =20 t2
        =20 Q82
         = A9


The=20 Bidding: S: 2 D, W: 3 D, Pass, Pass, Pass

The meaning of 2 D = (supported=20 by convention card and
extensive system notes): a. Weak 2 in H or=20 Sp
           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;=20 b. Strong=20 4-4-4-1
          &n= bsp;           &nb= sp; =20 c. Strong Balanced

West bid 3 D, showing (he thought) 5+ hearts,=20 but
taken by his partner as natural, so no alert.

North now = saw no=20 reason to assume that partner had spades,
ans passed. The result was = down=20 three (-150), but as all
other NS pairs had bid and made 4 spades = (mostly=20 with an
overtrick), NS were not happy. DIRECTOR!

EW explained = that=20 they play 3D as showing hearts only
against a 'multi' that contains = strong=20 one-suited hands.
Against other multi's, like in the present case, 3D = is
natural, so West erred and there was no infraction.
EW could = not prove=20 their statement with their convention
card and/or system=20 notes.

Director's decision: W erred, no infraction, no=20 adjustment.

APPEAL!

Arguments NS: The argument of a = different=20 defense against
different types of multi's came up rather late in the =
discussion. We think it was a 'creative' idea thought up
to be = able to=20 keep the good score. The special defense
against multi (including=20 transfer-overcalls) that is
widely used in the Netherlands, has been = created=20 to handle
the uncertainty of opener's suit. There is no reason at =
all to=20 act differently depending on whether the strong
hands contained in = the multi=20 can or can't contain one-
suited hands.

Arguments EW: There = case=20 against us. Unless you think we
are liars, there has been no=20 infraction.


Question 1: Do you agree with director's=20 decision?

Question 2: What should the AC do?

Question 3: = If West=20 claims that he neglected looking at=20 NS's
           = ;=20 Convention Card before bidding 3 D=20 (otherwise
          = ; =20 he would have seen the definition of 2D and=20 not
           = gone=20 astray); do you think he can/should/might be=20
            = punished=20 under Law 74B1? [As a matter of courtesy=20
            a = player=20 should refrain from paying insufficient=20
            = attention=20 to the game.]
 
 
It seems that the discussion re = meaning has=20 arisen after the end of play.
Under Law = 75D2, I would=20 think that West should have called the Director and explained his/her = idea of=20 the system and failure to alert, although in fairness the failure to = alert may=20 have caused W to realise they had misbid and therefore need take no = further=20 action.
 
Secondly. in footnote 22 re misbid and = misexplanation the=20 Director (and of course the AC) is to assume misexplanation in absence = of=20 evidence to the contrary.
 
I would rule misexplanation and adjust accordingly = as=20 Director. In absence of a system card, I have one person whom obviously = thought=20 the agreement was conventional. That is enough for me to rule=20 misexplanation.
 
In these situations as well as hesitations, no-one = is calling=20 anyone a liar or a cheat.
There are clear guidelines on how to rule in Law = without there=20 being any comment on ethics etc. The Bridge Laws tend to find parties = guilty=20 until proven innocent allowing TDs to make these rulings without having = to=20 comment on players character
 
As a member of the AC I am unsure of my final = decision. The=20 advantage of the AC is that it has time to question and be satisfied as = to=20 actual agreements etc. I do know, however, that I would have to be = positive=20 about their agreements to alter the TDs ruling.
 
Whether W  looked at the opponents system card = or not is=20 irrelevant. The only relevant issue is their agreements over this type = of=20 bid.
 
Julie
 
          =20
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BD5921.3DDC9120-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 26 23:42:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:42:27 +1000 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 XAA00755 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:42:20 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h47.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id QAA21741; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:42:06 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <351B04F7.65B6@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:46:32 -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_Not_test Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="NOT_TEST.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="NOT_TEST.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote: >Question 1: Do you agree with director's decision? > >Question 2: What should the AC do? > >Question 3: If West claims that he neglected looking at NS's > Convention Card before bidding 3 D (otherwise > he would have seen the definition of 2D and not > gone astray); do you think he can/should/might be > punished under Law 74B1? [As a matter of courtesy > a player should refrain from paying insufficient > attention to the game.] My opinion - there should be artificial score: - NS received what they earned. Cause they proved in reality that they did not want to compete. N should take decision to make a bid but Pass - double (he had almost 5 tricks in diamond contract and partner might have 1-2 tricks) or bid 3 Hearts (he had 4-5 tricks in any major suit contract). But I guess he decided to pass - and if it would be wrong - to appeal the board. I would try to check this hypothesis by questioning him why he did not bid anything but Pass. - Another pair of shoes - EW result. Our bridge is rather badly-protective game. That's why EW should prove that they did not think the problem up. I would organise their questioning (in absence of the partner) to get to know what was their defence against different kind of "multi" and why. Comparison their answer would be helpful for decision about their result: from that one, achieved at the table, till 4 Spades -or even 5 Hearts doubled, down 2 (cause W was brave enough to bid 3 Hearts that with great probability might provide to defend 4 Spades with 5 Hearts). Now - I try to answer of Con's questions: Add 1 - only in part of NS's result Add 2 - AC (and even TD) should investigate as was described above Add 3 - Sure (small or average procedural penalty) but only if investigation would not prove that EW made more serious infraction (see above). Sorry - I'm rather practical TD than theoretical:)) That's why let we wait for posts of our recognized authorities:)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 01:49:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:49:23 +1000 Received: from minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03402 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:49:16 +1000 Received: from pcmjn by minfod.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0yIEru-0007NtC; Thu, 26 Mar 98 10:47 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: jnichols@pop.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:48:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Active_Directorship In-Reply-To: <351AE97D.734E@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:49 PM 3/26/98 -0800, vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: >Hi all:) > >As nobody introduces their topics on modern style of TD's >ruling - I'll try to interrupt the break:) > >While being TD (it happens rather rare) I tried to save >as many boards as possible, even crossing the limits of >TD's authority. And even in cases where adjust score >should be given - I try to continue playing to receive >at the table the result that may be used as the basis for >future AC's decision (where Parties proved what were >their real possibility in real compete at the table). >F.Mercury said "Show must go". Yeah - and board >should be played. > >But in every such case I know my potential >responsibility if AC takes another decision... >For doing so I always continuously walk around the >playing room, trying to see and hear everything that >happens in playing area, to be inside current events. >We name it as "Active Directorship". >And now 2 cases. > >1. Pair, bidding was over, both EW made first leads >and both NS opened their hands... At that very >moment I was at the table and saw that all four players >were seeing at their partners , None of them was cheater, >it was an ordinary, common human reaction, and usually >it is partner's responsibility not to react... >At that moment I ordered: "Shut eyes!". After that I >re-established the position before 1-st lead, allowed them >to open eyes - and game continued. Result stood. No >complaints. > >2. Match, players were rather confused - and I was at the >table. It happened that in long artificial one-side-bidding >after rather long hesitation of the bidder Party - all four >players forgot the bidding... And they could not to >continue... >As there were 3 boards to the end of match and about >20 minutes - I ordered them to start the bidding from >the beginning... Result stood. No complaints. > >I guess such rulings rather contradict with nowadays >TD's customs... Or not?:)) > >Vitold > A lot would depend on the level of the players. These sound to me like very "novice" errors to me. In a club novice game, I would certainly approve your creative solutions to these situations. Helping the players to learn to enjoy duplicate bridge is an important part of such games. Your solutions meet that goal where a strict application of the Laws would only confuse everyone. On the other hand, in a higher level game I would be very surprised to see such errors and would expect the appropriate Laws to be applied. John S. Nichols From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 01:55:12 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:55:12 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03421 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:55:06 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (pm5-7.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.111]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA16281; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:54:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <351A7B46.887BF237@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:59:02 -0500 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active_Directorship References: <351AE97D.734E@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I want to play in YOUR game!!!! Nancy vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > Hi all:) > > As nobody introduces their topics on modern style of TD's > ruling - I'll try to interrupt the break:) > > While being TD (it happens rather rare) I tried to save > as many boards as possible, even crossing the limits of > TD's authority. And even in cases where adjust score > should be given - I try to continue playing to receive > at the table the result that may be used as the basis for > future AC's decision (where Parties proved what were > their real possibility in real compete at the table). > F.Mercury said "Show must go". Yeah - and board > should be played. > > But in every such case I know my potential > responsibility if AC takes another decision... > For doing so I always continuously walk around the > playing room, trying to see and hear everything that > happens in playing area, to be inside current events. > We name it as "Active Directorship". > And now 2 cases. > > 1. Pair, bidding was over, both EW made first leads > and both NS opened their hands... At that very > moment I was at the table and saw that all four players > were seeing at their partners , None of them was cheater, > it was an ordinary, common human reaction, and usually > it is partner's responsibility not to react... > At that moment I ordered: "Shut eyes!". After that I > re-established the position before 1-st lead, allowed them > to open eyes - and game continued. Result stood. No > complaints. > > 2. Match, players were rather confused - and I was at the > table. It happened that in long artificial one-side-bidding > after rather long hesitation of the bidder Party - all four > players forgot the bidding... And they could not to > continue... > As there were 3 boards to the end of match and about > 20 minutes - I ordered them to start the bidding from > the beginning... Result stood. No complaints. > > I guess such rulings rather contradict with nowadays > TD's customs... Or not?:)) > > Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 03:50:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 03:50:34 +1000 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 DAA04136 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 03:50:26 +1000 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 LAA29895 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:33:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:39:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803261639.LAA17452@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Is this hesitation Blackwood? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk E-W are playing 1430 RKC Blackwood. East bids 4NT, West, with three keycards, bids 5D, and East thinks for a while whether West could have no keycards and then signs off in 5S. Should this hesitation bar West from going on if he can construct a hand on which East has no keycards? This isn't the normal hesitation Blackwood situation, since West would probably have a bid without the hesitation. On the actual hand, West had Kxxxx Axx Qxx Ax, and the auction was 1S-2NT(forcing race)-4S(balanced, 7 losers)-4NT-5D-5S. -- 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 Mar 27 04:18:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 04:18:30 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA04374 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 04:18:21 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1009103; 26 Mar 98 17:59 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:54:17 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Law 17D Flaw Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:54:17 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There seems to me to be a flaw in Law 17D. Opponents are vulnerable and we are not. I pick up a Yarborough, my RHO (who is dealer) passes, I pass and my LHO opens 1NT (weak - 12-14 HCPs). I then realise that I have a hand from the wrong board and so call the TD who cancels my call. I take out the hand from the correct board to find: AX AKQJT98 AX AX Now under Law 17D, I pass knowing that since I have repeated my original call my LHO must bid a weak No Trump vulnerable (because of the footnote to Law 17D) and I double this for a good score of +1100 (Assume for the purposes of arguement that there is no slam our way). IMO, it cannot be right that whilst choosing my replacement call, I already know what my LHO must bid and it is AI! Surely it would be better to cancel both my call and all subsequent ones but still keep the footnote that LHO must repeated his call if I make the same call. The effect of cancelling LHO's call is to make it a non-offender's withdrawn action which under Law 16 is UI for the offender and, hence, the little ploy above would not be legal. (Gratten - please would you consider this and a review of Law 27 premature corrections as my suggestions for things to be considered at Lille.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 04:23:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 04:23:11 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA04463 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 04:22:42 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa13750; 26 Mar 98 10:21 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:39:07 PST." <199803261639.LAA17452@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:21:04 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9803261021.aa13750@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > E-W are playing 1430 RKC Blackwood. East bids 4NT, West, with three > keycards, bids 5D, and East thinks for a while whether West could have > no keycards and then signs off in 5S. Should this hesitation bar West > from going on if he can construct a hand on which East has no keycards? > This isn't the normal hesitation Blackwood situation, since West would > probably have a bid without the hesitation. > > On the actual hand, West had Kxxxx Axx Qxx Ax, and the auction was > 1S-2NT(forcing race)-4S(balanced, 7 losers)-4NT-5D-5S. The hesitation shouldn't bar West--at least, not the way I play. For me, if I make a two-way bid like that, if I have the greater number of keycards, I must go on, unless my previous bidding was so strong that the lesser number of keycards is an impossibility (*). (Actually, is there anyone who *doesn't* play this way?) This last condition obviously doesn't hold here. I wouldn't even need to think about constructing a hand where East could have no keycards. So passing is not a logical alternative. -- Adam (*) I know, in most cases like that, the wrong hand is probably using Blackwood; but it happens anyway, when playing with a partner who thinks that it's illegal to bid a slam without using Blackwood, and there are a few hands where it makes sense for the partner of a very strong hand to use Blackwood. Try for instance, QJ10xxxx x x KQJx opposite a partner who shows 22-23 balanced. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 04:26:11 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 04:26:11 +1000 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 EAA04534 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 04:26:02 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h155.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id VAA08826; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:25:53 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <351B4779.5D1C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:30:17 -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: Re Re Active_Directorship Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I'd like to thank John S. Nichols for his comments and Nancy T. Dressing for her kind respond By the way - both cases were not from novice club. Moreover - second case was from high-class-match. But it was third full (32 boards) match in that day, and one of the last board. You might noyiced that it was artificial system - and it happened after 8 rounds of bidding. Neither opponents could repeate the bidding nor partner. But the player need to know previous bidding for make right bid... Don't you hear that Polish player created a special convention for such cases?:) According with it - when any player in any moment bids 3 Diamonds that means: he forgot the system, he forgot the bidding, he is sick and tired, he will pass to any partner's bid... Clever and usefull convention:))) And seriously - I'd like to introduced examples where TD can take part in saving boards. No more:)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 05:20:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 05:20:45 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04794 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 05:20:39 +1000 Received: from default (client84be.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.190]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA15121; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:20:19 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Nancy T Dressing" , Cc: Subject: Re: Active_Directorship Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:16:05 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd58eb$9f92d180$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: Nancy T Dressing To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 March 1998 17:09 Subject: Re: Active_Directorship >I want to play in YOUR game!!!! Nancy > >vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > >> Hi all:) >> >> As nobody introduces their topics on modern style of TD's >> ruling - I'll try to interrupt the break:) >> >> While being TD (it happens rather rare) I tried to save >> as many boards as possible, even crossing the limits of >> TD's authority>> > #### This is the moment when I should shut up and go for a walk #### Grattan ##### From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 05:40:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 05:40:57 +1000 Received: from m3.sprynet.com (m3.sprynet.com [165.121.1.55]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA04852 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 05:40:51 +1000 Received: from default (hdn111-188.hil.compuserve.com [206.175.109.188]) by m3.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA03874 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:47:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980326193812.00ab1168@m3.sprynet.com> X-Sender: baresch@m3.sprynet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:38:12 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> E-W are playing 1430 RKC Blackwood. East bids 4NT, West, with three >> keycards, bids 5D, and East thinks for a while whether West could have >> no keycards and then signs off in 5S. Should this hesitation bar West >> from going on if he can construct a hand on which East has no keycards? > >The hesitation shouldn't bar West--at least, not the way I play. For >me, if I make a two-way bid like that, if I have the greater number of >keycards, I must go on, unless my previous bidding was so strong that >the lesser number of keycards is an impossibility (*). (Actually, is >there anyone who *doesn't* play this way?) The ACBL Bulletin not long ago described a convention called Autowood, where the 5C or 5D bidder *must* raise to 6 after a signoff with the higher number of key cards. I play it with my usual partner; it's on our CC and in our system notes, so there's no question about UI since the raise is automatic regardless of hesitation (IOW, pass is not an LA). Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@m3.sprynet.com Lawrence, Kansas Editing, writing, proofreading What's with this word "ubiquitous"? I've been seeing it everywhere. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 06:07:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:07:04 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA04952 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:06:58 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20984; 26 Mar 98 12:06 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:38:12 PST." <2.2.32.19980326193812.00ab1168@m3.sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:06:24 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9803261206.aa20984@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The ACBL Bulletin not long ago described a convention called Autowood, where > the 5C or 5D bidder *must* raise to 6 after a signoff with the higher number > of key cards. I play it with my usual partner . . . This seems simple--but too simple. I thought the usual way to play was to show an outside king or something like that, instead of just raising regardless of the rest of your hand. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 06:16:46 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:16:46 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04983 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:16:39 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA10772 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13280; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:16:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:16:44 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803262016.PAA13280@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 17D Flaw X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > There seems to me to be a flaw in Law 17D. How about another flaw? The Law specifies an _artificial_ AS. Can this be a good idea? Suppose I discover that my correct hand is one that is awkward for our bidding methods. I might be delighted to change my call and take an average minus, especially if the opponents are a good pair. I suppose a substantial PP could take care of either of the flaws mentioned, but I'd think the LC might want to have a look at the L17 wording. I doubt this Law rates top priority, though, because it is so rarely applicable. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 06:34:26 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:34:26 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05019 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:34:19 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09270 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:34:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13294; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:34:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:34:28 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803262034.PAA13294@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active_Directorship X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > This is the moment when I should shut up and go for a walk Oh, come. Just think creatively. :-) "If one law won't let you rule as you like, find another one." In the first case (two opening leads, two dummies), the declaring side hasn't done anything wrong. Declarer can expose his hand if he wants to. So just have him pick it up and play on. The defender's lead out of turn is normally subject to penalty, but not if it was based on misinformation from opponents (L47E). No doubt Vitold ruled on this basis. :-) The second case (everyone forgot the bidding), the laws don't seem to cover. Both sides are entitled to a review, and nobody can provide one. I suppose giving both sides avg- is allowed, but L85B ("Facts not Determined") seems most applicable. How can the TD determine the facts if the players don't know them? And can anyone argue that Vitold's ruling did not allow play to continue? :-) Straightforward lawbook rulings. What's the problem? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 11:22:29 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:22:29 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.159.80.130]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05829 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:22:21 +1000 Received: from (probst.demon.co.uk) [158.152.214.47] by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yINqQ-0000ln-00; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:22:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:48:57 +0000 To: David Grabiner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? In-Reply-To: <199803261639.LAA17452@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803261639.LAA17452@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes > >E-W are playing 1430 RKC Blackwood. East bids 4NT, West, with three >keycards, bids 5D, and East thinks for a while whether West could have >no keycards and then signs off in 5S. Should this hesitation bar West >from going on if he can construct a hand on which East has no keycards? >This isn't the normal hesitation Blackwood situation, since West would >probably have a bid without the hesitation. Absolutely not. I've shown 0 or 3 & partner has made a slam try. If I have 0 I will pass. If I have 3 I bid on. > >On the actual hand, West had Kxxxx Axx Qxx Ax, and the auction was >1S-2NT(forcing race)-4S(balanced, 7 losers)-4NT-5D-5S. > -- 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 Mar 27 11:26:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:26:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05848 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:26:33 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1004439; 27 Mar 98 1:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:39:41 +0000 To: Con Holzscherer Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Not a test In-Reply-To: <199803260928.EAA29882@saigon.ehv.sc.philips.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803260928.EAA29882@saigon.ehv.sc.philips.com>, Con Holzscherer writes >Vitold & Julie Atkinson wrote: > >> There were no posters several days... > >> Was wondering as well :)) > >So, I will post a case for you to discuss (test-mails get >boring after the fisrt five or so). > >S/No AK65 > Q > K976 > Kt82 >Q3 7 >AJ984 K7653 >Jt64 A3 >J4 Q7653 > Jt9842 > t2 > Q82 > A9 > > >The Bidding: S: 2 D, W: 3 D, Pass, Pass, Pass > >The meaning of 2 D (supported by convention card and >extensive system notes): a. Weak 2 in H or Sp > b. Strong 4-4-4-1 > c. Strong Balanced > >West bid 3 D, showing (he thought) 5+ hearts, but >taken by his partner as natural, so no alert. > >North now saw no reason to assume that partner had spades, >ans passed. The result was down three (-150), but as all >other NS pairs had bid and made 4 spades (mostly with an >overtrick), NS were not happy. DIRECTOR! > >EW explained that they play 3D as showing hearts only >against a 'multi' that contains strong one-suited hands. >Against other multi's, like in the present case, 3D is >natural, so West erred and there was no infraction. >EW could not prove their statement with their convention >card and/or system notes. > >Director's decision: W erred, no infraction, no adjustment. > >APPEAL! > >Arguments NS: The argument of a different defense against >different types of multi's came up rather late in the >discussion. We think it was a 'creative' idea thought up >to be able to keep the good score. The special defense >against multi (including transfer-overcalls) that is >widely used in the Netherlands, has been created to handle >the uncertainty of opener's suit. There is no reason at >all to act differently depending on whether the strong >hands contained in the multi can or can't contain one- >suited hands. > >Arguments EW: There case against us. Unless you think we >are liars, there has been no infraction. > > >Question 1: Do you agree with director's decision? Yes, it's a mega-monkey > >Question 2: What should the AC do? > Support the director >Question 3: If West claims that he neglected looking at NS's > Convention Card before bidding 3 D (otherwise > he would have seen the definition of 2D and not > gone astray); do you think he can/should/might be > punished under Law 74B1? [As a matter of courtesy > a player should refrain from paying insufficient > attention to the game.] > Nope, in realistic terms people playing really *odd* systems cannot *expect* their opponents to read the minutiae of their system cards (possible exception is long head-to-head matches). I'd rule "Fixed" > >-- >Con Holzscherer > >Philips Semiconductors B.V. >Systems Laboratory Eindhoven >Phone: +31-40-27 22150 >fax : +31-40-27 22764 > >E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com -- 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 Mar 27 11:41:41 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:41:41 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA05894 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:41:32 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2002497; 27 Mar 98 1:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:47:16 +0000 To: Nancy T Dressing Cc: vitold@elnet.msk.ru, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Active_Directorship In-Reply-To: <351A7B46.887BF237@pinehurst.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <351A7B46.887BF237@pinehurst.net>, Nancy T Dressing writes >I want to play in YOUR game!!!! Nancy > >vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > >> Hi all:) >> >> As nobody introduces their topics on modern style of TD's >> ruling - I'll try to interrupt the break:) >> >> While being TD (it happens rather rare) I tried to save >> as many boards as possible, even crossing the limits of >> TD's authority. And even in cases where adjust score >> should be given - I try to continue playing to receive >> at the table the result that may be used as the basis for >> future AC's decision (where Parties proved what were >> their real possibility in real compete at the table). >> F.Mercury said "Show must go". Yeah - and board >> should be played. >> >> But in every such case I know my potential >> responsibility if AC takes another decision... >> For doing so I always continuously walk around the >> playing room, trying to see and hear everything that >> happens in playing area, to be inside current events. >> We name it as "Active Directorship". >> And now 2 cases. >> >> 1. Pair, bidding was over, both EW made first leads >> and both NS opened their hands... At that very >> moment I was at the table and saw that all four players >> were seeing at their partners , None of them was cheater, >> it was an ordinary, common human reaction, and usually >> it is partner's responsibility not to react... >> At that moment I ordered: "Shut eyes!". After that I >> re-established the position before 1-st lead, allowed them >> to open eyes - and game continued. Result stood. No >> complaints. >> >> 2. Match, players were rather confused - and I was at the >> table. It happened that in long artificial one-side-bidding >> after rather long hesitation of the bidder Party - all four >> players forgot the bidding... And they could not to >> continue... >> As there were 3 boards to the end of match and about >> 20 minutes - I ordered them to start the bidding from >> the beginning... Result stood. No complaints. >> >> I guess such rulings rather contradict with nowadays >> TD's customs... Or not?:)) >> >> Vitold > I'm with Vitold for his directing style - as long as he stays within the Laws. ... and if he keeps on talking to BLML his English will improve too :) > > -- 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 Mar 27 12:04:31 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:04:31 +1000 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 MAA05967 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:04:22 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb10.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.10]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA26526 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:04:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980326210415.006e5884@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 21:04:15 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? In-Reply-To: <199803261639.LAA17452@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:39 AM 3/26/98 -0500, David G wrote: > >E-W are playing 1430 RKC Blackwood. East bids 4NT, West, with three >keycards, bids 5D, and East thinks for a while whether West could have >no keycards and then signs off in 5S. Should this hesitation bar West >from going on if he can construct a hand on which East has no keycards? >This isn't the normal hesitation Blackwood situation, since West would >probably have a bid without the hesitation. > >On the actual hand, West had Kxxxx Axx Qxx Ax, and the auction was >1S-2NT(forcing race)-4S(balanced, 7 losers)-4NT-5D-5S. > I don't understand your remark about this not being the "normal hesitation Blackwood situation." IMO it is very nearly the canonical hesitation Blackwood hand. West has absolutely nothing more than he's already shown in the bidding, and no bridge reason at all to move forward over partner's 5S bid. Can partner hold QJxx KQx KJTx KQ , or the like? Of course he can. This is the type of hand that he should be expected to hold on this auction. Even if West held some suppressed values that made it harder to construct a key-card-less hand for partner, it is poor practice to seize captaincy from the Blackwood bidder, and quite difficult to construct an example for which Pass is not at least an LA. This hand doesn't come close to such an example. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 14:37:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:37:57 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA06313 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:37:51 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id WAA10062 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:37:45 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0VQL9037 Thu, 26 Mar 98 22:35:33 Message-ID: <9803262235.0VQL903@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 98 22:35:33 Subject: LAW 17D FLAW To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk O>There seems to me to be a flaw in Law 17D. Opponents are vulnerable and O>we are not. I pick up a Yarborough, my RHO (who is dealer) passes, I O>pass and my LHO opens 1NT (weak - 12-14 HCPs). I then realise that I O>have a hand from the wrong board and so call the TD who cancels my call. O>I take out the hand from the correct board to find: O>AX O>AKQJT98 O>AX O>AX O>Now under Law 17D, I pass knowing that since I have repeated my original O>call my LHO must bid a weak No Trump vulnerable (because of the footnote O>to Law 17D) and I double this for a good score of +1100 (Assume for the O>purposes of arguement that there is no slam our way). O>IMO, it cannot be right that whilst choosing my replacement call, I O>already know what my LHO must bid and it is AI! Surely it would be O>better to cancel both my call and all subsequent ones but still keep the O>footnote that LHO must repeated his call if I make the same call. The O>effect of cancelling LHO's call is to make it a non-offender's withdrawn O>action which under Law 16 is UI for the offender and, hence, the little O>ploy above would not be legal. Does it make any difference if the director determines that it was your violation which brought to you the information that LHO had a 1N opener? O>(Gratten - please would you consider this and a review of Law 27 O>premature corrections as my suggestions for things to be considered at O>Lille.) R Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 18:53:48 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:53:48 +1000 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 SAA06786 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:53:40 +1000 Received: from localhost by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP id AA06431 (5.65a/RIPE-NCC); Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:53:01 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:52:58 +0100 (MET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Michael S. Dennis" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980326210415.006e5884@pop.mindspring.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > At 11:39 AM 3/26/98 -0500, David G wrote: > >E-W are playing 1430 RKC Blackwood. East bids 4NT, West, with three > >keycards, bids 5D, and East thinks for a while whether West could have > >no keycards and then signs off in 5S. Should this hesitation bar West > >from going on if he can construct a hand on which East has no keycards? No, east made a slamtry, west has 3 key cards, so EW are going to play slam. In fact, if the auction ended at 5S and 11 tricks was the maximum, I'd probably adjust to 6S, down 1. > I don't understand your remark about this not being the "normal hesitation > Blackwood situation." IMO it is very nearly the canonical hesitation > Blackwood hand. West has absolutely nothing more than he's already shown in > the bidding, and no bridge reason at all to move forward over partner's 5S > bid. I disagree with that. West has shown 0 or 3 (or 1 or 4) keycards in a situation where he can still hold either 0 or 3 (Kxxxx/Axx/Qxx/Ax or QJxxx/KQx/KJx/Jx). > Can partner hold QJxx KQx KJTx KQ , or the like? Of course he can. No, he can't. Opener has 7 losers, responder has 6, which means that EW can make at most a 5 level contract and responder has absolutely no reason to bid over 4S. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.6651962 The Netherlands Pager: +6.57626855 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 27 23:14:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:14:39 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA07563 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:14:32 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1028166; 27 Mar 98 13:06 GMT Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:07:50 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: LAW 17D FLAW Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:07:47 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org [SMTP:r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 10:36 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: LAW 17D FLAW > > > > O>There seems to me to be a flaw in Law 17D. Opponents are vulnerable > and > O>we are not. I pick up a Yarborough, my RHO (who is dealer) passes, > I > O>pass and my LHO opens 1NT (weak - 12-14 HCPs). I then realise that > I > O>have a hand from the wrong board and so call the TD who cancels my > call. > O>I take out the hand from the correct board to find: > > O>AX > O>AKQJT98 > O>AX > O>AX > > > O>Now under Law 17D, I pass knowing that since I have repeated my > original > O>call my LHO must bid a weak No Trump vulnerable (because of the > footnote > O>to Law 17D) and I double this for a good score of +1100 (Assume for > the > O>purposes of arguement that there is no slam our way). > > > O>IMO, it cannot be right that whilst choosing my replacement call, I > O>already know what my LHO must bid and it is AI! Surely it would be > O>better to cancel both my call and all subsequent ones but still keep > the > O>footnote that LHO must repeated his call if I make the same call. > The > O>effect of cancelling LHO's call is to make it a non-offender's > withdrawn > O>action which under Law 16 is UI for the offender and, hence, the > little > O>ploy above would not be legal. > > > Does it make any difference if the director determines that it was > > >your violation which brought to you the information that LHO had a 1N > opener? > > ######## I am not aware of any Law which would support such an > approach. ####### > > O>(Gratten - please would you consider this and a review of Law 27 > O>premature corrections as my suggestions for things to be considered > at > O>Lille.) > > > > R Pewick > Houston, Texas > r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > ___ > * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 28 01:56:28 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:56:28 +1000 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 BAA10417 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 01:56:20 +1000 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 KAA28254; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:49:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:56:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199803271556.KAA07784@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: henk@ripe.net CC: msd@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (henk@ripe.net) Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >> At 11:39 AM 3/26/98 -0500, David G wrote: >> >E-W are playing 1430 RKC Blackwood. East bids 4NT, West, with three >> >keycards, bids 5D, and East thinks for a while whether West could have >> >no keycards and then signs off in 5S. Should this hesitation bar West >> >from going on if he can construct a hand on which East has no keycards? > No, east made a slamtry, west has 3 key cards, so EW are going to play > slam. In fact, if the auction ended at 5S and 11 tricks was the maximum, > I'd probably adjust to 6S, down 1. I don't see the basis for that adjustment. East's hesitation over 5D clearly suggests that he was considering a stronger bid, not a weaker one, and thus doesn't suggest pass over 5S. Unless you intend to invoke the Rule of Coincidence, West is allowed to bid badly. (On the actual hand, it was a 75% slam which could always be made as the cards lay on proper play but went down at some tables.) >> I don't understand your remark about this not being the "normal hesitation >> Blackwood situation." IMO it is very nearly the canonical hesitation >> Blackwood hand. West has absolutely nothing more than he's already shown in >> the bidding, and no bridge reason at all to move forward over partner's 5S >> bid. > I disagree with that. West has shown 0 or 3 (or 1 or 4) keycards in > a situation where he can still hold either 0 or 3 (Kxxxx/Axx/Qxx/Ax or > QJxxx/KQx/KJx/Jx). (The first was West's actual hand.) >> Can partner hold QJxx KQx KJTx KQ , or the like? Of course he can. > No, he can't. Opener has 7 losers, responder has 6, which means that EW > can make at most a 5 level contract and responder has absolutely no reason > to bid over 4S. And without counting losers, construct the hand that would be needed to make slam opposite that bid: AKxxx Axx Ax xxx. That hand is too strong for the bidding sequence 1S-2NT-4S; it technically has seven losers, but it's really 5.5 losers when aces are counted as 1.5 cover cards. If East had bid 4NT directly over 1S, on the other hand, such an East hand would have been possible; would West then be barred after East's slow 5S bid? -- 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 Mar 28 03:57:30 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 03:57:30 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA11207 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 03:57:22 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12711; 27 Mar 98 9:56 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:56:12 PST." <199803271556.KAA07784@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:56:47 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9803270956.aa12711@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > If East had bid 4NT directly over 1S, on the other hand, such an East > hand [i.e. QJxx KQx KJTx KQ] would have been possible; would West > then be barred after East's slow 5S bid? I still don't think so; I still think it's automatic for West to go on with 3 key cards. I think the lesson here is that bidding 4NT with the above hand is a horrible bid; how the heck is partner supposed to know to stay out of slam with 3 keycards? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 28 05:36:59 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 05:36:59 +1000 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 FAA11865 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 05:36:50 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-204-115.access.net.il [192.116.204.115]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA13379; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:33:21 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <351C003C.AAB2F63D@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:38:36 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru, "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Active_Directorship References: <351AE97D.734E@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk vitold@elnet.msk.ru wrote: > > Hi all:) > > As nobody introduces their topics on modern style of TD's > ruling - I'll try to interrupt the break:) > > > Vitold I read the cases ...... and almost agree with Grattan , but...... If the players' level was very low I suggest : Act as you did , but explain them what is the ruling in a serious tournament ; this will avoid a lot of troubles for those players , when and if will play in a upper level contest. By the way - someone wrote he/she is not sure about the ruling in case 1....Well, peculiar but simple: Both hands of Declarer and Dummy will lay on the table and : 1) The natural declarer will play 2) the opponent on lead (the natural one) will lead his card 3) the other card lead OOT will become a major penalty card Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 28 08:05:09 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:05:09 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (root@cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12379 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:05:01 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA19105 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:04:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14004; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:05:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:05:12 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199803272205.RAA14004@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Active_Directorship X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Dany Haimovici > If the players' level was very low I suggest : > Act as you did , but explain them what is the ruling in a serious > tournament ; this will avoid a lot of troubles for those players , The above is advice very much worth taking to heart. In fact, any time one makes an unusual ruling, for whatever reason, it might be worth mentioning that the ruling might often be different. > Both hands of Declarer and Dummy will lay on the table and ... Why can't declarer pick up his hand? (Not that it will do much good if the defenders have good memories...) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 28 08:53:40 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:53:40 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12569 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 08:53:34 +1000 Received: from default (client84bd.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.84.189]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA30058; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:53:24 GMT From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Martin" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: LAW 17D FLAW Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:51:12 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd59d2$d79df720$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk gester@globalnet.co.uk Grattan Endicott Liverpool L18 8DJ : -----Original Message----- From: David Martin To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' Date: 27 March 1998 14:29 Subject: RE: LAW 17D FLAW > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org [SMTP:r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org] >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 10:36 PM >> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: LAW 17D FLAW >> >> >> O>(Gratten - please would you consider this and a review of Law 27 >> O>premature corrections as my suggestions for things to be considered >> at >> O>Lille.) >> {{{{{from GrattAn :-)) I have made a note of this but I remain to be persuaded. In my personal judgement one may suggest that in the opening position a Pass on a Yarborough differs in a significant way from a Pass on your second hand with ten top tricks. The systemic meaning of the call is no different but the relationship to system and the player's purpose is widely separated. I read nothing in the law to say that the differing must relate to systemic meaning: it says "in any significant way". In my view a deliberate psyche where there was none previously differs in a significant way and the provision of Law 17D applies.}}}}} From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 28 11:55:27 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:55:27 +1000 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 LAA13183 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:55:20 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb11.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.11]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA02522 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:55:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980327205510.006eb6c0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:55:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19980326210415.006e5884@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:52 AM 3/27/98 +0100, Henk wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote >> I don't understand your remark about this not being the "normal hesitation >> Blackwood situation." IMO it is very nearly the canonical hesitation >> Blackwood hand. West has absolutely nothing more than he's already shown in >> the bidding, and no bridge reason at all to move forward over partner's 5S >> bid. > >I disagree with that. West has shown 0 or 3 (or 1 or 4) keycards in >a situation where he can still hold either 0 or 3 (Kxxxx/Axx/Qxx/Ax or >QJxxx/KQx/KJx/Jx). > Yes, either hand is theoretically possible, but at most one of these hands will be consistent with an East hand which is good enough to look for slam opposite a 7-loser partner. A NS kibbitzer might not be able to tell which of your sample hands West holds, but East will surely know the difference. If he doesn't, he has no business using Blackwood, since with at most two key cards in his own hand and a live possibility of 0 key cards in partner's hand, he lacks safety at the 5-level, and maybe even the 4-level, for that matter. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 28 11:59:22 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:59:22 +1000 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 LAA13199 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:59:17 +1000 Received: from mike (ipb11.baltimore10.md.pub-ip.psi.net [38.30.22.11]) by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA00888 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:59:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980327205910.006e4ea8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:59:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Is this hesitation Blackwood? In-Reply-To: <9803270956.aa12711@flash.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:56 AM 3/27/98 PST, Adam wrote: > >David Grabiner wrote: > >> If East had bid 4NT directly over 1S, on the other hand, such an East >> hand [i.e. QJxx KQx KJTx KQ] would have been possible; would West >> then be barred after East's slow 5S bid? > >I still don't think so; I still think it's automatic for West to go on >with 3 key cards. I think the lesson here is that bidding 4NT with >the above hand is a horrible bid; how the heck is partner supposed to >know to stay out of slam with 3 keycards? > There seems to be a general feeling that playing Key-Card Blackwood, responder holding either 3 or 4 key cards will _automatically_ bid on after the Blackwood bidder signs off. This seems like a wholly unplayable method to me. If the Blackwood bidder can't tell the difference between 0 and 3 (or 1 and 4) key cards in the first place, he has no business bidding Blackwood at all, since by definition, he lacks safety at the 5-level. If you can document that this is your approach to Blackwood, then I would agree that of course Pass is not a LA for you, and allow the slam. But absent any supporting evidence, I rule that this is exactly the auction that has been dubbed "hesitation Blackwood". 5S making 6. Mike Dennis _ msd@mindspring.com o\ /o Pikesville, MD o|_|o USA |-| o|-| |-| |_| / \ ( _ ) \ _ / From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 30 02:27:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:27:56 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA23915 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 02:27:49 +1000 Received: from default (client9573.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.95.115]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA09642 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 1998 17:27:42 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 17:26:30 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5b2f$6ee16e20$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: Grattan Endicott To: Steve Willner Date: 29 March 1998 16:20 Subject: Re: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. > >gester@globalnet.co.uk >Grattan Endicott >Liverpool L18 8DJ >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Willner >To: gester@globalnet.co.uk >Date: 23 March 1998 17:36 >Subject: Re: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. > >\x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ > >>members of the WBFLC (and especially you, as secretary) are in a >>challenging but exciting position with the communication revolution, >>and I hope you enjoy it >(etc........) > >#### Well, it is certainly interesting. Whilst I was looking for >something quite different, I came across these words written to me >by Edgar Kaplan, July 29, 1985: >"I agree with you: what the law says in plain English must prevail >over what it may have been meant to say. However, that is true only >when the law is unambiguous. In contrast, when ambiguity exists, >so that interpretation may be required one way or the other, then the >intent should govern." > >I concur and David Stevenson please copy! > >Again, I have noted some postings on rgb about asking questions >so that partner may hear the answers. No doubt someone has pointed >out that the crux of this discussion is whether, in doing so, one is >communicating with partner. If so, then whatever the purpose of the >question, it is a clear breach of Law 73B1. >Where the player believes the explanation given to his partner to be >erroneous, at his own turn he may ask questions to satisfy himself >whether his own belief has been misconceived. The laws withhold >from him the right to ask in order to communicate knowledge to his >partner. To say "Law 20F gives unqualified permission to ask" >overlooks the qualification to be found in Law 73B; perhaps there is >a case for a cross reference to 73B from Law 20. It is also >important to recognise that no-one during the auction, and only >declarer during the play period, has a right to ask about a specific >call - the question must otherwise address the whole auction. >(Perhaps I should add that, noting the habits of players, I had >suggested that the right to ask about a specific call should be >given generally during the play period; Edgar objected, rightly I >was persuaded, that we should not allow it to defenders as it >might become a means of communication between them. His >argument on this has a bearing on the rgb question, and also >underlines that what the laws do not specify is not authorised.) > #### G #### > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 30 10:03:17 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:03:17 +1000 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 KAA25056 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:03:09 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-143.access.net.il [192.116.198.143]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA08309; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:00:09 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <351EE1C3.9F352F66@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:05:23 +0300 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: ROYAL APPOINT References: <9803191102.0FIEX00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Congratulations and I wish you the best . I am sure YOU will succeed. Dany P.S.-1 = didn't read the list for a while (very busy ) I apologize for my delayed message P.S.-2 It is the time to elect Quango as the BLML-cats chairman ?? r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > Congratulations David. > > Roger Pewick > > O>Congratulations to David Stevenson on his appointment to the post of > O>CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the Principality of WALES. > > O>This is a new post and I am sure David will make his presence felt to > O>the advantage of Bridge in Wales. Previously we have allowed ourselves > O>to be advised by the EBU, but now we'll have to listen to David. Oh > O>Dear!!:-)) I'll have to get a cat, that's all there is to it. > > > > R Pewick > Houston, Texas > r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > > ___ > * UniQWK v4.4 * The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 30 10:05:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:05:25 +1000 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 KAA25079 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:05:19 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net (Hertzelia-198-143.access.net.il [192.116.198.143]) by parker2.inter.net.il (8.8.6/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id DAA08503; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:01:35 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <351EE21A.F012EAEF@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 03:06:50 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Edler CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Introduction References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Simon Welcome to the Club !!!! I hope you"ll contribute and enrich our knowledge with some interesting events from the southern hemisphere ... I hope David Stevenson will attach your name - and especially Incy's - to the most important list on net !!!!!!! Welcome Dany Simon Edler wrote: > > Greetings all, > > My name is Simon Edler and I live in Hobart, capital city of the state of Tasmania in Australia. I have been a "lurker" on BLML for quite a few months now, mainly to pick up a feel for how the new laws were being applied, since Australia did not adopt them until 1st January 1998. > > The early part of this year has certainly turned theory into practice - a week at the Australian Summer Festival of Bridge, one of Tasmania's major Pairs Congress and the first weekend of our State Teams Trials has kept me busy (I seem to remember my "real" job is a Computer Systems Analyst with Forestry Tasmania!). > > I should probably mention that I, or rather my family, is owned by a cat named Incy (as in Incy Wincy Spider). She was obtained through fraud and deception - I came home from work to find this kitten at home to be told "She is on loan, you can take her back if you want"!! > > Better go and do some work now :) > > Regards, > Simon Edler, > Information Technology Branch, > Forestry Tasmania > Email: Simon.Edler@forestry.tas.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 30 18:49:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:52 +1000 Received: from nfg.sci-nnov.ru (nfg.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.186.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA29252 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:49:38 +1000 Received: from c186-26 (p15-o.sci-nnov.ru [194.190.186.1]) by nfg.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19180 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:55:29 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199803300855.MAA19180@nfg.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Alexey V. Gerasimov" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Pause before 3h Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:49:36 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by nfg.sci-nnov.ru id MAA19180 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! Now I can post to BLML again. =20 Swiss team, second table. International pairs. =20 S, All Jx xxx AK10xxxx x =20 Kxx Q AKQxx x Jx Q9xx xxx AKJxxxx =20 Axxxxxx Jxxx - Qx =20 N E S W - - pass 1h 3d D pass ...3h* pass 4c pass 5c pass 6c pass... =20 * pause (about 5 sec for E, about 15 se=D3 for NS, East is rather slow player) =20 1h - 12-16, 5+. 3d - weak, 7-card or more. Double was defined as "optional" by EW: no heart fit, 3+ diamonds, 11(10= )+ PC.=20 Result: -1370 Problem: NS suppose that this pause can show 2 diamonds in W hand. It means that E knows about diamond void in S hand. W can bid 4s if she has sA, but she bid 5c only. Why E bid 6c without 2 aces? Your opinion? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 30 22:40:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:40:45 +1000 Received: from kn2ims1.mx.koc.net (kn2ims1.mx.koc.net [193.243.207.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02995 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:40:37 +1000 From: ERCAN@egemak.com.tr Received: by kn2ims1.mx.koc.net with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:41:24 +0300 Message-ID: <31052680814FD111A74300609708C0683F3F@host_193_140_174_001.emu.edu.tr> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: I Need Volunteer Directors For OKBridge Teams Tourney Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:19:16 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, I am Ercan Kuru from Turkey. I am running OKBowl, a team tourney at OKBridge. The tourney will start at 15th April. Currently 31 teams are registered for the tourney. There will be a Round Robin session and KO for the qualified teams. The matchs will be played at 3 different times in a week. Tuesday 8 PM PST Tuesday 11 AM PST Thursday 5 PM PST I need some volunteer directors for each group. (Of course you must have a valid OKBridge account) Since this is a free event i am sorry that i can't pay for your efforts. If you are interested about this please visit the following site for more information. www.fortunecity.com/olympia/howe/156/menu.html or email me : zipir@superonline.com or ercan@egemak.com.tr Best Regards Ercan From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 30 23:37:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:37:32 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA03875 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:37:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008676; 30 Mar 98 13:27 GMT Message-ID: <5EHFVOAk74H1EwzU@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:24:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Active_Directorship In-Reply-To: <01bd58eb$9f92d180$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >#### This is the moment when I should shut up and >go for a walk #### Grattan ##### > I think I'll join you. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 30 23:46:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:46:20 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA04056 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:46:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2008677; 30 Mar 98 13:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 13:56:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Law 27 again and relevant considerations. In-Reply-To: <01bd5b2f$6ee16e20$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>From: Steve Willner >>>members of the WBFLC (and especially you, as secretary) are in a >>>challenging but exciting position with the communication revolution, >>>and I hope you enjoy it >>(etc........) >>#### Well, it is certainly interesting. Whilst I was looking for >>something quite different, I came across these words written to me >>by Edgar Kaplan, July 29, 1985: >>"I agree with you: what the law says in plain English must prevail >>over what it may have been meant to say. However, that is true only >>when the law is unambiguous. In contrast, when ambiguity exists, >>so that interpretation may be required one way or the other, then the >>intent should govern." >> >>I concur and David Stevenson please copy! *coff* I think it is more complicated than this. Practicality seems relevant: this has described Kaplan's approach in theory. Even then, one man's word is not necessarily without question. Consider what would be your opinion quoting Edgar Kaplan if you discover that Ton Kooijman thinks otherwise: where does that leave you? >It is also >>important to recognise that no-one during the auction, and only >>declarer during the play period, has a right to ask about a specific >>call - the question must otherwise address the whole auction. My understanding is that while true under the 1987 Laws this is not the case under the 1997 Laws. L20F includes the words "questions may be asked about calls actually made". L41B includes the words "The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play." The inability to ask a question about a specific call is completely impractical and was ignored by nearly every player under the 1987 Laws. We do not want Laws that are unworkable just because _in theory_ they appear to have ethical advantages. If we did insist on only questions and answers about the whole auction then we would quickly lose the principle of full disclosure because *no-one* [1] would ask where a complex auction has occurred. [1] Ok, ok: nearly no-one! >>(Perhaps I should add that, noting the habits of players, I had >>suggested that the right to ask about a specific call should be >>given generally during the play period; Edgar objected, rightly I >>was persuaded, that we should not allow it to defenders as it >>might become a means of communication between them. His >>argument on this has a bearing on the rgb question, and also >>underlines that what the laws do not specify is not authorised.) In my view the Laws authorise such questions. The impracticality of getting a ten minute answer to a question when you merely need to know how many aces a player has shown applies as much during the play period as at the end of the auction. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 02:19:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 02:19:34 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08763 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 02:19:28 +1000 Received: from default (client850a.globalnet.co.uk [194.126.85.10]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA15679; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:19:19 +0100 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Active_Directorship Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 17:18:02 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5bf7$69e7f1a0$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 : - >In message <01bd58eb$9f92d180$LocalHost@default>, Grattan Endicott > writes \x/ \x/ \x/ \x/ >> While being TD (it happens rather rare) I tried to save >> as many boards as possible, even crossing the limits of >> TD's authority>> >> >>#### This is the moment when I should shut up and >>go for a walk #### Grattan ##### >> >My God Grattan, you're human after all ! Very well said. Cheers John >-- Let's not go over the top.....I just thought the material more suitable for 'Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats' than for 'Criterion' magazine! #### G #### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 07:06:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:06:02 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11383 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:05:46 +1000 Received: from default (cph48.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.48]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA27953; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:04:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199803302104.XAA27953@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Alexey V. Gerasimov" Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:05:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Pause before 3h Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Alexey V. Gerasimov" entertained us with this: ( By the way: is nnov = Nishnij Novgorod? ) > > Swiss team, second table. International pairs. > > S, All > > Jx > xxx > AK10xxxx > x > > Kxx Q > AKQxx x > Jx Q9xx > xxx AKJxxxx > > Axxxxxx > Jxxx > - > Qx > > N E S W > - - pass 1h > 3d D pass ...3h* > pass 4c pass 5c > pass 6c pass... > > * pause (about 5 sec for E, about 15 sec for NS, East is rather slow > player) > > 1h - 12-16, 5+. 3d - weak, 7-card or more. > Double was defined as "optional" by EW: no heart fit, 3+ diamonds, 11(10)+ > PC. > > Result: -1370 > > Problem: NS suppose that this pause can show 2 diamonds in W hand. It > means that E knows about diamond void in S hand. W can bid 4s if she has > sA, but she bid 5c only. Why E bid 6c without 2 aces? > > Your opinion? Well, I am not an international player, so my judgement may be off the mark, but to me the hesitation does not *demonstrably* show a doubleton in diamonds, so I would say that there was no infraction. Pass would suggest such a doubleton, but then that would not be UI. The hesitant bid is much more likely to show a singleton, is it not? Now I am still not an international player, but I do believe that a claim by NS that the hesitation conveyed information to the effect that it will not be possible for NS to cash a diamond trick is best covered by the derogatory term "bridge lawyer". Bobby Wolff is an international bridge player. He might well rule against EW, penalizing them for bidding on in the face of a hesitation. At least that is the way I have understood his style when ruling in hesitation cases. This is one of those cases where I could imagine his suggestion that the score should stand, but EW should have a penalty of, say, 2 imps for bidding when there is a hesitation. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 07:28:19 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:28:19 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11449 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:28:13 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA15590; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:27:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from 251.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net(12.68.16.251) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma015575; Mon Mar 30 15:26:52 1998 Received: by 251.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD5BF8.4FF03040@251.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:24:28 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD5BF8.4FF03040@251.middletown-04.va.dial-access.att.net> From: Craig Senior To: David Stevenson , "'Dany Haimovici'" Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: ROYAL APPOINT Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:24:22 -0500 Encoding: 36 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Now that my Email link SEEMS to be working again, let me also add congratulations. As to the BLML Chairman of Feline Affairs, however, I wonder if a co-chair including both Quango and Nanki-Poo might not be more effective. It would seem that two cats are better than one. (Streak insists I mention that ten are even better...but he is not a candidate.) Craig Senior Dany Haimovici [SMTP:dhh@internet-zahav.net] wrote:) David Congratulations and I wish you the best . I am sure YOU will succeed. Dany P.S.-1 = didn't read the list for a while (very busy ) I apologize for my delayed message P.S.-2 It is the time to elect Quango as the BLML-cats chairman ?? r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > Congratulations David. > > Roger Pewick > (Anne, I think, wrote:) > O>Congratulations to David Stevenson on his appointment to the post of > O>CHIEF TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR of the Principality of WALES. > > O>This is a new post and I am sure David will make his presence felt to > O>the advantage of Bridge in Wales. Previously we have allowed ourselves > O>to be advised by the EBU, but now we'll have to listen to David. Oh > O>Dear!!:-)) I'll have to get a cat, that's all there is to it. A fine idea, Anne. Your life will be the richer for it. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 08:14:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:14:25 +1000 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 IAA11595 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:14:19 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h59.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.48) id CAA13200; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 02:14:11 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3520C2FF.27D1@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 02:18:39 -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: Passive TD-ship Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="B31.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="B31.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) It was the simplest idea ("Whenever it is possible, boards should be played - and only then discussed") and it was illustrated by the simplest, one-way-understandable examples. Yeah, for cats and us, grey people from bridge bottom:)) It's a pity that Authority reacted on this simplicity only (guess they used to make analysis of complex, sophisticated problems...) - and no words about the idea. Let us see what is the (not potential but real) direct result of such position. I have to underline that absence of reaction is not accidental: very often nowadays TDs in any situations try to stop playing and/or remove boards. Below - another simplest examples from large international bridge tournaments. And style of ruling may be named as "Passive TD-ship" 1. Match, 4 minutes before end. TD forbid you to start the last board (that had already played at the other room). Moreover, he ordered that result of this board should be removed at all. When you tried to say about adjusted score - in case of unexpected result at the other table - TD refused. Minutes passed because second table was still playing. You called the Chief TD who fully joined to TD's decision and ... match was over with 16 minutes delay. Then it became clear that in removed board your opponents at second table make serious misbid: they stopped in part-score after starting slam bidding. AC refused adjusting score in the board because it was removed by TD (disciplinary authority of TD) and did not hear arguments about essence of sportish game bridge. So, TD did not save boards, and AC did not save result, achieved at the table. Same ideology, same doing:))) Simple and passive way - to make no positive decision:)) They saved their time:)) 2. And there happens players that are keen with such position of TDs. And use it - to their benefit. Pair contest, opponents bid and played 5 Hearts. At the middle of the play it became clear that the contract would be downed. Now Declarer started to think. Round was over. When TD arrived (you tried to call him before but he did not heard) - you explained him that it had been Declarer who had delayed play. And that result of the board was clear (down 1, 2 trump tricks and 1 Ace, almost 0 for Declarer). TD asked Declarer - but he became not to understand English (during biding he understood) :)) TD became nervous - and ordered: stop playing, 40-40. Only after session TD changed it to 60-40. But Declarer still received 40% instead 0. This TD do not used to save neither boards nor results:)) He saved his passive position... And psychic energy. You may say that non-offending pair should make appeal. Yeah, but there happens players that do not like appeals: they play for enjoying, for nice atmosphere etc. And do not want to spend their time with (usually) unpleasant discussion in AC. They should be protected by TD:)) But - see above example about AC When being TD - I tried to struggle against such Passive TD-ship:)) Sorry for dare to spend your time. Thanks for not to be shot:)) But my slogans still are: "Board should be played", "TDs are for players" service":)) And never mind, you may return from walking:)) Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 10:10:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA11973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:10:04 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA11968 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:09:58 +1000 Received: from vnmvhhid (client243d.globalnet.co.uk [195.147.24.61]) by sand.global.net.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA23875 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:09:52 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Pause before 3h Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:09:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01bd5c39$45560b00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="KOI8-R" 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sand.global.net.uk id BAA23875 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Firstly there is disagreement so I am going to rule that there was a break in tempo. I think the hand warrants it. What may the hesitation suggest? a) Do I Pass the Double? b) Do I support Clubs? c) Do I rebid my suit to show it is a good suit? d) Do I bid No Trumps? e) Do I cue bid one of my 3 Aces??!! f) Do I buy the next round or is it pard's turn? g) Did I leave the oven on before I left the house? h) etc;etc;etc. Eventual rebid of Hearts and subsequent support for Clubs does not remove the possibility that one option was to Pass the Double. In this case East has chosen to raise to 6C. This is one of the logical alternatives which "could have been suggested" by the hesitation so the I would rule 5C+1.Law 16A2 Anne I'm delighted to see someone else who has problems with formatting. Notice I have not posted a hand since David was so rude about my software. I wouldn't dream of commenting on what he wears!! --Original Message----- From: Alexey V. Gerasimov To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 10:58 AM Subject: Pause before 3h Hi all! Now I can post to BLML again. Swiss team, second table. International pairs. S, All Jx xxx AK10xxxx x Kxx Q AKQxx x Jx Q9xx xxx AKJxxxx Axxxxxx Jxxx - Qx N E S W - - pass 1h 3d D pass ...3h* pass 4c pass 5c pass 6c pass... * pause (about 5 sec for E, about 15 se=D3 for NS, East is rather slow player) 1h - 12-16, 5+. 3d - weak, 7-card or more. Double was defined as "optional" by EW: no heart fit, 3+ diamonds, 11(10)+ PC. Result: -1370 Problem: NS suppose that this pause can show 2 diamonds in W hand. It means that E knows about diamond void in S hand. W can bid 4s if she has sA, but she bid 5c only. Why E bid 6c without 2 aces? Your opinion? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 10:36:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:36:02 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-10.mail.demon.net [193.195.0.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA12063 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:35:55 +1000 Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa1003267; 31 Mar 98 0:31 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:55:09 +0100 To: "Alexey V. Gerasimov" Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: John Probst Subject: Re: Pause before 3h In-Reply-To: <199803300855.MAA19180@nfg.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199803300855.MAA19180@nfg.sci-nnov.ru>, "Alexey V.=20 Gerasimov" writes >Hi all! Now I can post to BLML again. >=20 > Swiss team, second table. International pairs. >=20 >S, All > > Jx > xxx > AK10xxxx > x >=20 > Kxx Q > AKQxx x > Jx Q9xx > xxx AKJxxxx >=20 > Axxxxxx > Jxxx > - > Qx >=20 > N E S W > - - pass 1h > 3d D pass ...3h* > pass 4c pass 5c > pass 6c pass... >=20 > * pause (about 5 sec for E, about 15 se=D3 for NS, East is rather slow >player) >=20 > 1h - 12-16, 5+. 3d - weak, 7-card or more. > Double was defined as "optional" by EW: no heart fit, 3+ diamonds, 11(10)+ >PC.=20 > >Result: -1370 > >Problem: NS suppose that this pause can show 2 diamonds in W hand. It >means that E knows about diamond void in S hand. W can bid 4s if she has >sA, but she bid 5c only. Why E bid 6c without 2 aces? > >Your opinion? > > I'm not sure that a pass of 3H is a LA, once E bids 4C, W 5C is=20 automatic, but didn't bid 4D showing singleton. East has the info that W=20 has 2D therefore .... however, I'd rule 5C up one and let them take it=20 to appeal. --=20 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 Mar 31 12:14:56 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:14:56 +1000 Received: from eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.18.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA12409 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:14:48 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by eis-msg-014.jpl.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01227 for <@eis-msg-014.jpl.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:14:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id SAA15548; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:17:16 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:17:16 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199803310217.SAA15548@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Psychic Controls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Psychic Controls The ACBL convention charts all include this line: "Disallowed ... 3. Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)" As I understand it, the parenthetical remark isn't the definition of psychic controls, which are conventional bids that ask partner if he psyched. It is perfectly legal to disallow conventions that ask if partner has psyched. What do we make of the parenthetical inclusion? This hand came up in the Open Pairs national event last Thursday. (This is why I've not been active in BLML recently...been playing for a change!) Matchpoints, none vulnerable North 10973 J65 K5 K986 West East KJ6 Q84 --- K742 J86432 Q9 7543 AJ102 South A52 AQ10983 A107 Q West North East South 1NT* Dbl 2H* Pass Pass Dbl 3D* Pass Pass Dbl All Pass 3D -1 +100 N/S on inaccurate defense and play. 1NT was announced as 10-12 2H was alerted and explained (upon request) as "ostensibly both majors." 3D was alerted and explained (upon request) as "not correctible." After the hand, South called the director and complained. The director ruled "misinformation" and adjusted the scores to Ave+/Ave-. I was East. This seemed odd to me, since I told the opponents that West might be psyching 2H, then told them that he had, more or less. What misinformation? Upon persuing the case, two national tournament directors, Henry Cuckoff and Matt Something-starting-with-an-S-I-think, told me 1. I should not say "ostensibly." 2. The agreement that 3D is not correctible is illegal under the provision stated above. 3. The "misinformation" ruling was ignored. I think 1. To fail to inform the opponents of a situation in which I know my partner thinks psyching is a good idea is illegal. The instruction not to do so is absurd. Is there any reason why a high-ranking ACBL director would so instruct players? 2. I don't know what to make of the claim that 3D indicating a psych is illegal. 3. Phew. To some degree, 3D "makes allowance" for the psych of 2H. Indeed, from basic bridge logic, that 3D is bid at all simply reveals the psych. Since the psych is revealed, must East not "make allowance" for it? Is it permissible for the ACBL to require that East correct back to hearts when it's patently obvious that partner doesn't have many of them? Is it legal to have the agreement or understanding that 3D reveals a psych? If not, is it legal to know that partner knows that 3D obviously reveals a psych? If so, what's the difference? Contrast this situation with the following auction: 1S-2H; Pass. "Alert!" cries responder. "Please explain." "He psyched." Is the pass "making allowance" for the psych? Is it illegal? Contrast again: 1S-2H; 2S* 2S is alerted and explained, "he psyched." Is this illegal? It seems to me that the pass indicating a psych cannot be disallowed, but that 2S can; it's a convention, whereas the pass is a natural call. (Park it right here, partner.) In the real-life example, I think the 3D bid also cannot be regulated; it's a natural call. What if 2S in the latter hand was natural? What if only 2NT indicated a real opening bid? What exactly is meant by this regulation and what is a good way to phrase it? It seems to me that there's a difference between voluntarily revealing a psych and being asked about it. The latter case can be disallowed, but the former cannot, as far as I can tell. How does one draw a line? --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 Mar 31 13:10:23 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:10:23 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA12565 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:10:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019695; 31 Mar 98 3:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:59:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Passive TD-ship In-Reply-To: <3520C2FF.27D1@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >2. And there happens players that are keen with such position of TDs. >And use it - to their benefit. Pair contest, opponents bid and played >5 Hearts. At the middle of the play it became clear that the contract >would be downed. Now Declarer started to think. Round was over. >When TD arrived (you tried to call him before but he did not heard) - >you explained him that it had been Declarer who had delayed play. >And that result of the board was clear (down 1, 2 trump tricks and 1 Ace, >almost 0 for Declarer). TD asked Declarer - but he became not to >understand English (during biding he understood) :)) TD became nervous >- and ordered: stop playing, 40-40. Only after session TD changed it to >60-40. But Declarer still received 40% instead 0. This TD do not used >to save neither boards nor results:)) He saved his passive position... And >psychic energy. >You may say that non-offending pair should make appeal. Yeah, but >there happens players that do not like appeals: they play for enjoying, for >nice atmosphere etc. And do not want to spend their time with (usually) >unpleasant discussion in AC. They should be protected by TD:)) But - see >above example about AC Competent Directors do not stop partly played boards. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 13:13:34 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:13:34 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA12591 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:13:27 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019700; 31 Mar 98 3:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:56:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Pause before 3h In-Reply-To: <199803302104.XAA27953@isa.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >"Alexey V. Gerasimov" entertained us with >this: > >( By the way: is nnov = Nishnij Novgorod? ) > >> >> Swiss team, second table. International pairs. >> >> S, All >> >> Jx >> xxx >> AK10xxxx >> x >> >> Kxx Q >> AKQxx x >> Jx Q9xx >> xxx AKJxxxx >> >> Axxxxxx >> Jxxx >> - >> Qx >> >> N E S W >> - - pass 1h >> 3d D pass ...3h* >> pass 4c pass 5c >> pass 6c pass... >> >> * pause (about 5 sec for E, about 15 sec for NS, East is rather slow >> player) >> >> 1h - 12-16, 5+. 3d - weak, 7-card or more. >> Double was defined as "optional" by EW: no heart fit, 3+ diamonds, 11(10)+ >> PC. >> >> Result: -1370 >> >> Problem: NS suppose that this pause can show 2 diamonds in W hand. It >> means that E knows about diamond void in S hand. W can bid 4s if she has >> sA, but she bid 5c only. Why E bid 6c without 2 aces? >> >> Your opinion? > >Well, I am not an international player, so my judgement may be off >the mark, but to me the hesitation does not *demonstrably* show a >doubleton in diamonds, so I would say that there was no infraction. >Pass would suggest such a doubleton, but then that would not be UI. >The hesitant bid is much more likely to show a singleton, >is it not? > >Now I am still not an international player, but I do believe that a >claim by NS that the hesitation conveyed information to the effect >that it will not be possible for NS to cash a diamond trick is best >covered by the derogatory term "bridge lawyer". > >Bobby Wolff is an international bridge player. He might well rule >against EW, penalizing them for bidding on in the face of a >hesitation. At least that is the way I have understood his style >when ruling in hesitation cases. This is one of those cases where I >could imagine his suggestion that the score should stand, but EW >should have a penalty of, say, 2 imps for bidding when there is a >hesitation. > It seems like Alice in Wonderland to me. If I bid a slam knowing there was a diamond void, my opponents would do one of three things. [1] Spade to the Ace, DK, DA, third diamond for the trump promotion, three off. [2] Spade ace, the diamond he does not have to partner's five card suit, DK, DA, third diamond for the trump promotion, three off. [3] Trump lead, 5-1 heart break, one off. I could go on, but this slam made because E/W bid awfully and were lucky. I think the N/S argument is Bridge Lawyering at its absolute worst, because they are *lying*: no East is going to bid a slam for this reason. I would fine North-South for a breach of L72A1: they are trying to win by not playing to the Laws of the game. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 15:13:45 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:13:45 +1000 Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA12870 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:13:32 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA08905; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:12:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199803310512.VAA08905@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:11:12 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > Psychic Controls > > The ACBL convention charts all include this line: > > "Disallowed > > ... > 3. Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership > agreement which, if used in conjunction with > a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.)" > > As I understand it, the parenthetical remark isn't > the definition of psychic controls, which are conventional > bids that ask partner if he psyched. It is perfectly > legal to disallow conventions that ask if partner > has psyched. What do we make of the parenthetical > inclusion? > The answer is simple: It's illegal. ACBL TDs have been applying this illegal regulation in extreme ways, ruling for instance that a psych in a particular situation creates a partnership agreement that makes allowance for the psych henceforth, and therefore that psych cannot be repeated with the same partner. Example: I play forcing Stayman, which allows me to make a fake major suit rebid after bidding 2C: 1NT=2C=2D=2H/2S This bid is forcing, so may or may not be based on a real suit. Partner bids 2NT or 3NT without support for the suit, raises to three with a maximum, makes a new suit trial bid with a minimum. Having told his/her story, he/she must pass a 3NT bid. These partnership agreements do indeed allow me to make a fake bid, but involve no conventional bid that inquires about that possibility. After a successful instantiation of this ploy (followed by outraged shrieks when the dummy came down), an ACBL TD told me that I could never make that bid with Alice again, because an implicit partnership agreement has been created. I dodged this particular bullet by declaring that henceforth the 2H/2S rebid would be an asking bid, with the same responses by partner as before. Asking bids are GCC legal, so the TD will not be able to do anything about them. Everything is disclosed to the opponents, of course, but I do not tell them Alice has been fooling as responder when the bidding goes 1NT=2C=2D=2S=3S=3NT (Alerted--"I must pass"). If they can't figure it out, that's just tough, since they have the same information I have. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 15:14:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:14:39 +1000 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 PAA12888 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:14:34 +1000 Received: from xoigoynt (p24-max10.auck.ihug.co.nz [209.76.150.88]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA20606 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:14:26 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980331171006.00703308@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:10:06 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: Re: Passive TD-ship In-Reply-To: <3520C2FF.27D1@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think the first case mentioned below, can be subject to local conditions, in particular announcements made before the start of the tournament, however in the 2nd case I believe it is most improper to cancel a board due to slow play in a pairs event if that board has reached any further than perhaps an opening bid and response. If need be the pairs concerned could be penalised by missing a board on the next round and receiving 40%, but to rip a board when several tricks have been played is ludicrous Patrick Carter Director Auckland Bridge Club Chairman NZCBA Laws& Ethics At 02:18 31/03/98 -0800, vitold wrote: >Hi all:) > >It was the simplest idea ("Whenever it is possible, boards should be >played - and only then discussed") and it was illustrated by the simplest, >one-way-understandable examples. Yeah, for cats and us, grey people >from bridge bottom:)) >It's a pity that Authority reacted on this simplicity only (guess they used >to make analysis of complex, sophisticated problems...) - and no words >about the idea. Let us see what is the (not potential but real) direct result >of such position. I have to underline that absence of reaction is not >accidental: very often nowadays TDs in any situations try to stop playing >and/or remove boards. Below - another simplest examples from large >international bridge tournaments. And style of ruling may be named as >"Passive TD-ship" > >1. Match, 4 minutes before end. TD forbid you to start the last board (that >had already played at the other room). Moreover, he ordered that result of > this board should be removed at all. When you tried to say about adjusted >score - in case of unexpected result at the other table - TD refused. >Minutes passed because second table was still playing. You called the Chief >TD who fully joined to TD's decision and ... match was over with 16 minutes >delay. Then it became clear that in removed board your opponents at >second table make serious misbid: they stopped in part-score after starting >slam bidding. >AC refused adjusting score in the board because it was removed by TD >(disciplinary authority of TD) and did not hear arguments about essence of >sportish game bridge. >So, TD did not save boards, and AC did not save result, achieved at the table. >Same ideology, same doing:))) Simple and passive way - to make no positive >decision:)) They saved their time:)) > >2. And there happens players that are keen with such position of TDs. >And use it - to their benefit. Pair contest, opponents bid and played >5 Hearts. At the middle of the play it became clear that the contract >would be downed. Now Declarer started to think. Round was over. >When TD arrived (you tried to call him before but he did not heard) - >you explained him that it had been Declarer who had delayed play. >And that result of the board was clear (down 1, 2 trump tricks and 1 Ace, >almost 0 for Declarer). TD asked Declarer - but he became not to >understand English (during biding he understood) :)) TD became nervous >- and ordered: stop playing, 40-40. Only after session TD changed it to >60-40. But Declarer still received 40% instead 0. This TD do not used >to save neither boards nor results:)) He saved his passive position... And >psychic energy. >You may say that non-offending pair should make appeal. Yeah, but >there happens players that do not like appeals: they play for enjoying, for >nice atmosphere etc. And do not want to spend their time with (usually) >unpleasant discussion in AC. They should be protected by TD:)) But - see >above example about AC > >When being TD - I tried to struggle against such Passive TD-ship:)) > >Sorry for dare to spend your time. Thanks for not to be shot:)) >But my slogans still are: "Board should be played", "TDs are for players" >service":)) And never mind, you may return from walking:)) > >Vitold > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 15:31:43 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA12966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:31:43 +1000 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA12954 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:31:08 +1000 Received: from nip.sci-nnov.ru (nip.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.70.58]) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) with ESMTP id JAA12314 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:26:44 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199803310526.JAA12314@pent.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: Re: Pause before 3h Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:26:12 +0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: > "Alexey V. Gerasimov" entertained us with > this: > > ( By the way: is nnov = Nishnij Novgorod? ) > No we write it as Nizhniy Novgorod \\snip// > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > http://isa.dknet.dk/~alesia/ Sergei Litvak Chief TD of RBL. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 15:51:49 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:51:49 +1000 Received: from proxyb1.san.rr.com (proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA13018 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:51:43 +1000 Received: from default.san.rr.com (dt093n6a.san.rr.com [204.210.49.106]) by proxyb1.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA12805 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:51:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199803310551.VAA12805@proxyb1.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Insufficient Bid at Reno NABC Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:50:35 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My incompetent fingers caused me to mail the subject article before I appended a request for comments, which would be appreciated. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 18:38:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 18:38:13 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-30.mail.demon.net [194.159.80.130]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA13315 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 18:38:06 +1000 Received: from (bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk) [158.152.187.206] by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yJwYS-00038k-00; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:38:01 +0100 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:38:27 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Active_Directorship Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:38:25 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ###### Is three a crowd? ######### > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson [SMTP:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 1:24 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Active_Directorship > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >#### This is the moment when I should shut up and > >go for a walk #### Grattan ##### > > > I think I'll join you. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + > )= > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 19:39:03 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:39:03 +1000 Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA13460 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:38:18 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA19598 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:37:41 +0100 (BST) Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA25471 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:37:41 +0100 (BST) Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk (tempest.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.19]) by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA12087 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:37:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 98 10:37:39 BST Message-Id: <17817.9803310937@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychic Controls Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Matchpoints, none vulnerable > > North > 10973 > J65 > K5 > K986 > West East > KJ6 Q84 > --- K742 > J86432 Q9 > 7543 AJ102 > South > A52 > AQ10983 > A107 > Q > > West North East South > 1NT* Dbl > 2H* Pass Pass Dbl > 3D* Pass Pass Dbl > All Pass > > 3D -1 +100 N/S on inaccurate defense and play. > > 1NT was announced as 10-12 > 2H was alerted and explained (upon request) as > "ostensibly both majors." > 3D was alerted and explained (upon request) as > "not correctible." > > After the hand, South called the director and complained. > The director ruled "misinformation" and adjusted the scores > to Ave+/Ave-. I was East. This seemed odd to me, since I > told the opponents that West might be psyching 2H, then told > them that he had, more or less. What misinformation? If you have the agreement that 3D is not correctible then I think your agreement about 2H is "NF, asks for preference between the majors: shows both majors, or spades, or one or two minor suits to play at the three level" or whatever. (I'm guessing that a pull to 2S/3C would be to play, not correctible, and a pull to 2NT would be both minors). Once you have an agreement that 3D is not correctible then opponents should be told that, as part of the explanation of 2H. If this meaning of 2H is not allowed then you are fixed. 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 Mar 31 21:47:04 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:47:04 +1000 Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA13925 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:46:58 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by post.mail.demon.net id aa2019774; 31 Mar 98 11:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:11:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Passive TD-ship In-Reply-To: <3520C2FF.27D1@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >2. And there happens players that are keen with such position of TDs. >And use it - to their benefit. Pair contest, opponents bid and played >5 Hearts. At the middle of the play it became clear that the contract >would be downed. Now Declarer started to think. Round was over. >When TD arrived (you tried to call him before but he did not heard) - >you explained him that it had been Declarer who had delayed play. >And that result of the board was clear (down 1, 2 trump tricks and 1 Ace, >almost 0 for Declarer). TD asked Declarer - but he became not to >understand English (during biding he understood) :)) TD became nervous >- and ordered: stop playing, 40-40. Only after session TD changed it to >60-40. But Declarer still received 40% instead 0. This TD do not used >to save neither boards nor results:)) He saved his passive position... And >psychic energy. >You may say that non-offending pair should make appeal. Yeah, but >there happens players that do not like appeals: they play for enjoying, for >nice atmosphere etc. And do not want to spend their time with (usually) >unpleasant discussion in AC. They should be protected by TD:)) But - see >above example about AC I wrote the following, but a bit of thought has made me partly retract this: Competent Directors do not stop partly played boards. It obviously does not make a TD incompetent if he stops partly played boards *because* his SO requires it: that is *their* fault, not his. Partly played boards should not be stopped. Even that is subject to commonsense being applied. If a player *refuses* to continue [an American lady international did some years back] or is unable to, or the board is taking over 20 minutes to play despite threats, or... But as a general policy, to take a partly played board away is not an acceptable method, so a TD should *not* be doing so on his own initiative. And certainly not because he becomes nervous! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK RTFLB @ @ bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 31 22:04:52 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:04:52 +1000 Received: from kn2ims1.mx.koc.net (kn2ims1.mx.koc.net [193.243.207.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA14001 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:04:39 +1000 From: ERCAN@egemak.com.tr Received: by kn2ims1.mx.koc.net with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:07:04 +0300 Message-ID: <31052680814FD111A74300609708C0683F4A@host_193_140_174_001.emu.edu.tr> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk Subject: RE: Psychic Controls Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:08:52 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not a director, but i believe even a 2 year kid can understand = that this 2H is a psychic (especially by South). So i don't believe it is = fair to penalize E-W when the situation is so clear. (and 3H over 3D by South = at this position must be natural, since 2H dbl is penalty) Of course 3D is not correctable, are you going to play 3H dbl'ed when partner escape from 2H dbl by himself? Let me give another example from "Bidge My Way" by Zia Mahmood (The example is not the same but similiar) You hold something like : KQxxx x Qxxx xxx Bidding : LHO Pd RHO You 1C 2C* Dbl ? * Majors - Micheals Zia says, if you don't want your opponents to bid over your 4S = sacrifice , first bid 4H and when they dbl run to 4S , Eg : 1C 2C Dbl 4H (!) Dbl Pass Pass 4S Dbl ? The idea is defence may count their H honours as defensive tricks and = choose to dbl your 4S instead of bidding 5C (or 6C). Is this 4S correctable? Lets say you are the partner of Zia and he bid = in this way. How do you explain the 4S to opps? Do u alert 4H? (You read = the book before playing this hand) (I wrote the above example to the list one year ago- sorry for giving = the same example) Ercan > ---------- > From: Robin Barker > Sent: 31 Mart 1998 Sal=FD 13:37 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Psychic Controls >=20 > > Matchpoints, none vulnerable > >=20 > > North > > 10973 > > J65 > > K5 > > K986 > > West East > > KJ6 Q84 > > --- K742 > > J86432 Q9 > > 7543 AJ102 > > South > > A52 > > AQ10983 > > A107 > > Q > >=20 > > West North East South > > 1NT* Dbl > > 2H* Pass Pass Dbl > > 3D* Pass Pass Dbl > > All Pass > >=20 > > 3D -1 +100 N/S on inaccurate defense and play. > >=20 > > 1NT was announced as 10-12 > > 2H was alerted and explained (upon request) as > > "ostensibly both majors." > > 3D was alerted and explained (upon request) as=20 > > "not correctible." > >=20 > > After the hand, South called the director and complained. > > The director ruled "misinformation" and adjusted the scores > > to Ave+/Ave-. I was East. This seemed odd to me, since I > > told the opponents that West might be psyching 2H, then told > > them that he had, more or less. What misinformation? =20 >=20 > If you have the agreement that 3D is not correctible then I > think your agreement about 2H is=20 > "NF, asks for preference between the majors: shows both majors, > or spades, or one or two minor suits to play at the three level" > or whatever. (I'm guessing that a pull to 2S/3C would be to play,=20 > not correctible, and a pull to 2NT would be both minors). >=20 > Once you have an agreement that 3D is not correctible then=20 > opponents should be told that, as part of the explanation of=20 > 2H. If this meaning of 2H is not allowed then you are fixed. >=20 > Robin > --=20 >=20 > 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 >=20